Saw Furiosa. Enjoyed it. Did anyone else feel like Scrotus and Rectus were inspired by a pair of Saturday Night Live characters?
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Mystery Science Theater 3000 The Gauntlet (2018)
A Netflix season, new cast but geek royalty like Felicia Day and Patton Oswalt. First up was Mac and Me, and this is the only way I would ever watch that turd.
Now on Atlantic Rim, a mockbuster of Pacific Rim. It's bad.
By which I mean it is very good.
Mac and Me is one of my favorite MST3ks. It only made it funnier that my wife had never heard of Mac and Me and found the aliens to be pure nightmare fuel.
Sadly, that was a film I saw a few times as a kid. My brother and I used to laugh at it, but not as hard as MST3k made me laugh at it.
LordofHats wrote: And like that, with basically no warning or announcement, they drop Godzilla Minus One on Netflix.
About fething time it hit some platform somewhere.
Godzilla Minus One
You can finally watch it on Netflix. It's good so for. This has been your Godzilla Minus One is on Netflix (in the US) PSA.
I also saw Godzilla Minus One a couple days ago, it was really good IMO.
It does two things that stood out to me - it had a compelling human storyline (which is rare for Godzilla films) and it returned to the roots of the original film by making Godzilla a metaphor. In this case a metaphor for PTSD and the unresolved trauma of WW2.
IIRC the budget for the film wasn't that big, and you can tell there's some rough spots where the CGI doesn't quite mesh with the real world people and items on screen, but that's something that happens even in much bigger budgeted movies.
Other than a few stand out visuals and the severe divorce, Spielberg brought nothing to this film. Every character is unlikeable and unrealistically dysfunctional “so the movie can happen”. There were several opportunities for characters to communicate for one minute that could have prevented over an hour of stupidity.
As Richard Geni once asked, “Have you ever seen a movie that slaps you in the face with how stupid it is?” He was talking about Jaws 4, but WOTW2005 would also qualify. Everything from Tim Robbins apparently reprising his role from Howard the Duck to Tom Cruise making every wrong decision to the aliens having the same head and anatomy as their tripods, which were buried undiscovered under Manhattan (and every other modern city) before humanity had civilization so that the Martians could invade much later when humanity had a better chance of stopping them. There’s a scene where he’s looking for his (stupid) daughter and he has to pry open a door and tear off vines to get through, and then starts asking if she came this way. And yet he is leagues smarter than the teenager who keeps running towards the invincible death machines that he saw already destroyed an army so that he can make them pay.
I’d rank this with Peter Jackson’s King Kong in the halls of the most embarrassing remakes. At least Peter Jackson was having fun.
I am a sucker for the "You messed with the wrong guy" genre of films. This fits into that category comfortably. This time Ron Pearlman is the star as the aging but lethal Baker. Plus, as a former baker myself, it tickled me to see the profession held up on screen.
Michael Jai White is a McDonalds. Nowhere near the best available option, but plenty reliable and you know it’s going to be tasty enough.
What’s important is that he has serious screen presence. Which given he’s a martial artist first, actor second is fine with me.
Just think if he had been cast as iron fist instead of the bloke who couldn't do any martial arts! Would have been awesome. As a bonus anyone complaining about the casting could be challenged to defend their view in the ring.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flinty wrote: I have watched The Crow a lot. It pushes all kinds of buttons in my psyche.
The new one looks utterly terrible and misses all of the points of the original.
It was very much of its time. The setting, mood and music are all very 90's. What is the contemporary to 90's goths and that type of music? All I can think of is medway denizens in bluewater and taylor swift etc. That lends itself more to a slasher or other horror film...
ScarletRose wrote: It does two things that stood out to me - it had a compelling human storyline (which is rare for Godzilla films) and it returned to the roots of the original film by making Godzilla a metaphor. In this case a metaphor for PTSD and the unresolved trauma of WW2.
IIRC the budget for the film wasn't that big, and you can tell there's some rough spots where the CGI doesn't quite mesh with the real world people and items on screen, but that's something that happens even in much bigger budgeted movies.
Overall I'd recommend it.
It is estimated to have been roughly $15 million, which is less than a single episode of She-Hulk, which was about $20-25 million an episode.
A Town Called Malus wrote: It strikes me as a film which is telling a story that just doesn't need to be told?
I think having the exact details of how the events of The Omen came about as mostly unknown and only hinted to is quite essential to the atmosphere of the film.
It'd be like trying to explain the origins of the demon in The Exorcist, but thankfully they never made another Exorcist film about Regan specifically, or named that particular demon.
Very good points. I mean that could be said about almost every single prequel, but here especially it's weird. Funnily enough I only saw the original once and the 2005(?) remake with Liev Schreiber twice, but isn't an important bit in both films how they find his mother's grave, dig her up and there's a dog skeleton in the coffin?
I think it's just that thing again where a studio felt paricularly scared and uncreative and the prequel is the safest bet they could make. You can foreshadow to things which are going to happen lateron, everone in the audience is safe in the knowledge that even if this sucks, the actual film is good, and so on.
@Kid_Kyoto: Are the new MST3k seasons any good? I do have netflix, but they don't show up on the platform 'round here, god-knows-why, and Netflix seems to be able to detect my crap VPNs.
@The_Real_Chris: Good point about the crow. I guess I like it so much because the older I get the more I am of my time (which is way past) as well. Is there counter-culture nowadays, or is it all individualized struggle for attention and capital? Not that it wasn't then either, I suppose, because the 90s laid the foundation for neo-con latter capitalist days and such, but: Heck, I want to see and hear gitars! Here's a hint for the next generation: Take a guitar in your hands, have long hair, be young and thin and get on a stage and you're the most desirable person in the world! Maybe I'll put that on my soon-to-be gravestone.
