I watched it on Prime, so unfortunately, dubbed was my ONLY option (boo, hiss)
It was pretty good. The big G has some. . . . interesting looks throughout the film and, as is fairly characteristic of a Toho Godzilla film (at least up to, but not including Minus One), the human characters are generally fairly laughable.
Overally, was not disappointed. It was a perfectly good Godzilla movie.
When I was wee, and not particularly wee but not that big either?
I was fully convinced that, thanks to movies, that when someone died, from whatever cause, you could tell they were ded because blood would trickle out the corner of their mouth.
Dakkanauts of a similar undisclosed vintage please tell me I’m not the only one?
The film is pretty solid for its time. It has to set up the tone and backstory, and doesn’t really have the time or maybe budget to explore the dream kills the way later Elm Street films do. John Saxon stands out as the name actor hired to add credibility to the film.
Enter the Dragon
Had to show my son this classic. Bruce Lee at the top of his game in the quintessential Kung Fu flick. Some parts of the film are rough, but you ignore that because everybody was Kung Fu fighting. John Saxon stands out as the name actor hired to add credibility to the film.
This is free on Tubi, but leaving in a week or so.
A Fistful of Yen
This is the main segment of Kentucky Fried Movie, and the only part safe for kids. It’s a parody of Enter the Dragon by the team behind Airplane! and The Naked Gun.
I had to watch this after Enter the Dragon because I could not stop laughing at Bruce Lee’s “what was that?” scene and the “refuse from waterfront bars, just lost, drunken men who don’t know where they are and no longer care” scene. And I still lose it at “Take him to Detroit.”
Was home alone ill yesterday so had a mini movie marathon:
Guns Akimbo Harry Potter is a geek who gets his kicks taunting trolls online. The leader of a popular underground deathmatch club takes exception, and drags him into the next game against his will by bolting guns to his hands and setting the current champ after him. It gives no great philosophical insight or anything (unless 'people in general are f'ing awful' counts) but it's good fun. Well worth a watch with a few beers and a bowl of popcorn.
Underwater Kristen Stewart works on a deep mining platform at the bottom of the Mariana Trench - they dig too deep and wake Cthulhu. Woops! Again, really good fun and worth a watch.
H.P. Lovecraft's Witch House Not what I'd hoped, and something of a lesson in how to not do eldritch horror. Confusing, lots of psychedelic sequences and a pretty gak 'was it all a dream, oh wait no' ending. Still don't know what actually happened. And I know a lot of horror films are low budget, but it wouldn't surprise me if these guys got change from a tenner. Not worth it.
I really enjoyed Underwater. The effort that had been made on costumes and the sets really sold it to me. It also has the benefit of underwater CG effects can have reasonably have filters applied that help disguise the fakeness a bit more
Underwater got really bad reviews, which I don't get as I too thought it was a pretty good flick.
On the other hand...
Transformers Rise of the Beasts Bumblebee was an awesome movie. It pulled all the strings perfectly and I very much enjoyed it. Rise of the Beasts on the other hand is dreck. It is fething gak. Want to know how bad I think this film is? It's Rise of Skywallker bad. It's Ghostbusters 2016 bad. It's last season of Game of Thrones bad. I managed to get through the whole film purely by my curiosity of how awful this film is.
Do yourself a favour and avoid at all costs.
Never heard of Underwater. While I'm massively bored with Cthulhu in most regards (it's just a cheap pop-culture meme you can throw into anything. Rather bland.), but an actual film actually trying to get the idea across sounds interesting.
Tried to watch Guns Akimbo once on Netflix. Much to my surprise it only featured the German dub audio and not the original one, so I had to stop.
Underwater was a fun movie. I like that it there is very little build up. It just starts with Stewart in the bathroom and suddenly the installation starts falling apart and the rest of the film is just trying to survive. The "deep old one" element isn't really a major factor, or even a known element, until the very end of the the film. Really it is kind of a spoiler as the only real threats 99% of the movie are the exploding/imploding buildings, the depth, and some crazy fish men.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You want daft animatronic violence? Watch Willy’s Wonderland which whilst utterly daft is at least entertaining. And it has Nic Cage.
I would like to second this recommendation for pretty much the same reasons.
This fun horror-comedy was almost a satire of social media addiction. There’s a fun meta quality to a film that tried to go viral about a bunch of social media narcissists trying to go viral. Too bad they didn’t crack the M3gan tik-tok code.
There were some great gags and a few sharp moments, but overall the film needed one more writing pass to elevate it from good to great. It got a lot of comedic mileage out of the score.
The Naked Gun
This is a comedy classic. It you’ve never seen it before, see it now.
Firstly, this is not the movie you're probably expecting if all you've seen or heard of it is the trailer. While there is plenty action, it is probably a little more introspective then it has been marketed.
But is it any good? Well, yes and no.
Taking a leaf straight (and I mean straight) out of Terminator lore, the parallel Earth that the film inhabits progressed more quickly than we have in robotics and AI, culminating in an AI unleashing a nuke on downtown LA in the early 20th Century. This shapes the film's present, where in a "war on terror" or Vietnam parallel, the US has spent the intervening years trying to eradicate AIs, but has failed to do so thanks in part to a large part of what is now known as New Asia holding a different attitude to AI and providing them with a safe haven.
We join the story as the US finally begins to close in on "The Creator" a legendary engineer, and the rumoured super weapon he has created.
While the movie looks great, and all on a rumoured production budget of $80m, which is a pittance on modern terms, it suffers from a bit terribly engaging story and I also struggled to really care about the characters.
Musings on the nature of humanity are a common theme for sci fi, from Blade Runner to AI, even Alita: Battle Angel. The problem with The Creator is it doesn't really ask any new questions or offer any new perspectives. Subsequently the plot points all feel familiar and, alongside somewhat bland characters, there's not much that really engages.
The production design is almost sufficient to recommend it alone (and is no coincidence this area is where it's received it's award nominations) but be prepared to push through some of the slightly turgid plot to enjoy the positives.
A documentary about the first and only time “demonic possession” was used as a defense in the US legal system back in 1981. Somewhat spooky at times in the re-enactments, but mostly just a bunch of interviews with the murderer and family who have varying degrees of belief in what really happened. Their sincere beliefs are interesting, but it just seems like a hoax from the start:
-There are photos of the supposed possession, but it just looks like a kid having a tantrum.
-There are audio recordings, but it just sounds like a kid having a tantrum.
-Ed and Lorraine Warren (of the Conjuring franchise fame / infamy) get involved and get to grifting.
-At one point the father loses his patience and berates the kid, which ceases the possession. Hell hath no fury like a father tired of his sons bs and just wants some peace and quiet, it seems.
-the actual “possession murder” happens months after the possession, and is perpetrated by someone who wasn’t even possessed.
-Victim and murderer were both drunk at the time. Victim was the murderers landlord.
-The Warrens proceed to use the situation for their own financial gain, pocketing the lions share of money that the story garners.
feth the Warrens, feth most of the family involved that tries to profit from a guy getting murdered by a drunkard.
Now I just want them to have throwaway lines about Henry Kissinger illegally bombing Compudia or an iRan-Control Scandal, stuff like that.
It's literally just the opening part, documenting the growth of AI and robots with some faux black and white news footage, skipping along until it reaches the detonation of the nuke in LA. It all takes place well in the future, so it barely makes a difference other than to set the scene as to why people are intent on wiping out artificial life.
I hadn't watched this in several years. I remembered not being impressed the first time I saw it. There's a chance I have only seen it twice now.
I really enjoyed it this time. It felt way more A-Team than I remembered. B.A. Again carries the team but every character was a lot better than I had remembered, it was over all just more fun than I expected.
A fun but entirely unnecessary film.
Honestly, thought I'd enjoy it a bit more than I did (I'm one of the few people who likes Kingdom of the Crystal Skull), but it doesn't help that it's just not that good. It's about 45 minutes too long, the CGI is pretty noticeable (Particularly at the start) and Harrison Ford is a good few years past the point where he can convincingly play an action hero.
I talked about this one to a friend and their kid the other day. Over the past half year or so they watched all the Indiana Jones films. My friend liked it because the script was a bit smarter than usual, and her son liked it too, because it was exciting and funny. He likes it better than Temple of Doom, but rates 1 and 3 over 5. I haven't seen it, but that bodes well for the film. Especially since a few months ago I watched a film show on youtube in which the presenters discussed who that film was made for and that it didn't work as a nostalgia piece. So in that regard I assume it just works like all Indiana Jones films in the past - for everybody (to an extent).
I watched Drop Zone (1994). It's been a while since I saw that one, and in my brain that one is very strongly connected to Passenger 47, because both star Wesley Snipes and airplanes. Drop Zone of course is the parachute jumping one. Evil parachutist (Gary Busey) and evil pals do something evil. Air marshal Wesley Snipes' air marshal friend is killed by Busey during that ongoing evil-doery. Wesley Snipes has to a.) get into the parachuting scene (I'll get to that in a bit) and b.) stop Gary Busey and evil parachute gang from further parachute-based evil-doery.
It's one of those films where they insist that there's a sub-culture around parachuting in ..California or where ever that takes place. Remember when there were subcultures? Of people? Anyway. The film works alrighty I think. Snipes makes for a fine lead as we all know, and especially the scenes in which he's a bit of a dork whilst learning the parachuting make him a sympathetic one too. Gray Busey is a great go-to baddie. Highlight to me was him working a 1994 computer, making Busey faces. I also really like the interactions between the evil parachutists and good parachutists. Really basic stuff, rather silly, but it's a funny dynamic.
All in all the film isn't great by any means and I suspect that Passenger 47 is the better of the two.
The film also stars Parker Lewis as part of the goodie parachutists.
The film is attitude and (adequate) action in a leather trench coat. If that sounds like enough, you’ll like the film. If not, you probably won’t get much out of it.
Important historical note: If you are a student of culture, this film originated the now-classic phrase “some motherf[eth]ers always ice skating uphill.” Of equal moment is Passenger 57, to wit: “You ever play roulette? Always bet on black.”
The film is attitude and (adequate) action in a leather trench coat. If that sounds like enough, you’ll like the film. If not, you probably won’t get much out of it.
Important historical note: If you are a student of culture, this film originated the now-classic phrase “some motherf[eth]ers always ice skating uphill.” Of equal moment is Passenger 57, to wit: “You ever play roulette? Always bet on black.”
Blade at least has the courtesy to let the audience know if they will like the film or not. You watch the first few minutes tot eh end of the nightclub scene, and then get to make an informed decision about whether or not to watch the rest...
So Richard Stanley (I think that's his name), the man who made the much better than it has any right to be killer robot/2000 A.D. copyright dodging film "Hardware" directs this Lovecraft adaptation.
Starring Nicholas Cage. When you absolutely need to cast someone who can do the whole "going slowly bonkers" thing, you know who to call.
Always thought this was one of Lovecraft's more unfilmable stories just due to the concept of an alien colour, but the film does reasonably well being unsettling.
Cage is at least watchable and at best pretty good. Effects are also fine for the budget.
Overall, fairly enjoyable and amongst the better mid budget Lovecraft films out there.
Was pleased someone has at least mentioned "Ninja Assassin", "Flight of the Navigator", "Airplane!", "Airplane! 2", "Ghost in the Shell (1995)", Fritz Lang's "Metropolis", "Loaded Weapon 1", "The Bourne Identity" and "Gattaca"
But there are a couple of stand-out classics in waiting which i broke out the DVD and Blu-Ray respectively and re-watched for this post.
Curse of the Golden Flower Its a 'martial arts' political thriller set in some ancient analogue to the Imperial Palace (i'm too western to definitively claim what language is being used or where/when its supposed to be set).
Its focus is on the hidden past lives of the imperial family and the sets and costume are absolutely incredible.
The story has a genuinely shocking twist you can kinda see coming but its not exactly telegraphed or "checkoffs gun'ed" too hard IMO.
It has much death, some very early CGI armies and lots of moments that clearly are for the Asian market in how it uses symbolism within its screen composition.
But the acting is absolutely fantastic all round; its definitely Chow Yun Fat's best role and it leaves you with a lot of food for thought about the intellectual chess-game being portrayed between emperor and empress.
It doesn't lie to the viewer to retain intrigue and it shows off some great moments for fans of martial forms -especially where group forms meet individual forms in a mass combatant situation.
There is an element of horror to the conclusion as the viewer sees how bloody pointless it all was for all the characters involved.
Must watch for anyone who likes 'martial arts' movies and a solid should watch for anyone with a missus or significant other.
Gangster No1 Paul Bettany's 'big break' set in the 60's UK.
Its the story of an individuals psychosis/obsession with a famous gangster and portrays his rise from "some ambitious thug" to 'king of the world'
It has occasional cheesy moments thanks to a large part of the film being set in retrospect but the acting, sets, costume and script delivery are all on point.
"Nice! Very Nice!.....Creative! That deserves a drink, that does!"
This film is a masterclass in implied violence and the central character can be quite sinister occasionally too much so but it still works.
The guy playing 'eddie' absolutely smashes his role like 'Mad John' smashes his ***** *****. (censored for shock value when watching)
Also Malcom Mcdowell is in it.
Must Watch for non child audiences
Its the film a gore fanatic can uphold and claim they are actually a cultured human being.
Gangster No1 Paul Bettany's 'big break' set in the 60's UK.
Its the story of an individuals psychosis/obsession with a famous gangster and portrays his rise from "some ambitious thug" to 'king of the world'
It has occasional cheesy moments thanks to a large part of the film being set in retrospect but the acting, sets, costume and script delivery are all on point.
"Nice! Very Nice!.....Creative! That deserves a drink, that does!"
This film is a masterclass in implied violence and the central character can be quite sinister occasionally too much so but it still works.
The guy playing 'eddie' absolutely smashes his role like 'Mad John' smashes his ***** *****. (censored for shock value when watching)
Also Malcom Mcdowell is in it.
Must Watch for non child audiences
Its the film a gore fanatic can uphold and claim they are actually a cultured human being.
I think of this movie every time I see David Thewlis. Great flick!
Justice League:- Crisis on Infinite Earths:- Part One
Bit of a weird one this.
Don't know if it was a deliberate design choice, or the studio was rushed in to making this and they initially thought they would have more time (and films) to get all the pieces in place, but it's basically 90 minutes of rather clunky exposition and setup rather than an actual movie.
Still an interesting watch though, and it has the Question in it, so it can't be all bad.
Sounds pretty good actually. I think that Lovecraft stuff really lends itself best to small- and mid budget films (and nothing above that. Nothing ruins lovecraft stuff like actually seeing a huge cgi sea cucumber with a mouth). Maybe I can seek this one out some time.
Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li (2009)
I finally saw this infamously bad film. Turns out it's really, really bad. Not just because it's a stupid premise and a Hollywood-made Street Fighter film, but also because it's an aimless, weirdly-paced and edited mess. And as much as it pains me to say, Kristin Kreuk isn't very good. She's very good at being pretty and at times showing the correct emotion on her face in close-ups, and it looks like she put in quite a bit of work with making the film martial arts stuff look decent-ish (the editing almost seemed detrimental to the whole thing. An odd occurance.).
They made a whole B-story featuring very model-looking policepeople from interpol being after Bison as well.
Apart from featuring the worst "sexy dance scene" I've ever seen the film is surprisingly violent at times, even for a martial arts film. Maybe it just looks more violent than it is because eversthing about this film is so painfully clean and all the actors are so pretty and artificial.
