Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Caddo Lake (MAX, 2024)

Thought this would be a straight up horror movie based on my impression of a brief teaser, but turned out to be something wildly different.

A girl goes missing on a lake, throwing a family and town into turmoil while a grieving son tries to find closure from his mothers death on same lake.

I enjoyed it, wasn’t like anything I’ve seen in a while.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not really. Renfield is quite slapstick, Abigail is more straight

well, outside of how sunlight makes the vamps go off like they ate a grenade, lol

Conan the Barbarian (The 80's Version)

A childhood favourite.
Grown-up Me can tell it's not technically a good movie, the plot and characterisation are barely there and a lot of stuff just doesn't make much sense (What is that thing kiddie Conan gets shackled to?), but Grown-up Me doesn't care very much.

I still think it's probably the best thing Schwarzenegger ever did, and over 30 years later I'm still annoyed we never got Conan the Conqueror.

I'm pretty sure the Wheel of Pain at the start is a millstone. The kind of thing that donkeys are normally strapped too to walk around. Only in their case they used child slaves and the main thing is that Conan was the only one that kept going, survived and was soon pushing it with ease on his own after many years

He was certainly the last one sold. We see others being unshackled and presumably sold off, as they’re still walking.

 Overread wrote:
I'm pretty sure the Wheel of Pain at the start is a millstone. The kind of thing that donkeys are normally strapped too to walk around. Only in their case they used child slaves and the main thing is that Conan was the only one that kept going, survived and was soon pushing it with ease on his own after many years

That makes sense. It always threw me because it's literally in the middle of nowhere.


Had a bit of a film day today.

Tremors 1, 2 and 3

They're your quintessential low budget creature feature, if you like that sort of thing you'll like these.
Watching all 3 in one day (Even with other films in-between) probably wasn't the wisest choice, as they are all pretty much the same movie, but I still enjoyed all 3.

The Haunted Palace

A Hammer Horror-esque movie with Vincent Price and inspired by work from both Poe and Lovecraft? It's got to be fairly decent, right?
Nope, so very little happens.
Basically, an evil warlock (Price) is killed by an angry mob, 100 years later his great-grandson (Also Price) inherits the titular Haunted Palace, is immediately possessed by his great-grandad, torments the wife a bit, kills a couple locals, another angry mob burns down the palace, leaves it up in the air whether Price is still possessed or not, the end.
There's a little bit more to it than that, but nothing to make the film worth watching.

Conan the Destroyer

While there's a bit more story to it than the first one, I don't think it's quite as good.
Admittedly, they were always going to have trouble topping James Earl Jones as a charismatic villain.

 aku-chan wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I'm pretty sure the Wheel of Pain at the start is a millstone. The kind of thing that donkeys are normally strapped too to walk around. Only in their case they used child slaves and the main thing is that Conan was the only one that kept going, survived and was soon pushing it with ease on his own after many years

That makes sense. It always threw me because it's literally in the middle of nowhere.

Agreed, but it strikes me that its likely one of those "middle of nowhere" that was likely "on the way to somewhere" between the farms and the cities. Thus getting a good passing of people for trade, but also of grains for milling.

I love Tremors 1,2,3 and 4. 2 is my favorite, though. It’s just so much fun.


Conan the Destroyer has good parts, but it’s overall a bad movie. It’s the kind of movie that is awesome to watch as a handful of clips on YouTube.

Are you planning to delve into Red Sonja, aka back door Conan 3?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I love Tremors 1,2,3 and 4. 2 is my favorite, though. It’s just so much fun.


Conan the Destroyer has good parts, but it’s overall a bad movie. It’s the kind of movie that is awesome to watch as a handful of clips on YouTube.

Are you planning to delve into Red Sonja, aka back door Conan 3?

Nope, don't have Red Sonja.

Also didn't know there was a Tremors 4, I'll have to pick both up.

There appear to be 5 sequels and a prequel

Although with Michael Gross passing away a few years back, it seems unlikely that there will be more. Until some studio exec decides to run the old rebooteroonie…

The Tremors movies are good fun. I think I saw the first four ones, but I'm not entirely sure. I'm going to have to catch up on the more recent ones.

The Wolf of Wall Street

A farcical comedy about the rise and fall of a Wall Street broker. Very entertaining movie that especially stood out for the way Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill brought their characters to life.

It also feels well paced and keeps up its momentum through its three hour runtime.

Yeah, I really enjoy Tremors. The sequels less and less with each ongoing film.