That’s a shame. I’d heard so much about Deathstalker, and seen its sequels in place of honor on the Wheel of the Worst. But “too rapey” is a quality of film I avoid.
Deathstalker 2 and 3 certainly deserve such a place of honor. They're also not all that representative of the first movie. Probably safer to watch if you take moral issues with the first one as well. Deathstalker 4 is a bit of a return to form, as I recall, but unfortunately takes shortcuts by (somewhat jarringly) using footage from the first one.
Deathstalker is a pretty decent entry in the barbarian genre, though. Maybe a bit of a rough start, but I remember it to have reasonable production values, which isn't something you can say for most of those films. If you're interested in the genre after seeing Conan and Red Sonja, I'd actually recommend watching it before movies like Beastmaster or Ator for being close in tone.
I'll leave the parental advisory notes to others. I haven't seen the movie in years. I should probably change that.
The one that’s here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and it’s all out of bubble gum.
Nada is a down on his luck construction worker who stumbles onto the horrible, horrible truth: capitalism, consumerism and exploitation walk among us. They Live is a classic that will ever be a movie that’s More Relevant Now Than Ever. So, yeah, it holds up.
If that doesn’t appeal, here are two other reasons to watch it:
1. The memes.
2. The never-ending alley fight.
Watch it. Buy it. Buy the t-shirt. Buy the Ultra-4k Special Edition.
Consume.
We had a local screening a few months back. I took both my daughters and the wifey to see it. It managed to hold a adhd 9 year olds attention and she had questions. Still love this movie.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: So, you’re saying it’s like the Revenge of the Nerds franchise, where the second one is a lot less …predatory.
I think so, with two caveats. First, it's been a while and I'm going off the memory of my impression at the time more than any memory of the actual movies. I'd have to watch them again to go into any kind of detail. Which I might. I don't have any other plans for the weekend.
And second, I couldn't say about the comparison because I've never seen Revenge of the Nerds. I didn't even know there are sequels.
We had a local screening a few months back. I took both my daughters and the wifey to see it. It managed to hold a adhd 9 year olds attention and she had questions. Still love this movie.
that's the thing. It's so wonderfully straight-up and I have yet to see a person who doesn't like it. Years ago I watched it with a friend who's got very, very little to do with genre films at all, and she liked it fine. They Live is for everyone and should be viewed by everyone.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: That’s a shame. I’d heard so much about Deathstalker, and seen its sequels in place of honor on the Wheel of the Worst. But “too rapey” is a quality of film I avoid.
I have an opinion on that now. Not sure how helpful it is.
The whole rapey thing seems toned down to me for something the movie revels in. In the sense that it's an early 80s movie and it's casual about it in a way you wouldn't get from 70s exploitation movies a few short years earlier. It's kind of lacking in gravity.
The movie isn't all serious in general. It's got a curious split where the parts relevant to progressing the overall story are perfectly serious, but it has a lot of humorous parts sprinkled in for flavor. Whether that humor lands or not we'll leave to personal taste.
I do believe how you take the rapey parts comes down to your outlook. Through the lens of modern western sensibilities you may well be better served not watching the movie. If you can get behind the idea that you're watching a movie that overplays things and is a voyeuristic look at a chaotic evil bad guy running a chaotic evil kingdom in which most characters are chaotic evil and the protagonist gets to be the hero because he's merely chaotic neutral, the exploitation may not get in the way of your enjoyment.
I enjoyed it more than the overly-cartoony Jackie Chan version from the 80's, but, somehow, being live-action emphasises how shallow and generic the property really is. Still an okay action comedy though, and I'll watch more if they make it.
Mortal Kombat: Legends:- Cage Match
I don't know why, but I love these little animated Mortal Kombat movies even though (As someone who hasn't touched the games since the 90's) I don't know who most of the characters are. This one was the best so far, part neon 80's action movie homage, part Johnny Cage origin story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyt0bZms5zU The Cornerstone of Johnny Reb. An excellent surreal comedy and probably the most action packed ending to a history youtube series I've seen. Horrible Histories for Adults.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I was talking about Deathstalker in the context of something I watch with my son. So that last sentence pretty much wraps it up.
It's why I included it.
I'm not terribly comfortable telling other people how to parent, but since it's the better safe than sorry option, there's probably no harm in it. I know teenage me would have liked Deathstalker. Teenage me's parents would have seen things differently, though.
Really solid horror film, about killer dolls and the elderly couple responsible for their creation.
Whilst one of said elderly couple would go on to play Gladys in the incomparable Maid Marian and her Merry Man? The true stars of this film are those behind the makeup and SFX, because they’re both comfortable above par.
There’s a fair amount of “just off camera” to our diminutive killers, which helps build tension in an otherwise very silly movie. But it’s the facial expressions changing so smoothly that really works.
Most definitely worth a watch if you like your horror flicks.
What's the mark of a great movie? The hero is portrayed by a different actor! And Deathstalker II delivers!
While the first movie is a serious entry in the barbarian genre, even if it's spiced up with a measure of humor and has to contend with, well, let's call it budget and talent restraints, in spirit it very much plays it straight. While not devoid of humor, the movie is serious about its story.