Don't Watch. There is no merit to it.
Okay, one thing: Her internet café research scene. In an inexplicable voice-over, Chun Li tells us that she had to find everything she could find out about Shadaloo. While the voice-over is running she walks into an internet café in Thailand, sits down in front of a computer, puts the term into the internet search engine, two newspaper articles show up, she smiles, cut to the next scene. That was rather hilarious.
Interstellar is so mediocre that I had to stop watching it for the first time and go watch Contact again. Attempting to watch it just reinforced my belief that Nolan fell off a fething cliff after Inception.
trexmeyer wrote: Interstellar is so mediocre that I had to stop watching it for the first time and go watch Contact again. Attempting to watch it just reinforced my belief that Nolan fell off a fething cliff after Inception.
His film history:
1998 Following (haven't seen, can't say)
2000 Memento (very good)
2002 Insomnia (haven't seen, can't say)
2005 Batman Begins (good)
2006 The Prestige (good)
2008 The Dark Knight (very good)
2010 Inception (very good)
2012 The Dark Knight Rises (the worst super hero film ever made - very bad)
2013 Man of Steel (writer and producer only - the wrong side of meh, therefor bad)
2014 Interstellar (the right side of meh, therefor good)
2017 Dunkirk (good, but this one is an opinion splitter)
2020 Tenet (the wrong side of meh, therefor bad)
2023 Oppenheimer (haven't seen, can't say)
I wouldn't say it's dropped off a cliff but you do have a point that the overall quality is much lower from The Dark Knight Rises onwards.
A lot of directors have a bad habit of making movies that appeal more to them than anyone else when given too much of a free hand with too much money at their disposal imo.
Many of them do their best work when they 1) have a budget limit that forces them to be creative and actually collaborate 2) are forced to make certain concessions for marketability by someone else, 3) are named James Cameron and just seem to be good at getting everything done themselves, or 4) are not trying to control every single aspect of the production, including all the parts they're just not good at.
I'm not sure how much writing Nolan did on MoS beyond an initial draft. So many stories of changes as well as him saying he didn't want Superman to kill and having to be repeatedly pushed to be agree to it.
Incredible motion picture for 1954 and the book by Jules Verne was well ahead of it's time, with it's relevence still felt today. For a Disney film its at least light on the songs and offers quite a bit of action. Kirk Douglas and Peter Lorre steal the show.
trexmeyer wrote: Interstellar is so mediocre that I had to stop watching it for the first time and go watch Contact again. Attempting to watch it just reinforced my belief that Nolan fell off a fething cliff after Inception.
His film history:
1998 Following (haven't seen, can't say)
2000 Memento (very good)
2002 Insomnia (haven't seen, can't say)
2005 Batman Begins (good)
2006 The Prestige (good)
2008 The Dark Knight (very good)
2010 Inception (very good)
2012 The Dark Knight Rises (the worst super hero film ever made - very bad)
2013 Man of Steel (writer and producer only - the wrong side of meh, therefor bad)
2014 Interstellar (the right side of meh, therefor good)
2017 Dunkirk (good, but this one is an opinion splitter)
2020 Tenet (the wrong side of meh, therefor bad)
2023 Oppenheimer (haven't seen, can't say)
Oh no, I can assure you that, while it might be Nolan's worst superhero film, Dark Knight Rises is NOT the worst superhero film ever made. Not even close.
An Oscar nominated Tunisian documentary that looks at the life of a single mom and her four daughters, 2 of which were famously "devoured by the wolf". It uses weird re-enactments with the mother and 2 remaining daughters present, offering commentary while the re-enactors play their parts. Pretty sad at times, but also kind of touching, it sheds a brief light at how extremist groups liked ISIS (the wolf) are able to get their hooks into what were "normal" children growing up in a poor situation. The mother tried her best, but she clearly has generational trauma that she passed on to her kids and being poor in Tunisia meant she and her daughters had the cards stacked against them.
It's ben mention earlier, but rewatched Dungeons and Dragons: Honour among Thieves. I thought it was fun at the movies and it didn't disappoint on a second viewing. Knowing the plot didn't detract from the enjoyment.
It was pretty much what you would expect. The gore and nudity were still in their development stage for the franchise, but the weird character actors and stalker tropes were on point. The 3D gimmick shots were entertaining. The ending homage to the first film was pretty bad.
Overall I’d say skip it unless you have some emotional investment in horror icons of the 80’s.
Sigur wrote: Somehow I never had an interest in watching the Friday the 13th films. maybe I'm missing out.
Not particularly but they are somewhat interesting as cultural artifacts. Not very good honestly but influential in shaping the horror scene for the coming decades.
They’re oddly campy fun these days. The first…four are fairly worthy, as we see the mythos evolve. And the fifth is an interesting if not exactly competent entry which tries something new.
Though special mention for Jason Takes Manhattan. It’s utterly ridiculous, but very funny. Even if it’s probably unintentionally so.
I don't disagree I just wouldn't categorize them as "essential cinema". I wouldn't tell someone to avoid them but I don't think anyone is missing out if they haven't seen them.
Its an Irish Narco-Western. It follows the experience of an Irish Police Officer picking his path as larger forces than he can control are imposed on his world.
Overall it feels like the director of 'Hobo With a Shotgun' got told to "tone it down for the next film" and 'The Guard' is the result.
Don Cheadle and Brendan Gleeson do a good performance that hold your interest in the characters despite every character being a little larger than life.
Mark Strong's 'common london criminal' accent needs some work, he's too well-spoken for the role imo.
Fionnula Flanagan does a cracking job though, lends a very human almost down-to-earth element to it.
Good lord. It's disappointing just like the one before it. On one hand I know Adrian Paul, Peter Wingfield and Jim Byrnes probably thought, play their character, hang out, have a good time and get paid. so I don't blame the actors for bad material. On the other hand the story is like what if we take the worst possible story for a really bad episode and drag it out to an hour thirty. The Guardian may as well have been Beetlejuice if he were an immortal from the series crossed with the guy from - The Cell.
Really unhappy with Methos this go round. He's usually a clever guy but this time not so much. The dialog was not very strong and that's me being polite.
If you skip this movie you wont be missing anything. The 4th one as bad as it is is better.
Lastly, they didn't use the sounds, like they did in the series, for the immortals. The sounds that tell the viewers the Immortals sense each other. But they mention at one point, "Why couldn't I sense you". Swing and a miss.
Good lord. It's disappointing just like the one before it. On one hand I know Adrian Paul, Peter Wingfield and Jim Byrnes probably thought, play their character, hang out, have a good time and get paid. so I don't blame the actors for bad material. On the other hand the story is like what if we take the worst possible story for a really bad episode and drag it out to an hour thirty. The Guardian may as well have been Beetlejuice if he were an immortal from the series crossed with the guy from - The Cell.
Really unhappy with Methos this go round. He's usually a clever guy but this time not so much. The dialog was not very strong and that's me being polite.
If you skip this movie you wont be missing anything. The 4th one as bad as it is is better.
Lastly, they didn't use the sounds, like they did in the series, for the immortals. The sounds that tell the viewers the Immortals sense each other. But they mention at one point, "Why couldn't I sense you". Swing and a miss.
Spoony did a great review of it years ago on YouTube. Just about broke him
Oh yes, Jason Takes Manhattan and Jason in Space I watched. I might be ignorant to the Friday the 13th series, but I do try to keep up with the important films.
Good lord. It's disappointing just like the one before it. On one hand I know Adrian Paul, Peter Wingfield and Jim Byrnes probably thought, play their character, hang out, have a good time and get paid. so I don't blame the actors for bad material. On the other hand the story is like what if we take the worst possible story for a really bad episode and drag it out to an hour thirty. The Guardian may as well have been Beetlejuice if he were an immortal from the series crossed with the guy from - The Cell.
Really unhappy with Methos this go round. He's usually a clever guy but this time not so much. The dialog was not very strong and that's me being polite.
If you skip this movie you wont be missing anything. The 4th one as bad as it is is better.
Lastly, they didn't use the sounds, like they did in the series, for the immortals. The sounds that tell the viewers the Immortals sense each other. But they mention at one point, "Why couldn't I sense you". Swing and a miss.
Spoony did a great review of it years ago on YouTube. Just about broke him
Not quite sure it was THAT which broke him in the end , but Spoony to me is one of the major reasons (lack of talent, drive, etc notwithstanding ) why I do not want to be a streamer or internet personality of any sort. And the whole youtuber thing hasn't become any less icky over the past ~10 years, that's for sure.
Good lord. It's disappointing just like the one before it. On one hand I know Adrian Paul, Peter Wingfield and Jim Byrnes probably thought, play their character, hang out, have a good time and get paid. so I don't blame the actors for bad material. On the other hand the story is like what if we take the worst possible story for a really bad episode and drag it out to an hour thirty. The Guardian may as well have been Beetlejuice if he were an immortal from the series crossed with the guy from - The Cell.
Really unhappy with Methos this go round. He's usually a clever guy but this time not so much. The dialog was not very strong and that's me being polite.
If you skip this movie you wont be missing anything. The 4th one as bad as it is is better.
Lastly, they didn't use the sounds, like they did in the series, for the immortals. The sounds that tell the viewers the Immortals sense each other. But they mention at one point, "Why couldn't I sense you". Swing and a miss.
Spoony did a great review of it years ago on YouTube. Just about broke him
I think I just watched his video. The channel name was different but it came up top of the search. I don't know who Spoony is or was so I wouldn't know if this movie broke him or not. It was an entertaining enough review. What struck me the most is I didn't realize that the destruction or deconstruction of IP's I grew up enjoying started as fat back as 07'. I didn't consume very much media back then.
Sigur wrote: Oh yes, Jason Takes Manhattan and Jason in Space I watched. I might be ignorant to the Friday the 13th series, but I do try to keep up with the important films.
Good lord. It's disappointing just like the one before it. On one hand I know Adrian Paul, Peter Wingfield and Jim Byrnes probably thought, play their character, hang out, have a good time and get paid. so I don't blame the actors for bad material. On the other hand the story is like what if we take the worst possible story for a really bad episode and drag it out to an hour thirty. The Guardian may as well have been Beetlejuice if he were an immortal from the series crossed with the guy from - The Cell.
Really unhappy with Methos this go round. He's usually a clever guy but this time not so much. The dialog was not very strong and that's me being polite.
If you skip this movie you wont be missing anything. The 4th one as bad as it is is better.
Lastly, they didn't use the sounds, like they did in the series, for the immortals. The sounds that tell the viewers the Immortals sense each other. But they mention at one point, "Why couldn't I sense you". Swing and a miss.
Spoony did a great review of it years ago on YouTube. Just about broke him
Not quite sure it was THAT which broke him in the end , but Spoony to me is one of the major reasons (lack of talent, drive, etc notwithstanding ) why I do not want to be a streamer or internet personality of any sort. And the whole youtuber thing hasn't become any less icky over the past ~10 years, that's for sure.
What, no love for Jason Lives: Part VI? It’s fan favorite
Automatically Appended Next Post: No. Wait. I’ve got most of them on Prime.
That means nothing. If the past few years have shown me anything, it’s that owning digital copies is more like “extended borrowing” and they can take it back whenever they want and not compensate you. Physical media is the only way to actually own something.
I wouldn’t call the Friday the 13th movies essential, but I would call them culturally important. Horror icons like Jason and Freddy have become part of our shared mythology alongside Dracula and Frankenstein’s Monster. They’re recognizable bogeymen that children love to talk about every Halloween even if they’ve never seen any of the movies. The characters seem more vital when they appear as pop culture artifacts and cameos in other movies than in their own, often lackluster, movies.
I wouldn’t recommend any of the Ft13 films to most movie goers, except maybe Freddie VS Jason, which encapsulates everything that makes both characters and their genre films work while also nailing the “vs”.
What, no love for Jason Lives: Part VI? It’s fan favorite
I've enjoyed all the Jason movies. We don't watch them every year because like everything else they get old. I do enjoy watching campers get slaughtered . We like Jason X the most and probably do watch that one every year. It's just trashy fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: No. Wait. I’ve got most of them on Prime.
That means nothing. If the past few years have shown me anything, it’s that owning digital copies is more like “extended borrowing” and they can take it back whenever they want and not compensate you. Physical media is the only way to actually own something.
I very much agree. My most tech savvy friend is making a point to collect all the physical media he enjoys. I'm not thrilled with amazon digital media. I bought Range 15 from them thinking I would be able to download it. surprise, it doesn't work that way. Having already paid for the product I did bring it aboard in my nets. Yarrr. I was going to buy it on Dvd at that time but I thought using amazon would be faster and I foolishly didn't want to wait for it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Friday the 13th is also a useful pub quiz trick question, as of the original ten? Jason is the killer in only 8 of them.
That honestly depends on your interpretation of the movies. While not as complicated as trying to figure out the Halloween series timeline, you still need a small flowchart to figure out the Jason timeline. I mean, technically, he melted in toxic sewer waste in part VIII
Werewolf The Series is also on YouTube, last I checked. Sadly, it has never been released on physical media, so we’re at the mercy of YouTube copyright algorithms.
Not really. Alive Jason Vorhees and Undead Jason Vorhees are both still Jason Vorhees and only two of the films had a killer that wasn't Jason Vorhees. Once past the first four any idea of a serious continuity is pretty much jettisoned for fantasy and budgetary reasons.
Clicked on this at random. Turns out it’s a fun little no-budget comedy sequel. All the actors seem to be having fun, including old Gomez and young George Clooney. There’s a random bar right between cowboys, ninjas and Muommar Qaddafi. It also has the best product placement scene since Wayne’s World. And it was free with ads on Tubi.
It’s not for everyone, but if you are into low budget genre films you’ll likely find something to enjoy.
A raunchy comedy of the 2020’s. It has some decent laughs and a few surprising moments, but the last 3rd aims more for …wholesome? Heartwarming? …and mostly succeeds. I’d recommend it if you like American Pie or 40 Year Old Virgin type movies, although it’s less purely comedic than either of those.
50 Shades of Grey
A romance story for humans written by an alien. Kinky sex scenes filmed by virgins. BDSM that’s tamer than a Rihanna song and a relationship more problematic than Revenge of the Nerds. If you ever find yourself starting to get aroused (you won’t), don’t worry because Grey will immediately douse that warmth in your loins with the icewater explanation that everything he’s into is a result of child abuse. Cool.
The casting left a lot to be desired. Besides the lack of chemistry or steam, the main actress’s attributes actually pulled my wife out of the movie due to unfortunate implications: (paraphrased) “She has no ***s. She’s skinny, still in school [and underdeveloped] ……and you’re into her because you were molested as a child. Hell no.”
The only casting choice creepier was her roommate who has the same face as the CGI baby from the 4th Twilight movie. So fething creepy.
What do you expect - 50SG was originaly a twilight fanfic.
I am still suprised it got published let alone got a movie, I have read much better fanfic than that.
Kale wrote: What do you expect - 50SG was originaly a twilight fanfic.
I am still suprised it got published let alone got a movie, I have read much better fanfic than that.
Oh, I expected what I got. It wasn’t my choice of a movie to watch. The hope was that it would either be so bad it’s good or that it might provide some thrills. Sadly, neither.
The story of James Brown apparently.. (i'm sure there's hollywood-ing going on in this one!)
Its a very entertaining film; there were a few lines that had me laughing out loud on my own in a darkened room.