Conan is one of the great examples why "story" and "characterization" don't make a good film. I'm more and more intrigued with the idea that these two things can very much be a problem. Like turning anything into a bloody tv show with unnecessary story padding and characterization that borders "somebody telling you about their awesome role-playing character".

Conan has a story and characters.


It's just not an intricate winding complex story, its a straightforward story and characters that are mostly pre-developed and going through life.

I would argue it shows that there's a lot to be said for a simple story told well. That there's nothing wrong with a simple adventure and I think that is something Hollywood has forgotten in its quest to always make things grander and bigger.
There are certainly more than a few films where the story feels rushed or has gaps because they are trying to tell some massive saga with so many twists and intricate turns that it ends up FAR too long for a film and loads gets cut or chopped or moved around and what you get out at the end is a rushed feeling messy story.

Tremors is odd.

The first movie is imo the best overall but 2 is still a fun movie. 3 is meh. The prequel film is actually a fun monster western mash that is better than 3 but not as good as 2, and the sequel trilogy of films all mostly just double down on Burt and while I'd not call any of them good they're at least entertaining popcorn fiction.

 Overread wrote:
Conan has a story and characters.


It's just not an intricate winding complex story, its a straightforward story and characters that are mostly pre-developed and going through life.

I would argue it shows that there's a lot to be said for a simple story told well. That there's nothing wrong with a simple adventure and I think that is something Hollywood has forgotten in its quest to always make things grander and bigger. ....

That's it exactly. It seems like summarizing a character within 20 seconds or less by introducing them properly seems to be a lost art. Watching Robocop again vs. every single Netflix tv show was pretty eye-opening. Or for a more recent example: The Crow vs. The Crow remake. Doesn't mean it's any less complex a character, it just takes less wasted time and fewer wasted words.

And I think that the genius of Conan the Barbarian is 40% Schwarzenegger's performance and 60% John Milius.

Conan’s motivations are kept pretty simple. But relatable. Revenge. He wants to do in the guys that did in his people and his parents.

And we’re treated to a historical appraisal of his early life.

For the sort of film they’re making? That’s plenty, and it also tells us plenty about his world.

And he’s not that far from Pamela and Jason Voorhees really. All three are out for revenge, albeit Conan is avenging himself against the Actual Wrongdoers..

Yep the montage at the start of Conan is well paced. We see his family life established and then ripped from him followed by his fast training

I'd argue that the use of a narrator is also something hollywood has shied away from in films and that's to their own detriment as well. The narrator allows quick establishment of information and lets that montage not just show events but give context to them. Well done a film narrator can establish and end a film conveying lots of information (info dump) in a quick manner that lets the film focus on the meaty middle of the story.

’Salem’s Lot (1979)

No one can escape the terror of 70’s haircuts.


‘Salem’s Lot was made as a TV miniseries, which limited its budget, cinematic scope, and capacity for terror and gore. Getting past that, it does a pretty good job of capturing the creepiness of the story. In terms of vampire movies, ‘Salem’s Lot was foundational, giving us iconic scenes and images that would be reused in all the vampire media that came later, from The Lost Boys to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Fright Night to The Simpsons.

Still, as a TV miniseries from a time before pacing, I wouldn’t recommend it for any but the diehard vampire or King fans. I’m sure the window scenes and the rocking chair scene are on YouTube, for anyone wanting to find them.

I have to disagree so much about narrators. They are ham-fisted at best, and insulting to the audience at worse. I have rarely seen a film where a narrator helped it, instead it is dumping useless detail beyond what we really need to know for the film to work.

Normally, a Narrator is an excuse to not show. Movies should always strive to show and not tell.

However, I am not sure Audience tolerance for showing is as high as it used to be. Movies are getting longer, but they are not necessarily better at showing than the films of yesteryear. Either it is a shrinking art, or audiences are demanding more exposition than ever. Not sure which it is, but I have my suspicions.....

 Easy E wrote:
I have to disagree so much about narrators. They are ham-fisted at best, and insulting to the audience at worse. I have rarely seen a film where a narrator helped it, instead it is dumping useless detail beyond what we really need to know for the film to work.

Normally, a Narrator is an excuse to not show. Movies should always strive to show and not tell.

However, I am not sure Audience tolerance for showing is as high as it used to be. Movies are getting longer, but they are not necessarily better at showing than the films of yesteryear. Either it is a shrinking art, or audiences are demanding more exposition than ever. Not sure which it is, but I have my suspicions.....

In a film a Narrator both shows and tells, though you can argue that a text one like at the start of Starwars is only telling. The thing is they can convey very specific information that isn't left to interpretation on the part of the audience. This basically lets you put context to a montage at a point in the film where you don't have time to show the context. It's setting the stage for the story at the start and helping wrap up the story at the end.