Deathstalker II, by contrast, is a straight up comedy. Perhaps it is not even worse for it. The movie's budget seems to be blown on pyrotechnics in a scene that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Costumes are cheap. And it does bear pointing out that this is very much an aberration for the series. Even with a few reasonable efforts, the costumes in Deathstalker II stand out for how lacking they are. Acting? Is there even such a thing? One might doubt it. Perhaps most striking, the original Deathstalker implies that the hero is a barbarian. It's not specifically concerned with categorization, but that is the undertone. Especially since the movie exists in the wake of Conan the Barbarian. In Deathstalker II, the eponymous hero reskilled to be a full blown rogue. Literally and explicitly the prince of thieves. The jokes aren't bad if you have no standards like me, and the comedy does work on the at least somewhat reasonable standard of situational comedy, so it does not stoop to terrible lows. But in light of the original and the successors, it needs to be noted that the movie stands out for the complete shift in tone and genre.
As far as stock footage goes, the movie does use scenes from the original. While not excessive, they stand out. To the movie's credit, it recreates the pig people costume from the first movie to establish continuity.
For a bit more credit. even if I'm not sure it fits the genre, the movie's musical theme isn't just lively but also very memorable.
In light of recent discussions we all know the question posed. The answer is that Deathstalker II has a moderate amount of nudity, limited as you would expect from an 80s movie to boobs, skimpy outfits and skirts that may be too far on the short side. It features a brief rape attempt by evil soldiers who get their comeuppance immediately, so aside from some torn clothes and the implication of what might have happened, it doesn't go anywhere.
Deathstalker III: The Return of Production Values!
What's the mark of a great movie? The hero is portrayed by yet another different actor! And Deathstalker III delivers!
As the most inoffensive part of the series, the lone rape attempt that is shown is very much implied for the most part before the evil soldier trying to have a little bit of fun meets his expected demise. There are of course a few nude scenes, but even compared to the previous movie, they are dialed back.
A positive look at the movie suggests that it's not as bad as its reputation would have you believe. Unlike its predecessor, it features competent action scenes, if tempered by what one assumes is a slim budget. It may not exhibit much professionalism, but you can see and appreciate the effort. At least for the first half of the movie you should not feel foolish for believing that it might have something going for it.
What lets the movie down is that characters show up as is convenient to the plot and its developments, regardless of how nonsensical those appearances are in context. Even for an 80s movie effort, it's kind of shoddy. By modern standards, it is very much farcical. If you add the overplayed main villain and a badly conceived final battle, it's not a movie that can flaunt its merits without having its downsides weigh heavily, and I'd argue too heavily against it.
On the bright side, it does not need to use footage from previous movies and works well creating scenes unique to it. As before, it stands out in the series because of it.
Unlike the previous movie, the sound design is unfortunately lacking and a letdown.
Bonus round:Deathstalker IV: Whatever did we do in the Meantime?
To start, the movie's opening narration acknowledges that women are prizes for the strong to take, so you know what you're in for. In spite of this, the movie isn't terribly rapey. There's a glimpse of an orgy, but mostly the nudity should be no more offensive than the average 80s movie. Even if Deathstalker IV is from the early 90s.
The good news? The original actor is back to play Deathstalker. The not entirely good news? While the opening narration focuses on the first movie, suggesting that this is a direct continuation of that, it also draws on the initial part of Deathstalker III for its story and reinterprets it to a degree to facilitate the fourth movie's story. Compared to previous parts it takes the cake in that it uses footage not just from two previous Deathstalker movies, but also one or possibly two more unaffiliated movies. It's not shy about creating its own scenes, and considering that it's essentially reusing the plot of the first movie it might not even need any of that. But it does rely on those imported scenes nonetheless. That makes it look kind of cheap
Action scenes are kind of competent if you keep the budget in mind, very much reminiscent of the first move.You wouldn't highlight it as the peak of the craft by far, but it's not hilariously bad either.
Compared to the previous entries you might consider that the movie shows a measure of representation you wouldn't expect from 80s or legacy 80s movies in that a side villain is a lesbian bimbo who's put in her place by a straight bimbo while participating in a tournament held by a sorceress bimbo. In spite of the mostly implied male dominance of male characters over female characters, the movie shows a measure of progressive spirit.
Time for a light-hearted Rom-Com with Anne Hathaway and Jason Sudeikas (sp) where a party-girl from NYC returns to her hometown roots and reconnects with an old classmate. Throw in some magical realism where she is somehow connected with a giant Kaiju in Seoul SK.
If you were expecting some light fare with a magical realism twist.... well, you are in for something much, much darker. This is really a movie about addiction, obsession, domestic violence, and control.
It is not nearly as fun as the premise or cast would have you believe. It gets dark fast, and ends still kinda' dark.
If you wanted to have a nice little date-night with the missus with a Rom-Com Kaiju movie, please look elsewhere. This is not the movie you are looking for. If you are looking for an exploration of the darkness found in suburban communities, than you are on the right track.
What's the mark of a great movie? The hero is portrayed by a different actor! And Deathstalker II delivers!
While the first movie is a serious entry in the barbarian genre, even if it's spiced up with a measure of humor and has to contend with, well, let's call it budget and talent restraints, in spirit it very much plays it straight. While not devoid of humor, the movie is serious about its story.