It seems committed to breaking the fourth wall as many times as possible though - a bit like the Deadpool films where its supposed to feel like the character being portrayed has one hand round the back of the directors neck throughout.
This film shows that Chadwick Boseman actually was a seriously good actor; same with Nelsan Ellis (unfortunately both are past tense now)
Dan Aykroyd features as the only 'not racist' white character
There is significant attention to detail in the film - even the audio equipment isn't just 'period accurate' - its 'setting accurate'.
Its a very good film overall; more melancholy than comedy, but enough comedy elements to stop it being an overtly serious film which would have been bad.
And a whole bunch of James Brown Funk.
You know, if the current MCU has got you down, sometimes it is refreshing to go back and watch some Superhero movies from before the MCU.
The Spirit Wow, what the hell did I just watch?
Sin City doesn't even hold up anymore, but watching this.... Wow.
Punisher: War Zone This was just boring and borderline a B-movie. No idea how it was released into the cinemas.
Honestly, Punisher is kinda boring. He just shoots people. Not much going on there and kinda lacks a bit of tensions as most interactions between him and his villains last about 1 second. Gun Fu was not refined enough yet for this film to work. Although, how he deals with the hardcore Parkour gang starts out funny, but ends weak.
I will take Marvels weakest current stuff over this kinda of drek anyday of the week.
I wouldn't have expected you to dislike Punisher:Warzone that much. I may have mentioned it on this thread before (about a thousand times, if memory serves right. ); I love that film. It's pretty much the ultimate 'dad action hero film'. Yeah, Punisher is kinda boring (technically he's Batman, but without all the fun gadgets, the detective stuff and shooting people lots instead, right?), but the casting on the whole film is really good and I always have a blast watching the baddies do things in that film.
And the nose-adjustment with the pencil is pretty badass. Surely silly, but fun.
Well, I watched a film last night which I usually wouldn't even give 2 minutes, but it kinda enticed me.
Piranha Sharks (2014)
by the Man who gave us Transmorphers and other things. But I didn't know that. It's basically about a company creating a cross between piranhas and sharks and they reproduce like crazy and are really, really hard to kill (and mutate). Somebody flushes them down the toilet and they spread all over New York. It's down to a down-on-his-luck exterminator with a heart of gold and his low-life friends to save the city.
When I started watching that film the only things I realized instantly is how amateurish everything looks and that the German dub was third-rate. BUT I didn't hate the dialogue. Despite being released one year after, it feels a bit like it's made pre-Sharknado. Or at least with less calculation and a bit more heart or a twinkle or something. Think of the uninspired, run-of-the-mill creature features Asylum and Asylum-wannabes (aim high!) bored us to death with during the 2010s. This one on the other hand has stuff going on. And even better - nothing about this film bored or annoyed me. There is absurd stuff (no idea why the film is described as a disaster film on wikipedia. It's got a ton of comedy in there), and once more it fell into that place for me which made me think of a film-enthused friend from back then with whom I at least planned to do films at times. And Piranha Sharks absolutely feels like the sorta stuff we'd made back then (well him. I was too much of a snob then already ).
It's by no means a good film, but compared to everything comparable this one I think deserves a chance.
It's also got Kevin Sorbo as the mayor of New York. I liked the corporate lady and the slacker/hippie friend of the main character. In general I was surprised with the sheer number of pretty ladies in this film. Many of them probably were strippers. Not the least because there are a few stripping scenes. No nudity though. Which is a feat in itself.
Take it or leave it, but if you're interested in crap which is surprisingly un-crap it might be worth giving this one a chance. The creature effects are really bad (except for when they use props; at least one of these few scenes with prop piranha sharks the fish looks really good).
Ahtman wrote: James Brown has to think about his whole life before he plays.
Maybe the backstage corridors are too damn long? you know how highly-strung professional performers can be.
The whole walk there having psychosis-esque flashbacks while quietly muttering "James-Brown.. ....James... ...Brown...JamesBrown.... ....Jamesbrown...."
I remember thinking Punisher: Warzone was good; perhaps Deadpool 2 is interfering with my memories and i need to re-watch it?
All right young 'uns, somehow it's over two decades since this film was made and in the meantime time I got old.
It's the twilight years of Cool Britannia and Guy Ritchie's schtick as a director was still fresh. A bombastic barrage of faux London gangster preening and Brad Pitt with a "what the hell did he just say" traveller's accent.
It's deliciously pompous and endlessly quotable. I can pretty much recite every scene with Sol, Vincent and Tyrone from memory. The delivery is superb and has me in tears of laughter every time.
I do prefer this film's predecessor, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, for the story but Snatch excels with the dialogue.
If you've never seen it, please treat yourself. 100% recommend.
By the way, because I forgot to write it earlier: A James Brown biopic sounds amazing a topic in general.
@Easy E: Yeah. well. Maybe it's not that good, and I just liked it because it so unlike today's Marvel films.
@Henry: Love Snatch. Might be the film I've watched the most times. A while ago I watched The Gentlemen. But it's much more convoluted and chatty and does have loads more plain uncomfortable stuff. It's not bad, it's kinda fun, but holds no candle to Snatch.
Cobra Is this Raz0rfist: the film?
Modern audiences are just not going to understand how this film got greenlit.
Technically, its a 'Police Action Thriller' but it was filmed in the 80s so there is minimal police presence and its typically used to show the action sequence has ended.
Apart from 'Cobra' taking enlarged fingerprint images home to analyze over dinner; that's police-work, right?
A gang of seemingly unstoppable murderers is terrorizing a city and events transpire to pit the police forces most hard-nosed operator (armed response unit in UK vernacular) 'Cobra', against them
It starts off properly ridiculous (is that guy going to shoot anything other than fruit?!?), has some less ridiculous stuff around the middle and then goes full-mentally-challenged in the end section.
It frequently just changes setting mid action sequence (who put a steel foundry in an orange grove?) and anyone who is into cars or automotive engineering will have their immersion broken during any of the chase sequences.
I got the impression that it used every stuntman available at the time because some of the things they do feel rather shoehorned in.
A bit like the various members of the police force - 'Cobra's... Partner? Buddy? is some weird flat cap wearing victorian london street-urchin amalgam, the guy who chews out 'Cobra' is more 'thin insurance salesman 1' than 'police chief'...
The crying shame about this film is there is a decent plot hiding beneath the weirdness.
It's not a film i can recommend watching, and it's not a very good Sylvester Stallone film either.
Don't watch. Unless you're doing a Stallone film marathon and you have to.
All right young 'uns, somehow it's over two decades since this film was made and in the meantime time I got old.
It's the twilight years of Cool Britannia and Guy Ritchie's schtick as a director was still fresh. A bombastic barrage of faux London gangster preening and Brad Pitt with a "what the hell did he just say" traveller's accent.
It's deliciously pompous and endlessly quotable. I can pretty much recite every scene with Sol, Vincent and Tyrone from memory. The delivery is superb and has me in tears of laughter every time.
I do prefer this film's predecessor, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, for the story but Snatch excels with the dialogue.
If you've never seen it, please treat yourself. 100% recommend.
I swear "it was a funny angle" gets used in my own life a bit more commonly than perhaps it ought to
...
Don't watch. Unless you're doing a Stallone film marathon and you have to.
This film is a bit weird to me (all the weirdness aside), in that I've never seen it in full. I've watched the first 20 minutes several times, but never all the way through. It's intriguing in its atmosphere and of course it's very juvenile in its concepts and presentation (as far as I can tell), but at some point I'd like to watch it all the way through.
Cobra for me stands as evidence that there was indeed a skill and an art to making Good 80’s Action Flicks.
Because whilst big and dumb, it’s also not terribly good as noted above. Yet…it’s a Stallone film, which are usually above par, occasionally verging into Brilliance (Rocky is a superb bit of cinema). So you’re expecting a certain level of competence is just didn’t really deliver.
Still fun to watch like. But there are better examples.
It's weird, because visually it's pretty darned iconic (the shades, the gun, the car and all of that). The trailer must have had people enthusiastic, but the film probably couldn't fulfil expectations one might have.
Btw, I watched a bit of Table 19 as well a few days ago. Still like that film. I can see that it's uneven in tone, there's some really stupid stuff in there and Merchant's character/story is rather disturbing, but still. I like the story between the comedian who's in everything since Hot Tub Time Machine and Kudrow and I just like Anna Kendrick. And I like Table 19 for taking a zig where you might expect a zag.
This film is a bit weird to me (all the weirdness aside), in that I've never seen it in full. I've watched the first 20 minutes several times, but never all the way through. It's intriguing in its atmosphere and of course it's very juvenile in its concepts and presentation (as far as I can tell), but at some point I'd like to watch it all the way through.
Okay, id say its worth you watching the whole film. It does have a decent plot after all.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Cobra for me stands as evidence that there was indeed a skill and an art to making Good 80’s Action Flicks.
Because whilst big and dumb, it’s also not terribly good as noted above. Yet…it’s a Stallone film, which are usually above par, occasionally verging into Brilliance (Rocky is a superb bit of cinema). So you’re expecting a certain level of competence is just didn’t really deliver.
Still fun to watch like. But there are better examples.
I’ve had a look at the wikipedia entry now and its interesting that the ’critics’ (that would be me then) panned it before it was in the cinema, but when it came to ticket sales it did really well.
Its stunning to me that "Cobra" came out 4 years after "First Blood" because there is a qualitative gap between the two: im still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that people just seemed to like it despite its technical failings.
Sorry i badmouthed a film you're fond of but id rather be honest than tell people what I think they want to hear.
Maybe Sigur has put his finger on the pulse with this one?
Sigur wrote:It's weird, because visually it's pretty darned iconic (the shades, the gun, the car and all of that).
Iconic visual depiction and pure 'attitude' may be what carried that film - the advertising poster only shows Mr Stallone in the shades with a machine pistol (and the worlds largest weapon-mounted laser) with the tagline "Crime is a Disease. Meet the Cure."
Yeah, 'attitude' is a very good word for it I think. While I'm not very familiar with the film, the poster is imprinted on my brain.
I also had a look at the wikipedia page now and I'm not surprised it was released in '86, which I once heard described as 'the most 80s year'. Also - that's a fact I even forgot about earlier - it's a cannon film. So I think we got the culmination of Stallone being pretty much at his peak stardom now (and everything that comes with that: up to his ears in ego, money, toys and drugs), the director just having come off shooting Rambo II the prior year, and Menahem Golan having hired Stallone for surely a VAST sum, wanting to get the best return on his investment.
"Rocky" is the script Rocky 1 Rocky would have written, "Cobra" is the script first-half-of-Rocky-3 Rocky would have written. (surely not an entirely fair or accurate take,but just to write a sentence which contains the word "Rocky" five times).
The same friend who recommended "Cobra" also recommended...
Serpico This one seems to be a dramatization/biopic of an american police officer named Frank Serpico who gets a job being a police officer and is confronted by endemic corruption in the force he has joined.
It uses fairly basic camera techniques that work for the setting and the subject matter.
The characters presented felt real - the acting is good all round apart from the protagonists parents.
I'm struggling to categorize this one because its not an action movie or a thriller but to just call it a straight biopic or a drama doesn't feel right either.
Its not 'slow paced' as such, but it definitely suffers a bit from Italian-Americana fascination which creates some moments in the start of the film which slows it down just to ram home how still-italian the protagonist and his extended family is.
The script is great, very natural and delivered well; similarly with the 'action' - nothing i could describe as 'stunts' even though it has some depiction of firearms which i can't describe as 'gunplay' either.
The human sides to the story don't feel shoehorned in or enhanced like Hollywood is wont to do.
There is a palpable sense of tension escalation as the film progresses and it doesn't give a 'happy ending', which is probably going to seem like a non-ending to a modern audience but i like that.
Its an excellent performance by Al Pachino and not one for an audience with young children.
Although i think its pretty good i don't think i can readily recommend watching it to everyone.
Friday the 13th part IV. I think it has a subtitle like the Final Friday, but I can’t recall.
This is the one with Crispin Glover. It also has the meme clip where Jason yanks a woman through a second floor window. And the Doublemint Gun Twins. And Corey Feldman. I think that makes it required viewing.
I know I've watched this one, but I don't think it made that big of an impression on me. Pretty sure I enjoyed it but couldn't say that I'd strongly recommend it. Dog Day Afternoon on the other hand I'd recommend to anyone. Pacino has an amazing back catalogue.
Utter bollocks. But thoroughly entertaining, funny bollocks. If you know Matthew Vaughn's MO then you know what you signed up for, although it's American protagonists rather than British (like Kingsman). Saw it at the flicks and glad I did.
Couldn't finish it, about an hour short. Simply not interesting enough. There's a big sequence driving a Fiat in Italy and I found myself rather unfavourably comparing it to The Phantom Menace pod racer scene - a CGI heavy, high speed action sequence with a few light hearted moments that contributes nothing to the film and feels like a great big twenty minute pause on the plot for no reason.
Too much exposition. Too much pointless action. Too much navel gazing. And too much yelling "Grace!"
I watched Pulp Fiction. Haven't seen it in a few years actually, and it was rather fun, as always. Even through by now I'm a bit less hardened vs. the violence, but I appreciate otehr things by now. Either way, you know the film, everybody does.It's good.
I'm watching Farscape now. Always liked the show when it first aired, but I never really watched it properly, which now I try to rectify.
Rollerball No, not the James Cahn one, the 2000's one with LL Cool J, Rebecca Romanj-Stamos, and Jean Reno.
You get exactly what you expect from a film like this. Its not good, but it is not terri-bad. It is competently done even if it is plagued by the eras editing tastes.
The Marvels An entertaining movie, but NOT a good one. The script is super weak, there is no connective tissue, and the movie can not really stand-alone. These are all criticisms that could be applied to all recent Marvel films, and part of why they are struggling.
However, it was nice to see some fun character moments, clever fight scenes with the switching, good power stunts, actual (shallow, but there) character arcs, and Captain Marvel having to actually solve issues by thinking about them with empathy rather than just hitting them.
Fun script that needed to be baked a lot more before going to filming. I would say it is better than Love and Thunder, and Multiverse of Madness, but worse than No Way Home (Is that the most recent Spider-man?), Eternals, and Shang-Chi. Controversial, I know.
Easy E wrote: Rollerball No, not the James Cahn one, the 2000's one with LL Cool J, Rebecca Romanj-Stamos, and Jean Reno.
You get exactly what you expect from a film like this. Its not good, but it is not terri-bad. It is competently done even if it is plagued by the eras editing tastes.
...
...and Paul Heyman! Anyway, I never saw this one. I remember it getting horrible reviews and having endured extensive reshoots and/or re-edits after the initial release (or was the release pushed back or something?). The original is cool though.
I think the Marvels would have worked better if they fully leaned into the comedy. The comedic elements were the strongest parts of the movie.
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge
The one with the subtext.
It’s different from the rest of the films, and in my opinion the creepiest and most disturbing for that. The teenagers are more confused and less horny than in the other films. The themes of isolation, confusion, and living a secret double life one doesn’t want probably only resonate with a certain subset of the audience. The parents feel cartoonishly distant and disapproving, straight from a late 80’s music video, but none of them shout “andale” so they’re a bit of a wash. The effects are good. Freddy has less personality and almost no quips in this film. Overall, I’d recommend it more as a subculture time capsule than as a horror movie.
Also, it’s nice to see Warren Keffer’s actor seem important only to die screaming, again.
A fun movie, even though I'm not a fan of this recent-ish trend of two-part films.