Done right it lets the film pace itself better as now you're either not rushing a huge chunk of setup to get things where you need them (which always ends up with the film feeling forced); or you're not spending so long on the setup that you have ot rush the final because you've no more time.



I do agree that pacing in films seems to be much worse today than in the past; and yeah I'd also argue there's a good many films that are not made to be watched. They might have lots going on and tonnes of advanced CGI and stuff - but its not the same as, say, a Spaghetti Western where if you don't watch it the film falls flat.

Personally, after watching older movies with my kids, it's the audience messing up the balance of show vs. tell. Sure some of it is in the method of delivery but most of it is that the audience wants to know ALL the minutia, doesn't want to be just old it, but doesn't have the patience for it to play out onscreen which can only be done at the level they want in a tv show and not a movie. And when it's a TV show people complain about the plot not advancing while they go over the little stuff people want details on.

Example, I watched They Live with my 10 and 14 year old a few months back. That movie has a right proper blend of show vs. tell that actually had me answering almost no questions about things they didn't get at the end of the movie. The hardest concept for them was that the "heros" died.

I actually feel a bit bad for most story tellers nowadays. It's a really really fine line to walk

Sure, done right a Narrator works.

Sadly, 95% of the time it is done wrong.

 Hulksmash wrote:
....
Example, I watched They Live with my 10 and 14 year old a few months back. That movie has a right proper blend of show vs. tell that actually had me answering almost no questions about things they didn't get at the end of the movie. The hardest concept for them was that the "heros" died.
...

What a film. What a film! Wasn't it a bit too scary for the 10 year old?

John Carpenter is also really good at making a film that's to the point, even if it's about such important and often complicated things such as They Live. Maybe it's the 80s genre film guys who came up in the 70s who just are good at that stuff. Escape from New York establishes its high-concept setting in 3 minutes by means of a slick 1-minute powerpoint presentation, followed by 1,5 minutes of an escape attempt being blown up. If that film had been made in 2015 we'd have 40 minutes of baddies being evil towards nice people all across the city, with constant reminders to "LEAVE THE BRONX". It would be Escape 2000. BEFORE that we'd have gotten a CGI thing showing the Leningrad raid having gone awry (but sat in Alaska whilst trying to liberate it from the North Koren occupational forces), and THEN the film would have started.

Somehow I think that "show" shouldn't always be put over "tell". Often a half-sentence about past things can do more to flesh out a character than a 10 minute flashback along with a 2 minute dialogue. People aren't dumb; they can extract information from one or two sentences without being shown what to think of them.

The Invasion

Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig do their best in this flaccid, uninspired remake of Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.

Craig delivers the film’s sole high point, in the delivery of a speech about how The Pod People’s World is a better world.

Of particular disappointment is the “oh her son is immune therefore we beat them and everyone else goes back to normal because it’s an infection and not a replication”

Watch the 1970’s version instead. It’s vastly, immeasurably superior in every way.

 Sigur wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
....
Example, I watched They Live with my 10 and 14 year old a few months back. That movie has a right proper blend of show vs. tell that actually had me answering almost no questions about things they didn't get at the end of the movie. The hardest concept for them was that the "heros" died.
...

What a film. What a film! Wasn't it a bit too scary for the 10 year old?

John Carpenter is also really good at making a film that's to the point, even if it's about such important and often complicated things such as They Live. Maybe it's the 80s genre film guys who came up in the 70s who just are good at that stuff. Escape from New York establishes its high-concept setting in 3 minutes by means of a slick 1-minute powerpoint presentation, followed by 1,5 minutes of an escape attempt being blown up. If that film had been made in 2015 we'd have 40 minutes of baddies being evil towards nice people all across the city, with constant reminders to "LEAVE THE BRONX". It would be Escape 2000. BEFORE that we'd have gotten a CGI thing showing the Leningrad raid having gone awry (but sat in Alaska whilst trying to liberate it from the North Koren occupational forces), and THEN the film would have started.

Somehow I think that "show" shouldn't always be put over "tell". Often a half-sentence about past things can do more to flesh out a character than a 10 minute flashback along with a 2 minute dialogue. People aren't dumb; they can extract information from one or two sentences without being shown what to think of them.

Sorry, I put dialogue in the "show" category because the exposition is happening on screen and not from an out-of-the narrative character or intro character. Yeah, I am looking at you Princess Irulan!