Deathstalker II, by contrast, is a straight up comedy. Perhaps it is not even worse for it. The movie's budget seems to be blown on pyrotechnics in a scene that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Costumes are cheap. And it does bear pointing out that this is very much an aberration for the series. Even with a few reasonable efforts, the costumes in Deathstalker II stand out for how lacking they are. Acting? Is there even such a thing? One might doubt it. Perhaps most striking, the original Deathstalker implies that the hero is a barbarian. It's not specifically concerned with categorization, but that is the undertone. Especially since the movie exists in the wake of Conan the Barbarian. In Deathstalker II, the eponymous hero reskilled to be a full blown rogue. Literally and explicitly the prince of thieves. The jokes aren't bad if you have no standards like me, and the comedy does work on the at least somewhat reasonable standard of situational comedy, so it does not stoop to terrible lows. But in light of the original and the successors, it needs to be noted that the movie stands out for the complete shift in tone and genre.
As far as stock footage goes, the movie does use scenes from the original. While not excessive, they stand out. To the movie's credit, it recreates the pig people costume from the first movie to establish continuity.
For a bit more credit. even if I'm not sure it fits the genre, the movie's musical theme isn't just lively but also very memorable.
In light of recent discussions we all know the question posed. The answer is that Deathstalker II has a moderate amount of nudity, limited as you would expect from an 80s movie to boobs, skimpy outfits and skirts that may be too far on the short side. It features a brief rape attempt by evil soldiers who get their comeuppance immediately, so aside from some torn clothes and the implication of what might have happened, it doesn't go anywhere.
Deathstalker III: The Return of Production Values!
What's the mark of a great movie? The hero is portrayed by yet another different actor! And Deathstalker III delivers!
As the most inoffensive part of the series, the lone rape attempt that is shown is very much implied for the most part before the evil soldier trying to have a little bit of fun meets his expected demise. There are of course a few nude scenes, but even compared to the previous movie, they are dialed back.
A positive look at the movie suggests that it's not as bad as its reputation would have you believe. Unlike its predecessor, it features competent action scenes, if tempered by what one assumes is a slim budget. It may not exhibit much professionalism, but you can see and appreciate the effort. At least for the first half of the movie you should not feel foolish for believing that it might have something going for it.
What lets the movie down is that characters show up as is convenient to the plot and its developments, regardless of how nonsensical those appearances are in context. Even for an 80s movie effort, it's kind of shoddy. By modern standards, it is very much farcical. If you add the overplayed main villain and a badly conceived final battle, it's not a movie that can flaunt its merits without having its downsides weigh heavily, and I'd argue too heavily against it.
On the bright side, it does not need to use footage from previous movies and works well creating scenes unique to it. As before, it stands out in the series because of it.
Unlike the previous movie, the sound design is unfortunately lacking and a letdown.
Bonus round:Deathstalker IV: Whatever did we do in the Meantime?
To start, the movie's opening narration acknowledges that women are prizes for the strong to take, so you know what you're in for. In spite of this, the movie isn't terribly rapey. There's a glimpse of an orgy, but mostly the nudity should be no more offensive than the average 80s movie. Even if Deathstalker IV is from the early 90s.
The good news? The original actor is back to play Deathstalker. The not entirely good news? While the opening narration focuses on the first movie, suggesting that this is a direct continuation of that, it also draws on the initial part of Deathstalker III for its story and reinterprets it to a degree to facilitate the fourth movie's story. Compared to previous parts it takes the cake in that it uses footage not just from two previous Deathstalker movies, but also one or possibly two more unaffiliated movies. It's not shy about creating its own scenes, and considering that it's essentially reusing the plot of the first movie it might not even need any of that. But it does rely on those imported scenes nonetheless. That makes it look kind of cheap
Action scenes are kind of competent if you keep the budget in mind, very much reminiscent of the first move.You wouldn't highlight it as the peak of the craft by far, but it's not hilariously bad either.
Compared to the previous entries you might consider that the movie shows a measure of representation you wouldn't expect from 80s or legacy 80s movies in that a side villain is a lesbian bimbo who's put in her place by a straight bimbo while participating in a tournament held by a sorceress bimbo. In spite of the mostly implied male dominance of male characters over female characters, the movie shows a measure of progressive spirit.
Thanks for the run-down. I really like how we're rating Deathstalker films soley on how 'rapey' they are.
Never seen much Deathstalker in general. I think I've maybe seen Deathstalker 2 once, and Deathstalker 3 about six times in the MST3k version. I can at any point recall the funny village fair music from my mind.
Nah, the new one lacks all the charm of the old film I think. The old one felt much more like the original rollerball to me (albeit cheesier and with less brains). Of the new one I've seen about 20 minutes, but it all felt rather cheap and boring I hate to say. Even though I like Statham as much as the next guy. He's one of the few action guys we have left.
Not seen any films lately (well, I've watched The Final Sacrifice, but I doubt that that counts), except for about 20 minutes of When Harry Met Sally. That was really good. I gotta watch more films in which a grown-up man talks to a grown-up woman as they walk through a fictionalized version of the real world.
Want more swords and fantast? I present Ator the Invincible. Apparently their are other Ator films which explains the scenes from a far better movie. Truly one of the worse films I have seen, we called it Ator the unwatchable.
Ator the Invincible is *checks notes* the second Ator movie and indeed, it's not good. Ator the Fighting Eagle is the first one and a passable barbarian movie. I'd consider it worth watching if you're interest in the barbarian movies of the 80s, but hardly a top pick.
I think I also saw The Invincible first and Fighting Eagle second, and wasn't impressed with The Invincible. I obviously felt it lacking in character introductions, but I think I had more to say about its issues. Been a long time, though.
There's another Ator movie from a few years later, Iron Warrior. As I recall it manages to be even worse.
Did you like The Secret Life of Pets? Because this has the same quality.
If I had to describe it with a single word, that word would be “unnecessary”. It also feels like a generic pets movie with an edges-sanded-off Garfield thrown in for box office appeal. Jon isn’t even pathetic. It’s barely a Garfield movie.