Overall, not as good as the fourth and fifth films (I feel that was where the franchise peaked), but better than the sixth which dragged quite a bit IMO.
Hopefully they don't take too long making Part Two. Tom Cruise is starting to show his age a bit, and I don't think he'll be pulling off crazy stunts for that much longer.
A classic high-concept comedy that somewhat holds up.
This is one of those films that has had an outsized impact on pop culture, in that most people who are immersed in film or comedy will have heard of the film and know its premise, maybe even recognize the poster, without ever having seen it.* A lot of the classic scenes I thought I’d remembered aren’t actually in this film. They might be in the second film or they might be a Mandela Effect memory. The actual premise doesn’t even kick in until halfway through the movie, and even then builds up gradually.
It’s worth watching for some guffaws if you like old odd-couple-and-a-corpse comedies.
*For example, someone described the DS9 episode “The Mighty Ferengi” as the one where they Weekend At Bernie’s-ed a Vorta.
National Lampoon’s Vacation
The original road trip comedy.
I was surprised at how unlikeable Chevy Chase was in this movie. His character, too. They really brought down the mood.
Other than that, it was great seeing a lot of familiar character actors having fun. Beverly D’Angelo played well opposite Chase, and the kids weren’t annoying like they were in the second film. I’d recommend skipping this and just watching Christmas Vacation instead, unless you want to get that one song stuck in your head.
“Holiday Roooooooooooaaad”
Child’s Play
The original.
My son really wanted to see this film because he likes cheesy horror movies and because he knows how much living dolls freak out his mother. I had to pause the movie early on to give some context on the toy fads of the time, like My Buddy and Teddy Ruxpin, for why the dolls cost $100 and the mom was willing to buy one from a peddler in a back alley for a mere $30. Also, how kids used to play with toys. It was a different time.
This suffers from being the first in a horror franchise. That is, it has a solid premise and an iconic character, but it feels slow and tedious going through all the now-overdone tropes about no one believing the kid, etc.. The final act has great pacing and some fantastic effects. Brad Dourif is always a treat. Chris Sarandon is distracting as that guy from that thing, you know, what’s his face, it’s on the top of my tongue, for the whole movie. The mom shines in this. It’s a shame she left to become a marine biologist and marry the V’Ger Creeper instead of rocking the horror scene as Chucky’s Laurie Strode.
And indeed it is, because I’m gonna watch the series this weekend.
Overall not a bad film. But not a great film. This is a prequel which explores the first social experiment that leads to it being rolled out nationwide.
It of course carries a political message, but it somehow shies away from really landing it. And that’s to the film’s detriment if you ask me.
Probably a 6/10. It’s watchable, but oddly hollow when it could’ve been more thought provoking.
I really liked DUNC as a kid. My favorite scene is when the cartel guys walk up to this petit guy sitting alone in the desert and they’re all like “Don’t you even have a gun??” And he’s like, “I don’t need a gun. I have a DUNC.” And the cartel guys are all “a what?” And then DUNC steps out from nowhere, quips “A DUNC!” and punches them both out with one meaty fist.
*wailing lament didgeridoo*
And that’s why they call him Jadda Jadayaha, which means “The Worm Who Moves Through The Desert Like A Man….But Isn’t A Man”.
I watched Indiana and the Dial of Destiny last night. First two hours were entertaining silliness. Last half hour painfully dumb. Last five minutes I got a bit teary eyed to be honest.
Pretty sure I watched this close to when it came out in 2005 and wasn't impressed. Now I'm much older and going through the same sort of midlife questioning that Nic Cage's character is struggling with, I can appreciate why he portrays such a conflicting character. He's a decent person but not a good person, he's obnoxious but not horrible. He's a guy trying to do what's right, fatigued to always do what's wrong. The film doesn't have a tight conclusion and frequently story arcs are wrapped up in limited means or completely dropped, which works in parallel with our introduction to the story where many of the issues are not slowly introduced but rather dumped on us as long standing affairs. I like this as it limits our view of this sad man's life to no more than the short few months of the film.
I can't recommend that everyone go and watch this film but there's a familiarity with whom the Weather Man represents that spoke to me.
The Stuff has a lot of low budget charm, with inventive effects, bizarre characters, “we don’t need to shoot everything” editing, and whole scenes ADRed to Six String Samurai levels. It also nails 80’s consumerism with the spot-on commercial spoofs and corporate villains. And if you’re over 40, you’ll love a dynamite cameo halfway through.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Souleater wrote: I watched Indiana and the Dial of Destiny last night. First two hours were entertaining silliness. Last half hour painfully dumb. Last five minutes I got a bit teary eyed to be honest.
They took a big swing with that last half hour. They didn’t quite hit a homer, but I’ll take that last half hour over another drawn out car chase.
And indeed it is, because I’m gonna watch the series this weekend.
Probably a 6/10. It’s watchable, but oddly hollow when it could’ve been more thought provoking.
I always remember one reviewers comment was that you remember the purge idea, but he challenges you to name any major characters in the film. I still don't think I can remember any of the characters names.
And indeed it is, because I’m gonna watch the series this weekend.
Probably a 6/10. It’s watchable, but oddly hollow when it could’ve been more thought provoking.
I always remember one reviewers comment was that you remember the purge idea, but he challenges you to name any major characters in the film. I still don't think I can remember any of the characters names.
The Purge isn’t exactly a character study film though.
It's a shame they went for more of a generic, quippy Marvel movie rather than sticking with the lighthearted crime capers that the previous Ant Man films were, but it was still a fun watch.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don’t think that’s all that damning. For example, I can’t remember any character names from Captain Marvel and that film was just about okay.
Oh come on, you're given the only one that matters in the title! How hard is that?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don’t think that’s all that damning. For example, I can’t remember any character names from Captain Marvel and that film was just about okay.
Oh come on, you're given the only one that matters in the title! How hard is that?
That’sthejoke.gif
But if you want to be serious, how many character names can you remember from Independence Day? How about from Everything Everywhere All At Once? Some movies lean more into the premise or the plot or themes than into characters; that doesn’t make them bad.
Plot: A gilla monster made gigantic via camera tricks terrorizez some rual Texas town/countryside by attacking cars, a train, and whatever humans come near it.
Most of the time when you see the gilla you can't tell it's supposed to be giant.
Then you see it superimposed next to something & it looks like.... well, exactly like you think a super enlarged picture of a gilla monster would look next to a Pic of a car etc.
Some how the townsfolk are going to defeat this thing....
John Dillinger and crew in great depression era USA, holding up banks, killing people and being generally crappy sods. It stars Johnny Depp and Christian Bale, neither of whom are on the list of actors I particularly look out for, and pretty much does it's thing quite well. It's a good film but not great.
The soundtrack on the other hand is brilliant. I heartily encourage you to put it on play one evening.
The Giant Avila Monster was one of those movies I enjoyed as a kid for the bad special effects. That and the movie where they glued sails to baby alligators and stuff.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The Giant Avila Monster was one of those movies I enjoyed as a kid for the bad special effects. That and the movie where they glued sails to baby alligators and stuff.
I….i don’t know what I just watched. But it was sublime. Just the right side of off-kilter surrealism with a solid script and strong performances.
This could’ve disappeared square up its own fundament, but the director treads that line with confidence and aplomb.
This is an attentive watch though. But I think you’ll find it rewarding,
Automatically Appended Next Post: Atragon
All bound for Mu Mu Land!
Yay! It’s a Japanese model and kaiju flick! With a….is that a flying submarine? Yes it is! Good gravy!
The model work is predictably fantastic. Silly and hokey, but fun. Which to be honest sums up the entire film. The dubbing is solid too, with voice actors who clearly gave a damn about their craft.
Poor Things is a film I really want to see, but I think there’s about 0% chance of getting my family onboard. I’ll have to wait for streaming.
Which reminds me: I should see if Pearl is streaming yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Speaking of flying submarines, if you haven’t seen Godzilla Final Wars yet, you might want to make time. It’s nuts in a great way. Even the Secretary General of the UN gets to pop caps in arses.
Flying submarine side note, my son has really been enjoying crazy music videos lately, such as Yello’s Oh Yeah and Genesis’s one with the masks, so…
Yellow Submarine
Yes, the music cartoon by the Beatles. It has stood the test of time in that it is still hilarious.
I was surprised at how unlikeable Chevy Chase was in this movie. His character, too. They really brought down the mood.
I've found Chevy Chase to be fairly unlikeable in pretty much everything. The exception is the Three Amigos, which somehow managed to take three comedians I disliked intensely and combine them into a movie that was just a hell of a lot of fun.
The one that started the series. And it’s a pretty straight forward home invasion horror, with added moral quandaries.
It’s original enough to be an interesting take, and pretty well made with a solid cast.
No complaints at all. Give it a watch.
I enjoyed the first couple of Purge movies. After that they seemed to be trying to take it all too seriously, which just made the ridiculousness of the underlying premise more apparent. But the first one was definitely an ok watch.
For an actual contibution... watched Elemental with the girls. Thoroughly predictable Pixar fare, but some absolutely gorgeous visuals, and a fun enough watch if you don't go into it expecting the next Toy Story.
A very low budget Japanese sci-fi horror movie with ropy acting and a barely there plot.
Despite coming across as a student/fan film, it's surprisingly entertaining.
Ah the originals. When the series was somewhat grounded. Whilst undeniably tough, Jason wasn’t some weird supernatural zombie type thing.
The second is probably the weakest of the original series, as the bit we’re all here for (deffs!) are pretty boring. Seemingly they’d been asked to tone down the violence, which of course removes much of the point of any slasher flick.
There’s a nice progression at play across the four movies, building Jason’s backstory and overall mythos. And we even get to see some sensible actions from his victims.
They are however very, very tame by today’s standards, where Torture Prawn has sadly ruined many a genre by giving us gloriously explicit deff, at the cost of the art of suspense. Remember, film makers. Just because you can show explicit violence, doesn’t mean you have to do that alone.
Whilst a fan of the entire series, these four are easily the most accomplished and interesting for my money.
3 and 4 feel like they’re discovering the formula. The kills are more visceral. The characters are more memorable. The pacing is geared more towards scares and less towards suspense.
We haven’t gotten past 4 yet, but I remember Goes to Hell being delightfully schlocky. And I can’t wait for Jason X.
Jason X is an odd one. It’s a crap Friday the 13th as it’s much too self aware. But for an early 2000’s “yes we know it’s daft, just go with it” movie, it’s among the best.
I'm going to say a lot of reviews and comments I've seen of this film completely missed the pointed satire that it is. It's not just a run of the mill horror/slasher fic. It's very similar in tone and style to the Purge (the original film before they became schlock).
Hidden in this small town is a message about small town America I think most people who have lived in small town America at any point will recognize.
At the heart of this movie is an accusation against an image of what small town America is, an argument for why it is dying, and a further argument that maybe it deserves to die least of all because it has killed itself.
I like this movie a lot and if the political/social commentary isn't you're deal it's still a pretty solid creature feature in the vein of Stephen King but with a fresher coat of paint on it.
Because it’s important for every budding Star Trek fan to experience this time capsule. Stilted, off-putting character interactions, bizarre non-sequiturs, special effects shots that linger so long they move beyond boring and into hilarious, 15 minutes of reaction shots, the cheesiest twist ending ever. It’s a failed masterpiece. See it.
It’s worth seeing just for the scope of the space scenes, really.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
No director’s cut needed.
This is the opposite in TMP in almost every way. The characters feel natural and empathetic, the story moves at a good pace with a fantastic ending. There is a full range of emotional experiences from humor to horror to triumph. The scope is more personal and much smaller. This is one of the best Sci Fi movies ever made. See it.
A cracking film sorely let down by ropey CGI blood. Possibly as a result of pleasing film certification boards.
Fantastic scenes, and some solid dialogue.
But? I dunno what they summoned in the finale. But given they offed a key ingredient of the ritual before attempting the ritual? It was not what they intended. Which might be why they got bad CGI now I think about it,
Apparently they wanted to make a blood-tornado final boss, but it looked too goofy, so instead we get that sword fight. If I recall, it’s the first fight in the film that isn’t Steven Seagal levels of lopsided in Blade’s favor.
The CGI blood just adds to that 90’s cheese for me. That and the soundtrack.
Honestly I recall Blade's effects being pretty good for their day. I think its just the way that CGI looks good when its fresh, but can often age really poorly as the tech continues to push forward with leaps and bounds.
I’ve been trying and failing to watch Prometheus and Covenant.
But they annoy me on a near cellular level. Great casts, gorgeous filming, all let down by stupid plots. And worse? The tech shown just doesn’t seem to share a lineage with what we see in Alien, Aliens and Alien 3.
It also takes one of the most interesting questions in sci-fi (just where did the Xenomorph come from? Who or what was the Navigator), and offers not only a cackhanded answer, but the most boring answer to that question.
Was it some hyper evolved creature, removed from its native environment and its associated checks and balances?
No!
Was it perhaps some kind of biological weapon?
No! Well. Kind of.
So what was it then?
C-Creepio decided to make them. Nobody really knows why, and if it is explained I’m afraid everyone that’s ever seen the movie were in boredom induced comas by the time it’s explained. But…but….Mad Android! That worked in Alien, so it works here, right? Right???
I'm still baffled they never used the Comics as the source material - all that stuff was fleshed out way way better decades ago. I know he does some hand waving of "Well maybe they aren't prequels just something else" but we know they are and they are boring.
Also what really annoys me is that in both cases humanity is shown to be the main cause of events that result in the Alien film happening. Which to me is just, it removes the alien elements of the whole story.
Why did this alien ship crash here on this world; who made it; why is it full of eggs - all those questions answered by "well the guy who is head of the super-mega firm organised a trip and it wound up being caused by a handful of people".
But yeah they are very pretty films with lots of awesome special effects, but the story isn't worth it.
I’d definitely agree on them referring to the comics more.
Dark Horse had a pretty solid run over the years. Sure not everything was gold, but a decent majority was.
Prey, the Predator sequel takes cues from various Dark Horse comics, and it worked out really, really well. So as well as proof of concept, it shows you don’t need to do a direct translation. Just delve into that archive, find cool and interesting beats and developments to fold in.
Come to think of it, Alien Ressurrection may have got the Chestburster Through The Noggin from Dark Horse, as there’s a super similar panel in one of the comics.
But for me, boring is the worst cinema crime. A bad film I can usually find something to enjoy, even if it’s just laughing at how incompetently it’s been made. But to be boring? How dare you waste my time with boring.
The Aliens vs Idiots movies are exemplars of social criticism that has morphed into misanthropy in the intervening decades, going from institutional failings that bring doom on otherwise uninvolved individuals to every person inherently failing in their own right and contributing to the catastrophe.
They're more fun to watch if you embrace your hatred of the characters and view the movies as slashers where the idiots get what they deserve.
True, at that point it doesn't matter much if it's aliens or robots or other people doing the slashing and they lose some of their connection to the older Alien moves. But that's evolved sociopolitical messaging for you. What are you going to do? It's something you can see with many writers or directors. Take them out of the time and circumstances that created their classics, and give them enough time to think about how ongoing life experience alters their views, and the same people will often not be willing anymore to create something that is reminiscent and respectful of the original creations. That's just the way it goes.
Good call. This got me on the Jake Gyllenhall film Life. A space station investigating a wholly new and unknown life form, and yet none of them knew about the final barrier protocols, or appeared to be prepared for pretty critical and foreseeable decisions.