So if Luke mentions blasting Womp Rats in his T-16 back home, that is showing on the screen the necessary background a movie goer needs to understand why he can get into an X-wing and fly it. We don't need or want a Narrator saying, The T-16 is made by Incom and has similar controls to the Rebel's main fighter, the X-wing which is also made by Incom. Therefore, Luke can fly it successfully. Likewise, we don't really need a scene where Luke talks to Biggs, and Biggs says that the controls for the X-wing are just like the T-16s back home.

Modern movies (and to some extent modern movie goers) are terrible about dropping and picking up on these dialogue cues within the movie. If the viewer is not hit over the head with a metaphorical brick on the screen, then the movie makers/viewers act like the film was inherently flawed or made a huge mistake.

You can see this being done much better in older movies. Of course, this is all, like; my opinion man.

Haunted Mansion

The newer version.
Was expecting a by-the-numbers Disney family film, instead got a pretty decent movie about how destructive and all-consuming grief can be.
Just a surprisingly solid film all round.

Not sure how it compares to the Eddie Murphy version, can't remember much about that one.

Muppets Haunted Mansion is best Haunted Mansion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On exposition?

I worry that a lot of it is fan/criticism driven.

To stick with Luke and the X-Wing? Nowhere in the film is it explained that Luke’s T-16 and the X-Wing are from the same manufacturer, what a T-16 even is, or that it and the X-Wing have near identical flight controls. All of that is from other sources, which one could consider external exposition and backfilling of the universe.

Note I do not consider this approach a bad thing, otherwise I’d have to burn all my GW books, especially the 1st Edition ones.

Then we come to Rey. How am she pilot? How am she Jedi? How am she know how tie shoe? How am she learn walk? How am her learn cook? Because, apparently, suddenly, If It’s Not Shown On Screen Or Specifically Addressed To The Audience (perhaps in a narrator sidebar, ala Rocky Horror?) then it’s actually a gaping, suppurating plot hole, poor writing and Mary-Sue.

No, I’m not attempting to paint those criticising the sequels as some kind of alt-right, basement dwelling swamp donkey of limited thought and attention span, so knock that off. There’s plenty to criticise, even for someone like I who actively enjoy them. But Rey’s skills really aren’t that valid, given Luke isn’t subjected to the same (who did teach him to Force-grab his lightsaber? He’d only ever seen The Force used for a Jedi Mind Trick, and to aid his aim over the Deathstar. Telekinetics is a very different discipline, no? Can’t have been Obi-Wan, as his ghost hadn’t manifested itself at that point, as that comes after his escape)

But the uneven criticism in this specific example is undeniable. And a chunk of it will likely come from “we first saw the OT when we were tiny, to the point it can be difficult to remember a time when we didn’t know it”, and us being adults for the Sequels, and so having a finer eye (or any eye at all, given for the first example we were tiny, and therefore tiny idiots) for film making and that.

Upside of the OT approach? It basically delivered us spin-off media and a richer galaxy to play in, because those who started off playing with background character figures from Kenner with such inventive names as “Walrusman, Snaggletooth and Hammerhead” were the same folk who gave those characters names, history, and for the really lucky ones? An entry in the Tales Of books (which still rank among my favourites).

But there is a flip side to not explaining everything. Because you can go too far the other way and not explain enough. You only need to go back through this thread, unfortunately read more of my drivel, to find films where the plot leaves me baffled as to why anyone is doing anything, and why we as an audience are supposed to care.

There is an argument about the degree of competence shown though. Luke does a couple of small tricks, then proceeds to get overconfident after a bit more training and gets the snot kicked out of him by Darth Vader who is blatantly toying with him. This leads to a satisfying character arc.

Rey is perfect in everything instantly in terms of mental defence and personal lightsabre combat with a master of the arts. She goes to Luke to train, but he doesn't appear to be able to actually teach her anything as she can do it all already. She doesn't appear to learn anything or develop as a character, so its less satisfying. That then leads people to ask the annoying questions and probably go rather further down the rabbit hole than required.

The implication is that the OT happens over a longer timescale as well, while the three sequel films seem to hare through in ultra fast fashion, so even just the implied time available to Luke to develop through personal meditation and study between the films is different.

 aku-chan wrote:
Haunted Mansion

The newer version.
Was expecting a by-the-numbers Disney family film, instead got a pretty decent movie about how destructive and all-consuming grief can be.
Just a surprisingly solid film all round.

Not sure how it compares to the Eddie Murphy version, can't remember much about that one.

It's honestly better imo.

This was a surprisingly solid and very fun film. Knew exactly what kind of movie it was and wasn't ashamed to just be itself.

I enjoyed the new Haunted Mansion, up until the attempted Marvel Skybeam Fight.