The opening monologue takes a lot of the fun out of the movie. However, this is still a fun little trip with some great set-design and art design.
Baby Cart at the River Styx
My first Lone Wolf and Cub movie, which is a bit surprising to me, since I love me some Samurai Movies. This one is definitely a more grindhouse take on the subject and very episodic in nature. Has some of the same issues as Deathstalked as rape is a key plotpoint in several points.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The Dark City director’s cut doesn’t have the opening voiceover. I think it might be on Tubi, or maybe Prime. We watched it fairly recently.
It still holds up as the best Sci Fi noir I’ve seen.
The version I watched was on Tubi.
I immediately started thinking about how I could make this into something playable as an RPG.
Is most definitely a film, a film with a lotbof action and colour... also has Chris Hemsworth chewing on every set piece and having a good time.
Only 2 parts that snapped me out of the world.
1)
Spoiler:
How Furiosa managed to tie up the chain, grab a motorbike, escape on said motorbike while bring surrounded by about 50 people, and having only just lost her arm. Sorry, but that is a bit too much to accept.
2)
Spoiler:
The fate of Dementus... yeah, again, suspension of disbelief can only go so far before it snaps. This was the second time that happened. Hope it was all in Furiosa's head, and he did die of the seizure, but the History man's account of what happened goes against this.
Still, an excellent film, and one thatbis well worth the watch.
I’m in the mindset that the events are all told by the History Man (like the Feral Kid and the Plane Children in earlier films), so there is a bit of myth making going on. The films seem to be depicting a heightened version of reality, filled with monstrous people in monstrous vehicles. Of course, there’s no indication where the reality behind the myth ends and legend takes over…
Is most definitely a film, a film with a lotbof action and colour... also has Chris Hemsworth chewing on every set piece and having a good time.
Only 2 parts that snapped me out of the world.
1)
Spoiler:
How Furiosa managed to tie up the chain, grab a motorbike, escape on said motorbike while bring surrounded by about 50 people, and having only just lost her arm. Sorry, but that is a bit too much to accept.
2)
Spoiler:
The fate of Dementus... yeah, again, suspension of disbelief can only go so far before it snaps. This was the second time that happened. Hope it was all in Furiosa's head, and he did die of the seizure, but the History man's account of what happened goes against this.
Still, an excellent film, and one thatbis well worth the watch.
Spoiler:
Furiosa was set free by one of Dementus' gang. As Dementus comes around and sees her arm hanging there, you can see one of his gang putting away a machete in the background. Furiosa grabbed a bike and rode away with all of the others when Dementus told them all to go home and nobody could see who was who due to all the dust.
Is most definitely a film, a film with a lotbof action and colour... also has Chris Hemsworth chewing on every set piece and having a good time.
Only 2 parts that snapped me out of the world.
1)
Spoiler:
How Furiosa managed to tie up the chain, grab a motorbike, escape on said motorbike while bring surrounded by about 50 people, and having only just lost her arm. Sorry, but that is a bit too much to accept.
2)
Spoiler:
The fate of Dementus... yeah, again, suspension of disbelief can only go so far before it snaps. This was the second time that happened. Hope it was all in Furiosa's head, and he did die of the seizure, but the History man's account of what happened goes against this.
Still, an excellent film, and one thatbis well worth the watch.
Spoiler:
Furiosa was set free by one of Dementus' gang. As Dementus comes around and sees her arm hanging there, you can see one of his gang putting away a machete in the background. Furiosa grabbed a bike and rode away with all of the others when Dementus told them all to go home and nobody could see who was who due to all the dust.
Spoiler:
I took the machete to be the one used to finish off Pretorian Jack, hence Dementus' shock in seeing Furiosa not still hanging on the chain. Also doesn't explain how she'd be able to tie the chain around the rear axle of the monster truck, and operate a dirt bike with an arm missing, especially as she'd be unable to operate the clutch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’m in the mindset that the events are all told by the History Man (like the Feral Kid and the Plane Children in earlier films), so there is a bit of myth making going on. The films seem to be depicting a heightened version of reality, filled with monstrous people in monstrous vehicles. Of course, there’s no indication where the reality behind the myth ends and legend takes over…
Spoiler:
Aye, having Dementus die of the seizure would be a further tragedy for Furiosa, as she'd be robbed of the revenge. So naturally she would have conjured up fantasies of how she did kill Dementus.
broke a long filmwatching draught to rewatch The Atomic Cafe with my girlfriend (her first time seeing it)
it's such a fascinating film for the way it portrays the social, economic, and military relationship with the atomic bomb and atomic energy in culture at the time. or in other words, it's a great example of how flying rodent gak insane the US is. highly recommend giving it a watch if you can
I’m gonna spoiler the next bit despite this not being terribly new, because the plot is one best viewed with minimal knowledge.
Spoiler:
Starts out as a sci-fi UFO movie, with strange goings on going on over a Californian Ranch. Such as items falling from the sky, electrical blackouts and others.
The plot is carefully paced, as our protagonists slowly, carefully piece things together, and come up with a plan based on their observations
And along the way? It becomes a Creature Feature. A creature feature touching on one of my favourite tinfoil but not that crazy hypothesis, that unknown lifeforms may lurk in our upper atmosphere.
This is a very, very well made film. The case are superb, the pacing is excellent. The plot is novel, if an evolution of films that came before.
Long may Jordan Peele continue to thrill us with his movies.
I've waited a long time to watch this one, seeing as it is now on Netflix, I watched it last night.