This is where Ryan George would announce it was needed “for the film to happen”.
It’s one of the many reasons I’ll defend Alien 4 to my dying day.
Sure, it’s not quite the sum of its parts, and the ending is a bit muddled? But there’s so much good in there.
The giant military “NOPE” was so satisfying.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Especially when he rolls the grenade into the escape pod. Not just to spare his mean a drawn out death, but to stop that Alien doing anymore harm than it’s already done.
And not done in a panic!
I’m not from a military background or family, but I do so hate the whole soldiers going to pot in the face of adversity.
One or two, like Hudson in Aliens? Sure. Because the rest snap him back to his senses. But even better is Alien 4 and Dog Soldiers.
I still think Dog Soldiers, for all its extreme small budget, has some of the best looking werewolves!
Also I'd argue that whilst Alien 4 is a bit ropy on the science to get Sigorney back in the film as Ripley, once you move past that its very solid as a film. Yes its more action than horror; however it also felt a lot like a fanservice film. We got Ripley being "bad ass" we also got to see aliens full bodied running, swimming and fighting and all. Which we'd never really seen clear in earlier films.
Overall its the last really solid Alien film - even Alien 3 is pretty solid once you see the Directors Cut which fills in all the gaps that got cut out to make it fit a cinema time slot (though I'd argue changing the alien from dog to bull was a mistake - the dog hatching scene is FAR more horror inducing than the bull)
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Apparently they wanted to make a blood-tornado final boss, but it looked too goofy, so instead we get that sword fight. If I recall, it’s the first fight in the film that isn’t Steven Seagal levels of lopsided in Blade’s favor.
The CGI blood just adds to that 90’s cheese for me. That and the soundtrack.
It had awesome set pieces. The opening club scene has yet to be topped by any other B movie in my opinion.
And unlike the endless punching of marvel films which honestly leads me to love their Egyptian series for cutting most of it out, I am quite happy to see him slaughter his way through the mooks. Funny how that seems appropriate in some settings and silly in others?
The_Real_Chris wrote: And unlike the endless punching of marvel films which honestly leads me to love their Egyptian series for cutting most of it out, I am quite happy to see him slaughter his way through the mooks. Funny how that seems appropriate in some settings and silly in others?
Last time I watched all three of the Blade films and contributed my thoughts on here this is one of the things I bought up. Yes, in the first film Blade rips his way though the hordes of undead but it feels like there are things at stake. The second film was an absolute flop for me as it shows both vampires and the mutant-vampires as insignificant to Blade.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Apparently they wanted to make a blood-tornado final boss, but it looked too goofy, so instead we get that sword fight. If I recall, it’s the first fight in the film that isn’t Steven Seagal levels of lopsided in Blade’s favor.
The CGI blood just adds to that 90’s cheese for me. That and the soundtrack.
It had awesome set pieces. The opening club scene has yet to be topped by any other B movie in my opinion.
And unlike the endless punching of marvel films which honestly leads me to love their Egyptian series for cutting most of it out, I am quite happy to see him slaughter his way through the mooks. Funny how that seems appropriate in some settings and silly in others?
I think it worked in Blade 1 because you still get the sense that whist he's carved his way through a whole room; its still a whole room of vampires and their servants. In a lot of modern marvel its more that they carve themselves through an entire city block with insane amounts of people who likely got killed and injured, but the films almost make no mention of this.
I think the best example is the Superman one where he has huge moral issues with hurting or killing anyone and yet during the final fight there are fuel stations and buildings being blown up and torn apart and yet he's only shedding a tear for the guy he's fighting.
In Blade the world doesn't care because most of those killed are Vampires and their servants who by nature hide themselves. The actual innocents who die are fairly few and far between. They happen, but they happen within the realms of what society could tolerate without a huge upheaval. Blade 2 and 3 are a bit harder to believe and follow as they do start to head down the pathway of "its all hidden and super secrete with massive fortress bases and armies and stuff" .
Also even in the opening scene you get the distinct sense that whilst Blade killed a lot of vampires, many also escaped. It's not the "and then he appeared and everyone died; no one escaped out a side door or just fled or anything."
It also helps that the fight scenes are enjoyable to watch. There’s choreography that we can follow, the editing doesn’t obscure what’s happening and the fights usually end before they stop being interesting.
This whole period has a great balance of fight scenes being stylish without being silly or tedious. Looking at films like Mortal Kombat and Demolition Man makes me miss that craft movies used to bring to action. Superhero fights these days tend to last too long and try too hard to dazzle with effects rather than choreography.
True - the recent Transformers films have a lot of examples where there's a bonkers amount of detail on the characters (mechs) and in the fight scene. However there is so much going on you can't really focus on the actual action. It's just a huge blur of explosions and stuff happening.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: B...special effects shots that linger so long they move beyond boring and into hilarious....
I think this was very much a thing that worked better on initial release, as it was an opportunity to show how much more advanced the film effects were than the series, and most Trekkies at the time loved it (aside from endless complaining about them 'ruining' Klingons).
It was also nice to get a 'proper' unveiling of the new Enterprise, even if the flyaround did perhaps go on a little longer than it strictly needed to. My one big gripe with First Contact was the introduction of the Enterprise D but never really getting a good look at it.
Overread wrote: Honestly I recall Blade's effects being pretty good for their day. I think its just the way that CGI looks good when its fresh, but can often age really poorly as the tech continues to push forward with leaps and bounds.
I saw Blade in the cinema on release, and no, the CGI blood was cheesy even then. Also the sped-up car a the start was just weird.
Other than that, it was a fantastic watch on the big screen. And the soundtrack is a banger.
Can’t be arsed to look it up right now, but I know TMP started off as an intended sequel TV Series (Phase 2) which was later adapted into a movie, following the success of Star Wars.
If memory serves, the long drawn out effects shots were essentially padding, and showing off. I can easily imagine it also serving as proof of how good a TV show could look. After all, the sets were already built, so a big chunk of rigging for a new series was already paid for.
Thankfully, at least for my money, we got TNG instead. A vastly superior sequel which successfully modernised the franchise. And gave us one of two Captains I’d gladly follow into the very gates of hell, the other being Sisko.
We have swapped over from D+ to Netflix for a bit, so I watched the Killer last night. Michaels Fassbender looking very intense and mournful for 2 hours. Definately not high adrenaline action, very much a slow moving thoughtful piece on the nature of people and their decision making process.
A couple of good action scenes, and some interesting character interactions, but I would only go for it if you either really like Michael Fassbender, or really like internal character monologues and narration.
Personally, I think you would be better off watching Grosse Point Blanc if you want some hitman personal conflict action.
Psychological thriller were a man and woman take a little sojourn to their families lakehouse. The man seems kind of overbearing and the woman very timid. Turns out that the women was kidnapped/tortured previously and is still in the process of recovering. It has some interesting things that could have made it freaky, but it never pulled the trigger on the stuff that could've sent it next level. There is an interesting twist in that the man has something to hide, but I got kind of lost in the visuals about what was real and what wasn't. I didn't really know what to believe, but I guess that's what they were aiming for in trying to highlight a broken mind.
This is one of those movies where there is a massive split in critics and viewers. 90% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes with critics, 31% audience. I would put it at 50% score myself. Could've been something to remember, but misses the mark.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flinty wrote: We have swapped over from D+ to Netflix for a bit, so I watched the Killer last night. Michaels Fassbender looking very intense and mournful for 2 hours. Definately not high adrenaline action, very much a slow moving thoughtful piece on the nature of people and their decision making process.
A couple of good action scenes, and some interesting character interactions, but I would only go for it if you either really like Michael Fassbender, or really like internal character monologues and narration.
Personally, I think you would be better off watching Grosse Point Blanc if you want some hitman personal conflict action.
I remember liking that movie when it came out. Just something different from most of what's out there. Like if John Wick was real.
But probably not going to re-watch it anytime soon though. This movie did remind me that I misplaced my paddle for a flight of whiskeys and I ordered a new one the next day.
After a 3rd night watching the movie piecemeal, I finally finished Reptile on Netflix.
As a police/crime/detective type movie, I'd rate it fairly good. The plot twists, while not particularly surprising, were also not horribly obvious, and were done in ways to keep both the audience engaged, and the plot moving.
Its not a police action thriller, more of a cerebral mental thriller type deal, as the plot does feel slow moving.
Only thing that still confuses me is, other than one brief 5 seconds on screen, I don't get how the title of the movie reflects into the movie itself.
Comedy movie on Amazon Prime, starring Zac Efron and John Cena.
This is an odd one. Any scene with Cena in it is good fun. He’s a brilliant comic actor with decent range. In that whilst somewhat typecast now, he’s not just playing himself in different roles.
The rest of the cast? Eh. Andrew Santino in particular annoys me. Like Seth MacFarlane, his acting seems to be limited to glowering whilst awaiting his line, and like Seth MacFarlane? His eyebrows don’t really move. At all. Nothing is expressed through the eyes. And given he’s in a lot of scenes? He’s dragging the film down for me.
It reminds me of 90’s screwball/gross out comedies. But without the gross out.
It is fun, but it’s uneven. If I’d paid to see this either in the cinema or a rental, I think I’d feel disappointed. But as a freebie it’s enjoyable enough. And I can see others enjoying it more than I, and as said I’ve enjoyed it well enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Shades of Drop Dead Fred, Trading Places and that.
I love how often this thread veers back to the Blade films. It seems like a constant on here. And a good one.
Yeah, Cena is always fun to watch.
That's all I got to contribute really. Er....I watched some TV last night. Saw two relatively recent laugh-track sitcoms. One featuring Joel McHale as a collage teacher or something? It looked like Community making fun of bad sitcoms. The other one was United State of Al, which is about a US Marine who took an Afghan interpreter home with him before ...well, you know. Anyway, it's one of those things where a sitcom tries to take something topical and be 'fresh' and then does the same bad sitcoms have been doing for 60 years. I think it's even co-produced by Chuck Lorre, who does that a lot as far as I know.
I also watched some film I can't remember. And finished the first season of Farscape. I like that show.
Barbie: The Movie-The Motion Picture: Part I-The Movie
Meh, cute in parts.
I am a Gen Xer, everything possible has already been deconstructed and reconstructed and dereconstructed. And since this is brought to you by Mattel who are already selling "Weird Barbie" limited editions it cannot be a scathing or even slightly pointed deconstruction. Life in The Dreamhouse did it better 10 years ago.
Oh and wah, wah, wah, patriarchy. But in a cute funny sort of way that does not require anyone to do anything.
Might be a bold statement this early in 2024, but this might be the best horror movie thats set in the Paleolithic era this year. We’ll have to wait to see what other Caveman Horror movies come our way this year, but I’m pretty confident this is the top dog in this very, very specific sudgenre.
Started off as a pretty slow burn that establishes the precariousness of life way back when, then once the “monster” abducts the youngster of the group, it gets pretty fast paced and kind of gross (people gotta eat!) but not rididuclously gory. A couple fun little twists with the monster that I didn’t expect and decent tension throughout the film made this somewhat enjoyable. Just the uniqueness of the premise compelled me to give it a rent.
7/10
Now I’m on to “Lovely Dark and Deep”, which seems to be a divisive pschological horror movie judging by a quick, nonspoilery glance at reviews.
Out of Darkness sounds neat. I’ll have to check that out. What service is it streaming on?
Suspiria
The original.
I’d always heard this was weird, and boy did it deliver. The plot and character development are inconsequential to the film, which is all about mood and atmosphere. The sets are gorgeous and unsettling, especially once the colored lights hit them. The score is also deeply weird and viscerally disturbing. I’ve never seen a movie like it before.
I highly recommend watching it, at least the first 20-30 minutes to get a sense of how it feels.
It’s free with ads on Tubi, if that makes a difference.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Barbie: The Movie-The Motion Picture: Part I-The Movie
Meh, cute in parts.
I am a Gen Xer, everything possible has already been deconstructed and reconstructed and dereconstructed. And since this is brought to you by Mattel who are already selling "Weird Barbie" limited editions it cannot be a scathing or even slightly pointed deconstruction. Life in The Dreamhouse did it better 10 years ago.
Oh and wah, wah, wah, patriarchy. But in a cute funny sort of way that does not require anyone to do anything.
3 stars of 5.
My daughter got bored and wandered out half way through. I did find it interesting though finding out which friends liked it and which didn't. Definitively went down better with the more TV watching orientated crowd than the bunch that don't watch much anymore.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Out of Darkness sounds neat. I’ll have to check that out. What service is it streaming on?.
Was an I-tunes rental, not sure if anyone is streaming it yet.
Lovely, Dark and Deep (2023)
Another I-tunes rental.
A psychological horror flick that features a newly minted park ranger out on her first summer in a vast US national park. Starts creepy early on, with our main character listening to some form of Coast-to-Coast AM show or "Missing 411" audiobook talking about the amount of "strange" disappearances in US parks. This movie takes a more otherworldly/supernatural explanation and runs with it somewhat effectively. It was a decent enough rental from a first time director(I think) with some wild visuals at times, though I am getting tired of long, panning shots of an upside down landscape to really hammer home that someone is disoriented or some such. 2 movies in a row did it to me.
Millie Bobby Brown kicking ass and taking names again. It’s allegedly a 12 rating. Quite a lot of people get melted for it to get that rating I think… I will not be sharing this with young Ms Flinty for a few years yet.
The big bad is gorgeously realised though.
I wonder if anyone has bootlegged an STL for it yet
Cropped up on Amazon Prime, a 2011 horror comedy about two inept Realtors saddled with a haunted house they need to sell.
Went in expecting a low budget horror, and that’s what I got. But with a decent cast. Barry Bostwick and Howard out of Big Bang Theory have small roles. And it doesn’t feel cheap, outside of some budget CGI - which is however used sparingly.
I’ve seen utter drivel. I’ve seen brilliance. This is comfortably toward, but not quite at, the latter. In terms of “what sort of comedy”? I’d put it somewhere around Ghostbusters. No overreactions, instead the slightly daft premise is played relatively straight, with humour mined and not imported.
Got so say this is most definitely worth a watch.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lords of Misrule
British Folk Horror flick, in the mould and tradition of The Wicker Man.
Definitely worth a look if the sub-genre is your thing, particularly as it’s not just The Wicked Man in fancy dress.
I watched Damsel last night on Netflix.
Milli Bobbi Brown as a princess who's sacrificed to a dragon & fights back.
Spoiler: she wins.
While entertaining enough, it was pretty predictable.
Mostly decent + cgi on the dragon & it's cavern.
The actual highlight of the show though is the countryside that serves as the backdrop to the action.
Apparently it was filmed in parts of Portugal. Makes me want to update my passport & go hike about Portugal for a bit.
I'm not sure that was the intent/message of the film...
A violent prison break onboard a transport ship has unforeseen consequences as it awakens the unstoppable, bio-engineered killing machine a dodgy corporation were also secretly transporting on the ship.
This was a gory, low budget Korean action movie, with little in the way of plot or characters (They're all either scared and useless or psychopaths, and are pretty much just there to die horribly), it was entertaining though and I would watch the potential sequel the ending sets up.
Well, I can't compete with that, but I watched an episode of Renegade, most likely for the first time ever. What a silly show that was. It was rather silly to begin with, then I learned that Renegade's friend (and client) was a wise-cracking ghost. Branscombe Richmond is a highlight (and I liked his interplay with their lady colleague). Lorenzo Lamas is no actor, I'm afraid. How did this get 4 seasons and Invisible Man just 2?
I was more of a Highlander The Series guy. And there is only room for one ponytailed tough guy at a time in life.
Friday the 13th part 5
Does anyone care about the subtitle?
This is the one where every character is a bizarre caricature. There’s the over-the-top hillbillies, the sex-crazed teens, the jaded ambulance driver, the impotent police, the Madonna lookalike, the stuttering virgin, the oblivious girl, the chocoholic fat guy, the angry crazy guy, the crazy angry guy, and, of course, the two leather-clad lovebirds who sing a duet in the outhouse while one takes a dump. It’s bizarre.
A mad, man of science in a "Steampunk/Magical Realism" world finds a pregnant cadaver, and removes the babies brain and implants it into the woman's body.
Therefore, we see a grown, beautiful woman evolve through the stages of feminine maturity over the course of the running time. This leads to a variety of misadventures.
A great performance from Emily Blunt, fun character designs, artwork, costuming, and set design. Some interesting cinematography and good dialogue.
All in the service of a very basic plot and simplistic themes. A bit disappointing that this thing didn't have more to say, and the ending to wrap up the "mystery" of the cadaver feels tacked on.
Edit: Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the premise this movie has a lot of sex scenes.
The overall feel is just slightly off-kilter, but it never disappears up its own arse in a puff of pretentiousness. And it’s never weird for the sake of being weird.
The costumes and set design kind of remind me of Tim Burton’s Batman that, whilst period, it’s difficult to say exactly which period.
Yeah, I plan to watch that too. Not a huge Emma Stone fan, but I hear good things about the film.
The episodes of Renegade was a bit of fun, but I really found the main character of all people to be a bit of a let-down. Which is a crucial detail.
The Hangover 3
Zach Galifianakis' father dies and they get kidnapped by John Goodman (who is a big gangster) and they have to find Ken Jeong to get a ton of gold back for John Goodman, and then they have to break into a house and then they have to catch Ken Jeong and then it ends.
I never saw Hangover, I watched Hangover 2 in the cinema and was rather surprised how people found the predecessor a film that was pretty much the same to be "the best comedy in many years and a gamechanger". That was a dark and not extremely fun film.
The third film strays from the same story as the first two. Instead it does a pretty admirable job at tieing together a string of consequences of the first two films and the three guys who do the things in the films do things again. Pretty action-thrillery things actually. It's almost as if this film drops the pretense of being a comedy at all. It's more sequences of "grim stuff happens... oh, the camera cuts to Galifianakis or Jeong! Let's see what sort of OUTRAGEOUS thing he will say now!". Both their characters I find annoying and ridiculous.
Galifianakis I can usually avoid, but with Jeong I always wonder if there is a cut of the last 2 seasons of Community (which is a lovely show) with Jeong's bits edited out. Do not care for Ed Helms. Bradley Cooper is wasted in this (but he doesn't do much in this anyway), so is Melissa McCarthy, being put in a role which is one of those roles she gets put into and which she doesn't seem to be able to get out of even though she could do better. At least I think so. I know, it's silly to go so much into detail about wether or not I like an actor or the roles they play. However, this film is basically just these actors doing either OUTRAGEOUS and INAPPROPRIATE things (Galifianakis/Jeong) or react to it (all the others).
It is interesting though in that it does things differently and there's some sort of an intrigue to see what happens next. Even though it's usually silly (and not in the good way), random stuff.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’m sorry, but I am confused. Are you saying you knew people who said the Hangover 2 was a great comedy and a game changer?
I got dragged to the cinema to watch Hangover 2. I laughed exactly once at a (admittedly very funny) sight joke - when the stupid guy dropped an anchor out of an already beached boat. I was stunned to find people laughing at any other point in that desperately unfunny film.
Sigur wrote: ha, forgot to add "the predecessor" there. Must have looked at something different in between writing that mini review. Sorry. Added the words now.
No, I'm fairly certain that nobody views Hangover 2 as a seminal comedy film.
Thanks for clearing that up. This eases my mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Hangover 2 has all the comedic energy as a late night host whose dinner has been interrupted by an obnoxious stranger demanding he tell a joke right now.
Yeah, it was weird. Somewhere I read that the guy who made the films likes to take chances and zig where people expect him to zag. Which is laudable, but with a comedy it's a big risk to take. I like people playing with conventions of humour and subvert them, but it's really hard to pull off, and I think that with Hangover 2 and 3 it just falls flat.
I'm sure I laughed once or even twice as well in Hangover 2, and I also had to snort during the 3rd film when Jeong sings "Hurt" at a karaoke bar, the other three sit at a table and Bradley Cooper very dryly asks "Why are we watching this?" or something like that. That got me for some reason.
To get to something slightly more positive: Watched the latter half of Hard Target last night. What a weird film. But it must have had some impact back then. Since then a LOT of the visual style has been incorporated into even the lowest of western action films several times over.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Hard Target was if memory serves John Woo’s first play with western cinema?
yup, i think so
yet another new topic: I just saw that they're doing a remake of The Crow. I even watched the trailer, with an open mind too. I mean how hard making a Crow film be? You need a dude who looks cool in facepaint (I'm not even too offended over him not having long hair), a basic revenge story with supernatural overtones. Ernie Hudson optional, electric guitar playing is NOT.
The trailer looks alright, right? As I said, the hair and the facepaint look all wrong, but that doesn't really matter. The trailer already shows what looks like an exhausting amount of story and characters and of course features terrible, terrible music. As do all trailers.
Bad Sigur! Dirty Sigur! In your bed, on your rug! Dirty Boy!
Hey, i love Mr.Hudson as much as the next guy (I vividly remember writing how much i missed ernie hudson in my mini review of the crow in this very thread), but I can do well without a 2024 film dragging a 78-year old Mr.Hudson in front of the camera just for some fanservice reason. I wanna remember him how he's in the original film, and fanservice is a thing Hollywood films should be rid of sooner rather than later. It's a scourge. It's cheap. It's calculable. It turns film more stupid and it turns people who like something into 'fan cattle'.
Bit of lovely retro viewing, which somehow still feels fresh and modern.
Made with bleeding edge technology, and not a little simple trickery (the old false mirror identical twin routine!)
Like most if not all Terminator sequels, at least mildly ruined at the time by its own trailer, which revealed Arnie was the hero.
About the only issue I have with this film? How in the flip did the T-1000 do time travel? Only organic can go back. And there’s bugger all organic about it. Not even a meat suit.
The tale it’s telling is interesting, refreshing and updating the central premise to reflect the dawn of the digital age. And I like they’ve gone from stopping Judgement Day, to ensuring John Connor survives it. Like wise, the T-X being sent back to bump off John’s top lieutenants is interesting, and reflects that John had successfully stayed off-grid.
But then…it gets a bit silly. Arnie’s arrival is funny, but jarringly so. Like a SNL skit just pasted into the movie for lols. Skynet acting as a virus is a cool idea. But “and now it can autonomously drive cars and fire engines and ambulances, even though they mechanically can’t do that” just takes it too far.
The crane chase is pretty cool though, as is Skynet’s awakening. And as ever respect for using practical effects.
Overall, disappointing due to its flaws, but there’s still merit going on. Probably a very comfortable 6.5 out of 10, and could make it to a 7.5 out of 10 if you can push past its worse flaws.
It’s just another frustratingly uneven film. Its good moments are really good. There’s clearly been some thought put into the plot and how it might add to the wider story. But then we get silliness and daftness. Which only serve to drag it into utter mediocrity, because those seem to be the bits best remembered.
A 1984 movie, starring Peter Cushing, and is an original tale with a semi-retired Holmes, set in 1913.
It’s not too bad. Low budget for sure, and the version I’m watching has an unrestored print.
However the costumes and scenery are oddly offputting. At least when our heroes are out and about. It feels kinda 50’s and too modern for the intended period,
But it is perfectly enjoyable viewing for a Saturday afternoon. And it makes me realise I don’t think I’ve not enjoyed a film starring Cushing.
I think that Terminator 3 falls in a category many more modern sequels fall into - made 10+ years after a legendary 2nd part which since turned into a "franchise" with a "lore" (what loathsome a word) and "fans" and comicbooks and all of that. Having to overthink stuff, having to add in fan service moments, having to recreate a nostalgially tinted feeling but also giving it a modern lick, and so on. It pretty much sets ye up for failure.
All of that baggage, compared to the mission statement of T2: "Same thing really, but with more money and Schwarzenegger's role reversed to be a good guy.". This sounds like a concept which is much easier to achieve, so the people who make the film can focus on actually making a cool film.
Maybe that's just my overly simplistic take on the whole thing. Of course the studios' grasp on things had tightened considerably between 1991 and 2003.
Mr.Cushing's wargaming collection was sold off over the past years, and the Perry twins acquired a ton of his hand-painted flags and loads of his campaign maps and notes. Many of which are written on the backs of film scripts he was working on at the time, which helps dating the notes. Very cool stuff, they put a bunch of it on facebook.
I'm on season 3 of Farscape now. Still enjoying the show, possibly more than before even. I wish that more films had characters who all like/want/use food and sex on a reguar basis without making it a defining trait.
Right now I'm watching bloody Cinderella'80. I've seen it before, but can't really remember anything about it except for the snippets from the "Stay" music video. Insane how humanity conserves weird pop culture and re-runs it on TV.
Mr.Cushing's wargaming collection was sold off over the past years, and the Perry twins acquired a ton of his hand-painted flags and loads of his campaign maps and notes. Many of which are written on the backs of film scripts he was working on at the time, which helps dating the notes. Very cool stuff, they put a bunch of it on facebook.
This is the most interesting thing i have heard about this year so far.
A 2003 thriller that's just 87 minutes long and fills every moment with something that adds to the film. It takes huge influence from slasher films without over focusing on character deaths. I love the shot selection, picking great angles and lighting, showing the director had a clear vision throughout. I don't think there's a single shot in the film that feels like it's a throw away.
Mr Right on Netflix. Anna Kendrick is pretty and kooky, Sam Rockwell is suave and kooky and they quip and bad people get horribly da aged. Odd but mindlessly entertaining. To be fair I could watch ms Kendrick in basically anything.
Flinty wrote: Mr Right on Netflix. Anna Kendrick is pretty and kooky, Sam Rockwell is suave and kooky and they quip and bad people get horribly da aged. Odd but mindlessly entertaining. To be fair I could watch ms Kendrick in basically anything.
Theater near me is doing a showing of The Matrix for its 25th Anniversary in the big Dolby Digital theater with the monster sound system but it was practically sold out so I am not going. Just imagine a mini review while sulk.
This is a shock-humor film from 2009 starring all of the best 2nd-tier comedic actors of the time as slimy used car salesmen and the people they interact with. All of the actors bring their A games, especially Charles Napier and Kathryn Hahn, but the jokes just aren’t there. In a review for another film I saw the line “it doesn’t go far enough to be funny but it isn’t accurate enough to be interesting.” That’s The Goods to a T.
Don’t Watch unless you really need some 2000’s edgy-comedy nostalgia.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard All of the actors bring their A games, especially Charles Napier and Kathryn Hahn, but the jokes just aren’t there. In a review for another film I saw the line “it doesn’t go far enough to be funny but it isn’t accurate enough to be interesting.” That’s The Goods to a T.
That is a good description. It felt like it should have been better and funnier than it actually was, like all the ingredients were there but it didn't cook quite right.
When I saw the cast list, I had to see it and wondered why I hadn’t heard of The Goods before. Having seen it, now I know why. Still, feels kind of like a time capsule.
Tragic tale about the Von Erich wrestling family. As a story, its compelling stuff. As a movie, it seemed disjointed at times. Everybody is great in it, but things just happen so fast and a lot of small seemingly important things get glossed over. Regardless, its worth a watch, I’d say. Solid drama, but its gutpunch after gutpunch. Ending was pretty powerful.
@Henry: When I saw it at the cinema I wasn't entirely convinced (because the twist was rather obvious), but it was alright. Nowadays we'd probably crawl over lava to get a 85 minutes psychological thriller.
@Flinty: Yeah, my stance on the matter of Anna Kendrick is kinda the same.
Tragic tale about the Von Erich wrestling family. As a story, its compelling stuff. As a movie, it seemed disjointed at times. Everybody is great in it, but things just happen so fast and a lot of small seemingly important things get glossed over. Regardless, its worth a watch, I’d say. Solid drama, but its gutpunch after gutpunch. Ending was pretty powerful.
Hey, what's our opinion on that sort of remake? Do we prefer them to be just abysmally bad or so-so, bland and forgettable just so we can get past them and forget about them (like 80% of these)?
Shot for shot remakes can range from utterly pointless (Psycho) to an interesting outcome (Night of the Living Dead, which had some changes). But they’re mostly utter pointless.
Reinterpretations (Robocop) I give more leeway to provided when what’s being attempted is interesting. Interesting ideas can paper over wonky execution. An example where I’m genuinely torn would be Ghostbusters. I don’t think that’s a bad film as such. But it is a poor, poor Ghostbusters film and is all over the shop tonally. It also didn’t introduce anything particularly new or interesting.
Funnily enough I'm listening to a podcast about the latest Ghostbusters film right now. Which Ghostbusters film are you referring to? 2016 or the pandemic one with the kid named Podcast?
I had a bit of a Cyberpunk(?) go last night with a double feature.
The Creator A pretty interesting flick that almost is great, but the script needed another once over to tighten it before filming.
Blade Runner 2049 It had been a long time since I have seen the original version, so it was pretty hazy in my memory.
Still, for my money the best Cyberpunk steals all the best bits from old 'Noir films and papers over it with future-tech. This delivers on that front. It also seems like all the action is surprisingly personal.
Ana de Armas is especially good in this. Her character's whole arc and the meta-commentary here is very intriguing.
Of course, it looks beautiful and I think the pacing is great for what it is. Everything is very deliberate, just like the main Protag. Still a touch long overall.
Best criticism I have seen is all four actors wanted to be the funny one, while the original had 3 playing it straight and Murry as the obvious funny one.
It’s fun. But flawed. Third act was rushed and quite messy, but it more or less came together in the end,
Importantly, I’ve strong ideas on how it could’ve gone smoother. Which is fairly unusual for me as I tend to just take my media as it comes.
RT has a “professionals” score of 45%, and an audience score of 87%. Me? It’s easily more toward the Audience rating. It ticks a lot of boxes, and needs just a nip/tuck of editing. I suspect the foul finger of studio meddling.
In terms of in-universe ranking? I don’t know if l like this more than Afterlife. Afterlife was a tighter plot, but here we spend more genuinely quality time with the originals. Ray in particular gets some character development, as does Winston albeit to a lesser degree. Venkman is Venkman and I’m perfectly fine with that.
Best criticism I have seen is all four actors wanted to be the funny one, while the original had 3 playing it straight and Murry as the obvious funny one.
That I’d agree with. But for the most part, we get fairly natural comedy, especially between the two mains. Then we get Holtzman just being goofy (but good goofy) and Thor being goofy (but bad goofy). Everyone was having fun making the film, and that came across in the film. Just needed the Director to enforce a little restraint. Spesh on Thor.
Ghostbusters (and to a lesser extent Ghostbusters 2, the Alien Resurrection of the franchise) worked because they played goofy stuff straight, like Leslie Nielsen in Airplane! and The Naked Gun. But Ghostbusters 2016 was an embarrassing failure because it played straight stuff goofy, like Leslie Nielsen in Spy Hard and Wrongfully Accused.