Spoiler:
Firstly, I get the themes of the film, and there are quite a few. The main one seems to be a fusion of how we treat animals and our collective fascination with dangerous situations. This is why the Gordy story woven through out the film is very relevant.
Now, that all said. I found it to be quite dull, the pace was meandering for the first half, the main characters were unbelievable, with Keke Palmer's character being just down right annoying, while Daniel Kaluuya's characters could have been replaced by a robot.
The creature, now this was interesting, and with it the film stumbles upon some territory I think was unintended. The creature when unfurled is something that primitive humans would have thought of as being divine, add in how it brings people up to the sky in a column of moving air, and we have a creature that could be something that has been recorded and documented for thousands of years. We just had them as being celestial creatures, that are the envoys of heaven seen throughout numerous religious texts.
But sadly this is a Jordan Peele film, so the theme takes centre stage over context. Which is infuriating as first and foremost a film is there to entertain, this film did not achieve that. Again, fantastic concepts just poorly executed.
The disturbing children’s cartoon from the 80’s. No, the other one. The one with the rat experiments and the owl.
My son wanted to see this because my wife always brought it up as a cartoon too disturbing to show him when he was little. It didn’t bother him much as he’s a tween now.
Anyway, The Secret Of NIMH is a Don Bluth film about recently-widowed Mrs Brisby, and the constant danger and trauma she experiences moving her home. If you’ve never seen a Don Bluth film, it’s like Disney animation with a harder edge and more style—and, I can’t stress this enough, the characters are in a seemingly endless state of peril. Even the kind characters look warped and monstrous.
Besides some really creepy character design, the background art has the same color palette and texture as early Warhammer art. The various environments are evocative and richly detailed while the cel animation has this characteristic bounce and weave, and everything except for the mice and the crow has jagged edges or unsettling teeth.
If you like western animation at all, check this film out…or at least one of the big Don Bluth hits.
How is this movie actually good? Like, not blow your socks off Deadpool shocker good, but honestly better than it has any right to be and actually better than it probably needed to be?
It's actually good. What the hell. It's fun. It didn't go lazy with every reference. it played up characters with basically no personality in a way that gave them personality but mostly works.
I mean, Mario is kind of the weakest part of the film (also Toad) but Bowser, Peach, and Luigi and DK. Man.
It's almost annoying this movie is good but it is so there we are.
I had the opportunity to see this the other day.
It's better than fury Road. And I agree smushing the two movies together would make for a really good movie. I'd trim out, from fury road, as much of Max as was possible to make that movie. If we only saw him when it was a Furiosa pov I think that would be how I would have done it.
Granted that's not very doable from Fury road.
Furiosa was again visually very nice but I enjoyed Immortan Joe and his "triumvirate" of warlords.
Dementor was a fun character. His warband of bikers reminded me of the Mongol Horde. I enjoyed that he was more or less a Rockstar as far as he had the cool and the showmanship all that flash.
One of the fun bits I liked was the people living in holes like trapdoor spiders in that ditch.
I wish this movie had come out before fury road and maybe we would have gotten something better than fury road. With only one viewing I don't quite get what Furiosa had against Immortan Joe. I'll watch this again in a few months or a year.
From a big picture stand point I would have liked to have seen Immortan Joe handing over his empire to one of his perfectly healthy grand kids in a generation or two if he was able to live that long, had his schemes come to fruition. I think it's a question of what's better rolling the dice on scavenger warbands or a despotic warlord who is providing a semblance of stability.
And I'll finish with, I'd like to know what ended the green place. I'd like to see that movie.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Funny the widely differing views of Furiosa. Very much people watching same film and getting wildly different take away assessments.
I would hope so.
Started the week enjoying the classics. The thing, Aliens, Mad Max beyond Thunderdome. Then Beowulf and Grendel. Finished the week with Deep Blue sea 2 and 3 last night.
All were a good time. In the thing we tried to follow all the clues as best we could as to who the thing was/were at any point and time in the movie and I always try to trach the Whisky bottle. And of course the Key situation as in who took the keys to access the blood they keep on hand. Being inebriated makes this a challenge.
Aliens, it jumped out at me that near the end of the movie when Burk's plot was revealed prior to the face hugger incident, Ripley could have played him good and gotten what she wanted. ruining Burk in the process. But she was pissed and all that. I imagined her just manipulating Burk to get them off LV426 back to the ship then revealing Burks plot and once again nuking the colony. He carried on about the price of the atmosphere processor. All she had to do was ask if the two specimens were more valuable and lead him on.
I'd remake the third movie. Ripley makes it home and gets a call about bugs but she says she's retired and go find someone else, We could film next week and it would be a clean hand off. If only.
Thunderdome. It's our favorite Mad Max move. I enjoy looking at barter town and all the people. There's a lot of flavor in this movie and it isn't just pork byproducts.
Beowulf and Grendel. another fun movie where being a hero isn't as straight forward as people think. Grendel throwing stones at Beowulf and shouting at him rather than fighting him is funny. I recall that movie was a disaster to film. I think I recall their boat sinking at one point. I could be misremembering.
Deep Blue sea(s). I like that they kept the story continuity from movie to movie and I kinda wish there were a few more of these cheesy movies.
The second one makes me laugh at the brilliance of the guy who owns the company and how he can't seem to be smart enough to spend more money on his research facility or do anything actually smart, prior to the events of the movie. Where's his big boat that one would imagine a person that rich would have to use as a floating research station. He doesn't want his work saved to the cloud so again why not have loads of had wired hard drives in a perfectly safe boat not under water in a rickety tin can.