Afterlife was awkward and uncomfortable as a reverential pedestal for old nerds to place their childhoods onto, about as funny as a CGI Leslie Nielsen singing “Those were the days, my friend” by Mary Chapin.*
I have no choice but to watch Ghostbusters Frozen Over since my son really wants to see it. I just hope Kumail Nanjiani and Patton Oswalt are funny in it.
*Also, I cannot get over the fact that multimillion dollar Hollywood Blockbuster starting people capable of shame just straight-up lifted the climactic beam fight of Dragonball Z’s Cell Saga and thought we wouldn’t notice.
PS: I got a better Ghostbusters style occult comedy kick from the Behind the Bastards episode about L Ron Hubbard and Jack Parsons trying to summon the Antichrist in the Mojave desert than I did from Ghostbusters Afterlife. Spoiler: L Ron is evil Venkman.
What I hear about the new Ghostbusters film isn't too promising. They seem to want too much (get the old ones via the use of old people, get the young ones by use of young people and end up with just a ton of people. A lot of bad humour seems to be at play, ie the sort nowadays where everything is spelled out and explained and exused for right after somebody makes a joke). But let's see.
I very much agree with what you said about Ghostbusters 2016, how everybody tried to be the funny one. Surely that must be some sort of SNL thing, right? They all looked like comedians trying to "get their gak in" all the time. Telling people to be more low-key, playing it straight and do quick, witty jokes instead of lingering and doing reaction shots and so on.
This has Sandra Bullock, Channing Tatum, Brad Pitt, and Daniel Ratcliff (SP for all of them) doing their best at a modern day Romancing the Stone bit. It isn't bad, but it isn't good either, it is serviceable but forgettable.
The movie poster featured Randy the Goat, but she does not get nearly enough screen time to be on the poster or in the trailer. Big downer on that.
Despite my low-opinion, I do hope this movie is wildly successful! We need Hollywood to branch back into the Action/Comedy/Romance genre with decent star power and low-to-mid-range budgets again.
Sigur wrote: What I hear about the new Ghostbusters film isn't too promising. They seem to want too much (get the old ones via the use of old people, get the young ones by use of young people and end up with just a ton of people. A lot of bad humour seems to be at play, ie the sort nowadays where everything is spelled out and explained and exused for right after somebody makes a joke). But let's see.
I very much agree with what you said about Ghostbusters 2016, how everybody tried to be the funny one. Surely that must be some sort of SNL thing, right? They all looked like comedians trying to "get their gak in" all the time. Telling people to be more low-key, playing it straight and do quick, witty jokes instead of lingering and doing reaction shots and so on.
I’m closer to the audience opinion on RT than the critics.
What’s there is ultimately a very fun film. We get lore development and character development. It’s just a bit uneven. I have ideas on how I might’ve rejigged things without overly changing the story. Whilst frustratingly close to genuine brilliance, there’s still plenty to genuinely enjoy.
2016 was a comedy with a Ghostbusters emblem. And the comedy itself is…fine. Not revolutionary. Not necessarily original. And like pretty much all comedy, something best left to the individual to judge, because it’s such a subjective thing. I mean, some folk don’t like Airplane! and someone is paying Adam Sandler’s salary. But it was a waste of the franchise’s trappings overall.
Because whilst light hearted, I think I’d struggle to call Ghostbusters comedy films. They’re quippy, and Venkman in particular refuses to take anything especially seriously, that’s true. But they’re primarily films about the supernatural. And bloody good ones at that.
Post Frozen Empire, I could go for more. Films would be ideal, but with certain things shown off in the film, I could also go a limited or ongoing live action tv series. And that comes from the effort put into expanding the overall situation and lore without just pulling stuff out the ether for the sake of it. The film, whilst wonky, was clearly made with genuine love and affection, and an eye to leaving options open.
Maybe not MCU/Star Wars/DCEU new thing every five minutes. But more Kongzillaverse, with various films and spin-offs as and when someone has a good enough idea.
GB1 and 2 had external factors causing the supernatural activity. Afterlife and 2016 followed that formula in their own ways.
But Frozen Empire kind of…doesn’t. Which is a departure for the franchise, and one that has opened it up to further stories. The lore expansion helps with that, as is the explanation behind it.
If anything good series of films (or series of anything) have good lore to them even if that lore is never presented. It helps to underpin how that fantasy world works and functions. It establishes the "rules" for the setting that even if they aren't explained to the viewer/reader; at least structures what they see through the setting.
A really well developed lore can even let you seed parts of future stories and events into earlier parts. We've all read books where the author started with 1 and branched out over time and suddenly there's things like a major crime group in a major city that the first books were set in, but which we never heard of until quite far into the series because it got added in. Meanwhile there's others where the lore was worked out first and when that element comes ot the fore you realise that it was hinted at, spoken of and just part of the background earlier.
So yeah most things that want to do well with story telling do benefit having a lore. It just helps everything work.
Now granted things that are one or two off like Ghostbusters can end up a bit wonky because they were more telling a story with characters than establishing a whole world with rules and structure; but it can still be done.
Easy E wrote: Does Ghostbusters really need "lore" and the development there of?
Perhaps more movies or Franchise should be "Lore"-less?
The first movie would lose a lot of its color and charm without Evo Shandor, the “Rectification of the Vukdronaii” speech, or the prison blueprint scene. The Patton Oswalt scene in the new film gives a similar flavor, although not quite as well. I’d put it on par with the lore scenes in Ghostbusters 2, though. That’s also the kind of weirdness that brings Dan Akroyd to life, so without it you’d have a film with two dead-inside Bill Murray types.
I disagree that Lore is Story. They are two very different things.
In a story, things happen for the sake of the story. Now, we get things happening for the sake of "the lore". This is not a positive as it often gets in the way of the story and is just filler. However, if you don't spell it all out in "lore" the nerds all moan about it it not being telegraphed to them!
Star Wars is exhibit A for this. The original movie explained exactly what it needed in order to get from Point A to Point B. There was no lore.
Yet, here we are a couple generations later, and "Lore" has taken over Star Wars to the point that whole series/movies are made just to fill in "the lore" instead of to tell a story.
Edit: @Bob- Yeah, exposition isn't really Lore either. Exposition still serves to move the story forward. Lore serves to constraint the story.
Easy E wrote: I disagree that Lore is Story. They are two very different things.
In a story, things happen for the sake of the story. Now, we get things happening for the sake of "the lore". This is not a positive as it often gets in the way of the story and is just filler. However, if you don't spell it all out in "lore" the nerds all moan about it it not being telegraphed to them!
Star Wars is exhibit A for this. The original movie explained exactly what it needed in order to get from Point A to Point B. There was no lore.
Yet, here we are a couple generations later, and "Lore" has taken over Star Wars to the point that whole series/movies are made just to fill in "the lore" instead of to tell a story.
Edit: @Bob- Yeah, exposition isn't really Lore either. Exposition still serves to move the story forward. Lore serves to constraint the story.
Actually I think you're just comparing good and bad storytelling
The bad storytelling we have now in Starwars films isn't because there's a lore, its because it has bad writing.
Lore is just the skeleton of the story. You have a LOT of things that happen in the lore for the story; the difference is the lore sets some things in stone (or should do) which require more story if you want to change those things; or requires the story to play within those boundaries.
There's a lore in Starwars 4,5,6. We see Lightsabres deflect laser blasts. That's part of the lore within those 3 films.
Lore is just the skeleton, the ground rules, the functional elements of the setting that allows the story to be told. Good story telling makes good use of the lore to tell the story and allow things to happen because of the story whilst being faithful to a set of standards and established elements that contribute toward the story.
Don’t think the way I used lore in my post is the same as Easy E is thinking of.
In GB4, we now have haunted items. Possessed by ghosts. That’s something new to the series, distinct from putting mood slime in an item and provoking a reaction. And there’s some other New Stuff introduced, adding to and building on the classics.
This helps prevent it feeling like a retread. Yes there’s nostalgia in there - and I for one would be disappointed if there wasn’t. But there’s new. And that new is genuinely interesting, with interesting possibilities for the future.
EasyE, I’d say the opposite about the new Star Wars films. They all treaded all over the established lore to tell their stories, which made the stakes feel fake, the outcomes unearned and the characters stupid. Whether it’s grossly misrepresenting the scale of the series to changing how combat and hyperdrive work to whatever the hell ROS is, it all feels like a cheat, like someone has ignored the stakes and the obstacles the heroes need to overcome to seem clever or virtuous, and replaced it with inauthentic gibberish.
The use of lore is what makes Babylon 5, Deep Space 9 and Stargate SG1 work.
Consider that Lord of the Ring's lore is so freaking good that it didn't just underpin a trilogy but a vast amount of fantasy for decades after.
It set the groundwork and showed how having a much more complete level of world building and world setting could directly contribute to improving the quality of potential storytelling.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: EasyE, I’d say the opposite about the new Star Wars films. They all treaded all over the established lore to tell their stories, which made the stakes feel fake, the outcomes unearned and the characters stupid. Whether it’s grossly misrepresenting the scale of the series to changing how combat and hyperdrive work to whatever the hell ROS is, it all feels like a cheat, like someone has ignored the stakes and the obstacles the heroes need to overcome to seem clever or virtuous, and replaced it with inauthentic gibberish.
The use of lore is what makes Babylon 5, Deep Space 9 and Stargate SG1 work.
I love that you included SG1 with those two. It's almost criminally overlooked compared to those two but really does hold up in it's best parts to those two.
I know I’ve seen this before, and I don’t recall particularly enjoying it.
But I’m giving it another whirl. I’ve always enjoyed Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake, even though he went with fast zombies. It’s still an interesting enough movie. And a helluva lot better than the Day of the Dead remake from around the same time I got about 20 minutes into before my brain ran off all offended.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Don’t think the way I used lore in my post is the same as Easy E is thinking of.
In GB4, we now have haunted items. Possessed by ghosts. That’s something new to the series, distinct from putting mood slime in an item and provoking a reaction. And there’s some other New Stuff introduced, adding to and building on the classics.
This helps prevent it feeling like a retread. Yes there’s nostalgia in there - and I for one would be disappointed if there wasn’t. But there’s new. And that new is genuinely interesting, with interesting possibilities for the future.
Haunted items were first in the ghostbusters videogame in 2009 - i remember hunting them down with the PKE meter.
Now I remember why I didn’t enjoy Army of the Dead.
Despite having done really well with Dawn of the Dead, Zack The Hack has here decided to marry a not-very-good-heist-movie to a not-very-good-zombie-movie.
If he’d just gone with one rather than the other? It might be quite serviceable. Especially the Zombie side, as I’m very forgiving (you have to be as a fan of the genre, as it’s 99% pure, unadulterated crap). But by botching two genres at once, and constantly flipping between them? We’re reminded he didn’t have a clue or enough of an idea for both.
It’s still better than Welcome to Racoon City. But even Resident Evil did a better “Vegas Zombies”, which was still ultimately the weakest in a pretty weak, but fun, series of not very good but they’re still entertaining movies.
Also, just because you’ve cast Dave “Mr Charisma And Screen Presence” Batista? Doesn’t mean the rest of the cast get to be two dimensional.
Also also also “hey cack team of Mercs. Before the gubmint nukes it, I need you to nip into my vault to recover my cash monies. Because it’s mine. But for reasons we won’t go into or explain? I’m not gonna tell you the combination, so you’ll need a safe cracker. Because said reasons.”
Maybe there was a reason given. But this film is so dull I missed it.
Also, why did it take said gubmint six years to decide to nuke a city infected and quarantined???
One final also? How come the super zombies all run with their arms held behind their back? They look like the guys from that video set to Aha’s “Take On Me”, except nobody is having any fun, and I’m not sure they’re meant to look stupid.
It just looks awful. Also? It’s 2h 28m long. It has nothing like enough content to really justify that. 1h 28m, sure. But that extra hour is pure Snyder Self-Fluffing.
Possibly part of the Scary Movie franchise? But utterly devoid of wit, charm and intelligence.
The jokes aren’t funny. That’s right. They’ve somehow made a loose string of sight and knob gags Not Funny. It’s just ‘Member Berries but for horror films. But rather than identifying what makes a horror icon a horror icon and sending that up? It’s just “I am seen horror, me mek joke now. Look, me am give Pinhead dart in head not pin. Freddie are am now a pimp. Me am put Willy on Leatherface mask”
And that’s just the first 13 woeful minutes.
Oh…oh wait, inevitable “heroes am do the pot”. Because that’s original and still taboo.
Give this one a wide, wide berth. No, wider than that. Bit more….smidge to the right…there you go. Mark yourself safe from this drivel.
Comedy Horror exploring the tropes of black characters within the genre.
Happy to say it’s more than just that. It does of course play with, send up and even embrace stereotypes negative and positive, but it’s ultimately a pretty well made bit of silly horror.
It reminds me of the better Scary Movies, but is more restrained in the comedy, as it’s not undermining the horror elements for the sake of some cheap laughs. Daft stuff, rather than stupid I think is the best way to describe it.
I paid £10 for a digital copy and don’t regret a penny of it.
watched Past Lives and The Iron Claw yesterday, since i'm trying to catch up on last year's films. both very good, although i think i prefer Past Lives, of the two. poignant and evocative story about how we change and grow as we become older, given more depth with the inclusion of immigrant experiences. all in all, one of the best films of last year that i've seen
The Iron Claw was more what i expected it to be, since i was going in already familiar with the story. no major twists or turns to it, but everyone played their roles really well, the writing was on point, and the production of the film was all really polished
Eli Roth brings us a Holiday Themed Slasher, kind of in the mould of Scream.
And it’s pretty good fun. Some glorious offings, some a bit tame. But so far none have been especially daft.
As a fan of the genre, this plays pretty closely to the rules. The victims tend to be pretty unlikeable, and there’s a fake out or two to try to keep us guessing. I’m most of the way through though and I reckon I know who our killer is.
It’s nothing particularly original, but it’s ticking all the boxes for me. Buckets of gore, not taking itself too seriously without descending into farce and parody.
What are our thoughts on Eli Roth? I never saw a film of his I was impressed with, I never find anything he's involved with too impressive in general. He does seem to be a nice guythough with genuine passion for genre films and well connected.
I don't know. Roth is generally serviceable whereas Shyamalan is inconsistent but when he is up he is really good, which I probably rather see. Roth also can be a bit more questionable in some of his messages and is responsible for torture porn being really popular for a while.
Yeah. Maybe this wouldn't hold up in reality, but I think I'd rather watch a Shayamalan film than a Roth film, simply because how serviceable/dependable Roth is as a filmmaker and how you pretty much get what is to be expected, whereas Shayamalan (at this point) probably won't give a good film either, but some atmosphere and a bit of weirdness. And I'd rather have weirdness, even if it turns out sucking, than films from somebody of whom I know I don't like the films a whole lot. But I'm also not a huge fan of some of the genres Roth works with. Somehow I've fallen off the horror train a bit in recent years. Never been on it fully, but more so than I am now I think.
I just watched a good portion of OSS-117: With Africa with Love, which is the third film in that franchise as far as I know. Solid, silly French spy comedy, it's surprisingly alright for being the third part of a series. Leans a bit heavily on "character from before 2017 commenting on a younger man acting in an 'unmanly' fashion", but there's also some good observations on European views of Africa and visually really good homage moments to 60s-80s Bond films, including a lengthy and very blue day-for-night shot. And Jean Dujardin is doing a really good job at being a clown and/or Connery.