He' taking all these brain power boosting drugs and every time he does all I can hear is 'If only I were smarter". sadly I can't recall which anime that was from. ( Was it Ranma? )
The third Deep blue sea is just comedy. One guy is going to make a big statement and a big show of changing sides. He dives into the sea and never makes it. He's taken by a jumping shark. There is a lot of shark jumping in this movie.
It was alright. Mia Goth plays a psychopath called Pearl, and she does psychotic things.
Little Bone Lodge
This is pretty superb. Joely Richardson leads in a pretty effective horror flick. One grump is its set in the Scottish Highlands, and there’s but a single Scottish accent.
Knock At The Cabin
M Night Shyamalan. Heard positive opinions of this, and Dave Bautista is of course superb. Oh and hey, there’s Rupert Grint! Nice to see him back on our screens.
Pretty good, though the differences from the book were pronounced, but never mind. No stupid sonic weapons though, so even better.
The Beekeeper
Why did I do that? Statham is so awful his movies bring everyone down to his level. Jemma Redgrave, Jeremy Irons and Minnie Driver are in this (let's call it a) movie. They must have fancied buying a close relative a new car or something. I doubt either of them'll put this on their CV.
The Fellowship of the Ring
Ah! That's better. Never get's old. Pretty much a classic, now. Though I'd forgotten that Concerning Hobbits isn't in the 'regular' version.
Why did I do that? Statham is so awful his movies bring everyone down to his level. Jemma Redgrave, Jeremy Irons and Minnie Driver are in this (let's call it a) movie. They must have fancied buying a close relative a new car or something. I doubt either of them'll put this on their CV.
Both the wife and I really enjoyed Beekeeper. The thing is, at some point you just have to give up and realize that anything that Jason Statham is in, is by default a Jason statham movie. It's just its own genre at this point. If you go in expecting Jason Statham doing Jason Statham things, you'll have a good time. If you're going in expecting deep plot and anything even remotely resembling higher level thought, yeah, you're probably not gonna think highly of the film.
The Stath is a legend. Mostly because he just doesn’t age. I swear he was born looking like a late 30’s meathead, and a late 30’s meathead he has remained. Frozen in amber.
Also, Wikipedia reckons his films have brought in $1,500,000,000 at box office.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Watching The Beekeeper now.
Kinda fun to watch crypto bro and scammers go squish.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Blue Beetle
Kind of a mash up of Spider-Man and Iron Man.
It’s not without its own charm, and it’s at least a decent enough mash up and rehash. Certainly a stronger entry in the DCEU or whatever they don’t call it.
Kinda fun to watch crypto bro and scammers go squish. ....
That definately sounds like somehting I could get on board with.
I like Staham. He's a good action guy and juuuust good enough an actor for his films to work for what they are. And at this point I'm happy about any genre B-film guy that still exists. Didn't know this film starred Minnie Driver. Or Jeremy Irons for that matter, but I'm not suprised if he popped up in anything. Minnie Driver can make a big return though any time I think. She doesn't strike me as the sort that has to be young to make it big.
I watched a film last night. German 8-million Euros budget action film which spun off from a tv crime series which is running since 1970. It's Tschiller: Off Duty (2016) and it's starring Til Schweiger.
Action policeman NICK TSCHILLER and his goofy action policeman friend (Fahri Yardım, really good as always) go look for Tschiller's 17 year old daughter (played by Schweiger's actual daughter who since then appeared in pretty much all his films as far as I know) who went to Turkey to kill her mother's murderer or something. The plan goes belly-up, she is kidnapped by a very hammy and very villain.
It's a pretty swift, somewhat light-footed action film the like of which we don't see very often any more. Part revenge film, part dad-film, part buddy film, all action film across Germany, Turkey and Moskow. It's very funny how in terms of not-very-clever action films, Turkey is Germany's Mexico. This gets very appearant, since everything in Turkey is tinted yellow, and everything in Germany is tinted blue. Moskow looks pretty much like a regular film, or I was just too tired to notice what colour it was.
Schweiger co-produced the film (and got a ton of public funding too), and I assume that he had a lot of say in the whole thing. Sadly, him and his daughter (who is basically a drugged-up thing to be carried around for 90% of the times she's on screen anyway) probably are the weakest parts of the film. Schweiger is perfectly fine in action scenes, and the tiny little character bits work OK because he usually has Fahri Yardim opposite to him in those. The main bad guy (who as it turns out is only a sub-bad guy, but really he's the main bad guy of the piece) hams it up to huge degrees, but still I didn't enjoy seeing him. Not the least because he IS a bad guy with not a single redeeming quality. It's all an action cartoon thing really, with some rather harsh undertones. So not for all the family.
And it goes long. 140 bloody minutes! Halfway through I thought that this would be over soon, but it kept going. On the one hand, it's not too bad because there is plenty of action and scenery changes and so on. On the other hand, for a film like that, that's pretty long. But you get a bit of everything: exotic locations, lots of bad men, a small handful of good men (fun fact: the film was banned in Ukraine in 2016 because it depicted Russian secret service in a positive light), they even added two female roles (apart from the daughter, who IRL competes in showjumping, I learned) as well.
Overall though, it's not bad at all as a low(er) budget action flick. Don't watch any other Til Schweiger films (CERTAINLY not his comedies of the past 10 years), but to be honest, I thought that this was perfectly OK for what it wants to be. The action is good, there are even one or two inspired things in there. The supporting cast isn't bad, there's several different locations. You can Watch It, if you're in the mood for inexpensive action, can stand the sight of Schweiger and German genre films in general.