He’s not trying to be clever, just broadly competent. Hostel was quite something when it first came out, and Hostel 2 did more world building.
But they are singularly unpleasant movies to watch. Which is kind of the point.
It limits their appeal in terms of widest possible audience, sure. But I defy anyone to say they’re not well made. The plots, such as they are, hold together well enough. But Shyamalan? He’s got one trick. And that’s his infamous twist.
Trouble is? That’s always gonna be a One and Done. Sure, you might want to go back and give each movie a rewatch, see what hints were crafted in. But once you know what the twist is? The films are entirely mediocre at best. And when you know there’s one coming, because that’s all he does? You spend less time watching the movie than you do trying to spot the twist.
Yeah, the twist stuff trapped him. I mean I'll still happily watch good ones like Signs or The Village. And I might give the bad ones a watch just for the giggles.
No, you have to agree with me and only feel the way I do. I'm sorry but it is the law.
To be fair to Signs it was very good up until the incredibly stupid twist, which just sort of goes back to preferring "reaching for greatness but failing" over "broadly competent" when it comes to art. The nice part is that we don't actually have to choose and can actually freely go back and forth between them.
The evil doer, who is an old man streak of piss takes not one, not two, not three, but four shotgun blasts to stay down.
And not your namby pamby modern shotgun blasts. Oh no. 80’s shotgun blasts. The most powerful shotgun blasts known to man and beast. And he doesn’t even go flying until the last one!
Heck yes is Signs a good one! I'll watch Signs over any of the Unbreakable/Legion(?)/Glass films for instance. Signs has a great cast, good atmosphere, and I'm a-okay with aliens not liking water. They symbolize our fears, man, and water is the life-giver! And you use it to christen people and stuff. Dunno. The stuff in the cornfield was intense, the stuff in the cellar is intense, that thing with Gibson's wife stuck between the car and the tree is nasty, all of that. I like Signs. Haven't seen it in MANY years though, I have to admit.
Road House rocks. No matter what anybody says. I heard a critizism that you see that Swayze is more of a dancer and not a Proper Fighter Like and whatever. I never noticed that when watching the film. It's got the Swayze, it's got the cowboy man with his glorious hair, the monster truck, it's got the one-liners. I'll take a monster truck, Terry Funk, that 80s car in the beginning and a dancer as a lead over Connor McGregor, any MMA references or Gyllenhaal's abs any day.
Last night I watched a bit of Once Upon a Time in the West. Somehow I never really liked that film that much (not sure I've ever seen it in full though). So I went into it with that feeling as well. But what they do with camera shots, facials (even of minor characters) and editing in that film is pretty darned cool. Also: that one dude in the beginning, with the wonky eye, who is being pestered by the fly... him sitting there, trying to get rid of the fly ... I'm almost willing to bet money that Miyazaki took a lot of his facial acting and used it for Totoro. Also, I learned that Dario Argento co-wrote the script! Didn't know that either.
edit: I watched your video. Haven't seen the film, so I can't comment much on that, but it looks perfectly alright and I like the clarification early on that it's just not really made with us old people in mind. the thing is, that they still always include old people / old people stuff into these franchise films for some reason and then proceed to make films which just can't reach the (unreachable) expectations old people would have of such a film. I just wish they moved on and get go of the old stuff.
The characters are well realized. The production design is fantastic. The writing and pacing build up tension the whole film. Unfortunately, it’s not really scary. Tense, yes, but no more horrifying than the first Halloween or Friday the 13th films. Ash was more unnerving than the alien.
It’s still an A+ picture. It just felt awkward that we’d put off this movie so long because we were worried it might give our son nightmares when it turns out to be less frightening than a Blumhouse trailer.
It’s almost Suspiria. The soundtrack is almost as weird and hypnotic as Suspiria’s. The sets are almost as textured and decorous as Suspiria’s. The use of color and light is almost as striking as Suspiria’s. The spacey, detached acting is almost as dreamlike as Suspiria’s.
The big difference is Inferno gives a but more lore at the cost of the fever dream potency. It also takes longer to get going, and the story structure is more noticeably clumsy.
Overall, watch Suspiria instead.
If you’ve seen Suspiria and want more, Inferno is good enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigur wrote: I watched Apocalypse Now for the first time last night (well, not the first 40 minutes or so, but all the rest ). Pretty amazing.
This is a movie I know I’ve seen at least twice, but can only remember about 15 minutes worth of key scenes from. And three of those minutes are probably Full Metal Jacket.
Yea, one of the main boons of having watched the film is that I can finally watch Hearts of Darkness. It's on youtube too, so I watched most of it the other day. Seems alright, doesn't it. We'll never get documentaries about that sort of filmmaking again.
"Yeah, so, like, we're at like the set of Army of the Dead: Traindead now. Netflix gave us that big LED background thing so we don't have to go anywhere which is awesome. The Rock is awesome and omg Ryan Reynolds is so funny but also nice. This is a really empowering experience and our film will be in the Top10 in [your country] for sure."
Oh well.
Anyway, I watched films last night! Nice evening of watching TV(!) with people.
Life on the Line (2015)
Directed by an ex-lineman. It's the Top Gun/Armageddon/Backdraft/etc.of lineman. What is a lineman? They actually do important jobs, in that they put up/fix/etc. high voltage power lines. The film is about them. But also a storm (which is why the film is called "Der Sturm" in German). The film gives us a count-down to when Der Sturm finally shows up when ever it thinks we get a bit bored with the everyday drama of the Texan linemen in their Texan town.
This is the cast: John Travolta with glorious hair, but also a beard and possibly elongated face, hard to tell. He's a grizzled old vet, he's a grizzled old vet lineman, haunted by his brother's death ON THE LINE. Sharon Stone drops in occasionally as the young hero's drunk mother. Billy from Ally McBeal (or Dr.Doom from Fantastic Four, if you're into that sort of stuff. ), he's also a grizzled old vet and Travolta's pal. A blonde lady named Bailey is Travolta's niece and the young hero's love interest. She was in some things, I was told. The lady from Punisher:Warzone played one of my favourite characters, the red-headed wife to Iraq veteran man. They live opposite of Bailey's. Then there's also an evil stalker guy who is after Bailey (she's the tapid centre of the stories in that film). Young hero, Iraq veteran man and evil stalker guy are REALLY hard to tell apart. Maybe that's just me.
So the cast is a weird mix of lovely canadian tv actors, US tv actors and John Travolta (with the occasional appearance of Sharon Stone). Travolta is fun when he's in a shot, even though he doesn't do much. He either is tired and a bit haunted (which often is funny) or angry at a pencil-necked geek at company headquarters.
The plot meanders around, but somehow the promise of a storm coming holds the interest. And the stories are somewhat engaging due to Travolta, Billy and the red-haired lady who's married to Iraq veteran man. Also, sometimes evil stalker guy shows up to spice things up (he's just a big jerk though really).
Eventually the storm does come and then the linemen have to help make things right again. They add a rather construed scenario on top, which gives the whole thing extra drama.
Pass. It's a pretty lame film. I mean it's okay to watch and it's funny when ever they say lineman, because they say it a LOT, and when ever they're at their linemen bar and when the red-headed lady is drunk and a bit saucy. But still, it's not a good film. I find people working to keep vital infrastructure running super important. They should be paid lots (more so than bs jobs) and in general, infrastructure should be funded quite well because it's quite important, isn't it. Just thought it'd state that, because in the end the fil gets a bit real, telling us how many linemen die each year and showing the URL Of a website which honours them and such.
Spoiler:
Travolta dies at the end. In a very self-sacrificial way, bascially to save his niece and her unborn child. the last 3 minutes are: .) a shot of a memorial stone they put up, honouring the linemen killed in action with Travolta's character's name on it .) a talking head of the young hero, going into great detail why Travolta's character that the greatest ever and that he really, truly adored that man .) a linemen pop song sung by a lady and a man. It's heart-warming.
Cop Car (2015)
I went into this now knowing anything. Listed as "indie film" - it cost 5 millions according to wikipedia - it sure feels like a small-calibre indie film. It's starring Kevin Bacon, two boys and some other characters. I really want to give away as little as possible on the plot, because it keeps you guessing which direction it goes. Right from the start I was uneasy when the two boys appeared and seemed to be main characters. I'd seen Sleepers TWICE, and I was very worried that this would go in a similar direction. That much I can say - it doesn't.
Bascially the plot is this (not spoiling anything or as little as possible): Two 10/11-ish year old boys find an abandoned police car, find the keys in it, go for a joy ride.
This film was surprising in some ways. It balances gritty, grimy road movie thriller qualities with light-footed comedy and a handful of okay characters which are rather entertaining to watch. The two kid actors are very un-annoying too.
Spoiler:
Have you watched it? Good. One thing to keep in mind and to remind oneself of as soon as the credits roll: "The boy survives and will be fine". I refuse to believe anything else.
Watch It. It's good fun. I really enjoyed the reduced snippet of the larger world it presents to us. The ending is a bit ...sudden maybe, but it works. At points it reminded me of these road movie thrillers which used to get made a lot more (the one with Kurt Russel and his wife who disappears. I'll never be able to watch that film in full; too scary or the one with Jim Belushi with the big belt buckle.). Kevin Bacon is good fun in this,
Spoiler:
switching back and forth between Elmer Fudd/Wile E Coyote and being a real dick.
Oh, another thing this film does well is dialogue. It uses it sparingly (this film generally takes its time and lets the handful of characters act), so when they say something it's more impactfu and actually serves a purpose.
Also watched Müllers Büro, because if Müllers Büro is on TV I'll watch it, but outside of Austria and outside of people born in the early 80s this film will be of nobody's interest.
My wife found the Lord of the Rings extended cut.
Each movie is well over 3 hours, going on 4 hours.
This cut is so much better than the others. More everything and it's fantastic. I feel like these are really nice for any day you have absolutely nothing else going on.
I was kinda alright with Glass. It's not great, and i'm sure there's big logic holes and the forced twistiness doesn't help any. But it's alright. I like stilted dialogues. Wouldn't want anybody in a comicbook film to talk like actual people. Just like I wouldn't want anybody in Star Trek or Star Wars to talk like regular people nowadays. But yeah, it certainly wasn't great.
Nazis fortify a keep in Romania. However, this Keep is the prison for a Demon that wants to get out. As it kills Nazis, they call in a Jewish professor to help them figure out what is going on.
This movie has Jurgen Prochnow, Ian Maclellan, Scott Glen, and Adrian Brody... so it is a stacked cast.
However, it is a bit of an odd duck of a film. There is a reason it is a Cult Classic.
This is the movie about a group of girls trapped in a witch house where the witch has so, so much fun killing them.
I’ll just say watch the trailer, and if you want to see more, the movie delivers.
You’ll almost certainly never see another film where the severed bottom half of a girl named Kung Fu returns from the afterlife to jump kick a painting of a cat so hard it vomits blood.
House is one of my all-time favorite movies! it's such a fun time the whole way through. Obayashi as a director is unmatched (many of his other films, like The Girl Who Leapt Through Time or Casting Blossoms to the Sky, have different tones, but are just as eccentric and well worth checking out)
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Thank you for the recommendations. I can’t wait to see more of this craziness. There wasn’t one minute where I was less than entertained.
Obayashi is really good at keeping things from getting boring! his last four films (Casting Blossoms to the Sky, Seven Weeks, Hanagatami, and Labyrinth of Cinema) are all at least 160 minutes long— and they don't remotely feel their length, because it's constantly engaging and interesting
oh and also while i'm recommending Obayashi films, His Motorcycle, Her Island is a popular one. it's the most lowkey of his films i've seen, but it's got a great tone to it. if you like romance, that's definitely one to check out
I’m mostly looking for his fantastical or surreal films. I’ve heard good things about His Motorcycle. Her Island, too, although I might save his most low key movie for a date night if it’s a romance.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’m mostly looking for his fantastical or surreal films. I’ve heard good things about His Motorcycle. Her Island, too, although I might save his most low key movie for a date night if it’s a romance.
a date night would be the perfect time to watch it, yeah
Nazis fortify a keep in Romania. However, this Keep is the prison for a Demon that wants to get out. As it kills Nazis, they call in a Jewish professor to help them figure out what is going on.
This movie has Jurgen Prochnow, Ian Maclellan, Scott Glen, and Adrian Brody... so it is a stacked cast.
However, it is a bit of an odd duck of a film. There is a reason it is a Cult Classic.
I’m going to have to check out this film. I love Jurgen Prochnow. And I enjoyed the book, although not as much as the later books in what became the Adversary/Repairman Jack series, starting with The Tomb. It’s a shame the movie wasn’t successful enough for us to get a Repairman Jack movie.
Does the movie still have the “crosses” turn out to be
Spoiler:
the hilt and handle of an ancient immortal’s magic sword
? Not sure how that curveball would play out in a movie.
While it's probably the best Predator movie since the first two, it's still only okay.
Just takes way too long to get going, spending too much time making sure the audience knows the main character will be a certified badass eventually, she just needs to do a few more axe throwing montages first.
This was a perfectly fine movie. Script, cast, colour palette, plot and theme all perfectly adequate. I thought the pacing of the film was very good as I never found my attention drifting. The moral of the story is also okay, layed on thick in places but never being obnoxious in it's preaching. So it's a good film that I do recommend watching, but I think only managed it's success by being a cultural moment - much like Black Panther did in the MCU. Which leads me to the sole criticism of the film - that being the identity of the cultural moment is only relevant if you embrace that the identity the movie represents is culturally American. The supposed African kingdom in Black Panther was an American ideal of an African kingdom. And similarly the Barbie ideal is an empowered female perspective so long as that falls within the American view of what Barbie represents. There's nothing wrong with using movies to present these ideals but we should at least recognise the limits of this cultural representation.
Sorry if that was a bit all over the place, and I'm sure it would be easy to pick holes in my thesis, but it's something that was picking at my mind by the end of the film.
While it's probably the best Predator movie since the first two, it's still only okay.
Just takes way too long to get going, spending too much time making sure the audience knows the main character will be a certified badass eventually, she just needs to do a few more axe throwing montages first.
For me, it trod a tricky road with style and panache.
For those of us familiar with Predator and its tropes? They were all in there, but weren’t lazily inserted. For those unfamiliar, or only passingly familiar? We see our heroine learn through obersvation. She knows she’s no match for it physically, so she has to get clever.
Importantly? There are some rug pulls, but done in exactly the right way. For instance, we all must’ve thought we knew how it was going to go when she falls into that bog. And…they sidestep that expectation in a sensible and interesting way, which doesn’t feel like a cop out.
Do you remember those genre mash-up books from the 2000’s, like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies or Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters? The Birds is basically that: a fast-talking screwball comedy that merges into a creature feature. Both parts are well done, but I wouldn’t quite call the movie a masterpiece. The result certainly isn’t worth the alleged abuse behind the camera.
The build up before the attacks and the escalation after the diner scene are worth the price of admission. The seagulls go hard, harder than I expected based on the age of the film. The effects are not convincing, but memorable, sometimes in a laugh out loud kind of way.
Watch it if you want to see a rom com pecked in the face by seagulls.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for Glass, I enjoyed it. But I went in expecting it to be weird and stilted.
Only thing I can think of that would fit vaguely is the perfectly-okay Quigley.
, but Spoony to me is one of the major reasons (lack of talent, drive, etc notwithstanding 
it up.