What can I say. It is a modern PIxar sequel to a much better original.
It is better than Elemental but not better than the source material. It was fine. However, it did talk about mental health in a respectful and useful way, so that is good.
After seeing the Tom Cruise version, we had to get the bad taste out of our mouths. Metaphorically. Also literally because we’d eaten some Trader Joe’s pickle popcorn. Anyway…
WOTW is a classic 50’s alien invasion film. The heroes are a scientist, his female companion egghead (with a master’s degree in 1950’s USA), the fast acting military man, the priest who dies by science, and a busload of other poindexters who get carjacked in LA. The villains are Martians with one of the most iconic war machine designs in all science fiction, and also goofy puppet bodies. Watch the Martian war machines blow stuff up good, including some famous LA landmarks in scenes of cataclysmic destruction directly responsible for ID4.
This is a film so good it didn’t get an 80’s remake, it got an 80’s continuation TV series via syndication that surely scarred hundreds of children mentally.
The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension
The one with the jaunty end credits walking sequence.
So, I guess this movie is supposed to feel
Like a middle issue in a comic book series or an old time serial. The characters all have convoluted backstories and ridiculously developed skill sets. BB is a neurosurgeon physicist rock and roll martial arts astronaut, for example. And it only gets weirder from there when his experimental rocket car breaks the dimensional barrier giving New Jersey-exiled space Hitler the means to wreak havok. Then he meets his dead wife’s twin sister.
I like the idea of Buckaroo Banzai more than I actually enjoy the movie. It’s kind of a slog in the second half, with a weak climax. However, it has a stacked cast, with Peter Weller, Clancy Brown, Christopher Lloyd, Jeff Goldblum, Dan Hedeya, and a bunch of other familiar faces. You also need to see it if you want to understand all of the non-anime Star Trek Easter eggs.
If you watch it, wait for the walking sequence in the end credits. It’s the most imitated part of the movie.
Easy E wrote: Was that the syndicated show with the Highlander- Adrian Paul in it?
Yes, although he’s only in the second season. The first season is more like the X-Files, where the aliens invaders can burrow into a person to take them over, but the host body starts to rot and eventually melt, assuming they (or their victims) don’t meet an even more gruesome end.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: A 50’s sci-fi so good, it doesn’t feel like a 50’s sci-fi. And of course, it gave us what is to my ear the definitive ray-gun firing sound.
The sound design in WOTW is next level. I agree the heat ray sound effect is the definitive ray gun noise, but there’s also the ominous hiss-rattle of the scanner and the proto-blaster sound effect of the molecular disintegrators.
Saw that this flick was based on a book by the author who wrote “Let the Right One In”, which was adapted to a fairly excellent vampire flick, and then into a less than excellent American version. Figured it was worth a rent. I somewhat regret it, as it was pretty boring.
Premise:
On a hot summer day in Oslo, the dead mysteriously awaken, and three families are thrown into chaos when their recently deceased loved ones come back to them.
Interesting premise, and 3 very different stories of loss/grief and some form of acceptance in their own way, I think. There is an absolutely brutal scene with a rabbit in front of a horrified kid, but its by and large a pretty dull movie. There are many moments of creeping dread, anticipating the zombies doing what zombies do, but they aren’t nearly enough to satisfy a horror fan. This is a drama vignette with horror elements. Sad, for sure, but not nearly enough heart or substance to make it have an impact. YMMV. Probably would’ve been better served by cutting 2 of the 3 families and just focus on fleshing out the remaining family so that the emotions slapped harder.
Somehow even in my misspent youth of films like Animal House, Revenge of the Nerds and Bachelor Party I never caught this one, it is... odd.
Sometimes it's a raunchy 80s teen comedy, sometimes it's an afterschool special about drinking, drugs, sex, pregnancy and abortion. Sean Penn's stoner character seems to be imported from another film entirely.
Kind of a random stream of consciousness film. Neither bad nor good, glad I saw it, not sure I liked it.
Emperor's New Groove (Disney +)
~2000 Disney animated comedy, the one where David Spade is an Inca Emperor and gets turned into a llama and is saved by John Goodman and Patrick (Puddy/The Tick) Warburton. That one.
Troubled production, rewritten and recut several times with several songs by Sting ending up on the cutting room floor. But still honestly, really, truly good. Warburton steals the show and gets to star in the direct to video sequel. See it.
I can’t speak for Student, but on my behalf I’ll reply with a Simpsons gif. Next you’ll be telling me Wreck-It Ralph isn’t based on a video game.
Eraserhead
Some people just aren’t cut out for parenthood.
My son had been asking to watch a David Lynch movie, so I finally caved with this one. It was an uncomfortable and sometimes disturbing watch, in a good way. I could see it hitting someone with relationship issues or postpartum depression a lot harder, though.
The story is a surreal study of a man struggling to get through life without facial expressions who suddenly finds himself in a new and broken marriage with a child he feels no bond with. I mean, he’s less emotionally connected to his kid than Worf is to Alexander. It’s a nightmare.
The film has one of the best “meet the parents”l scenes of all time and the “monster” effects are excellent and will definitely haunt me when I hear a baby crying.
I can’t say I recommend it to everyone. If you like weird and disturbing, check it out.
A 70's Italian movie about a woman trying to figure out how she lost 3 days and why she keeps dreaming about astronauts abandoned on the moon.
This one sounded interesting, but after an hour the only significant things that had happened were Alice (The woman) discovering she'd lost days and travelling to a hotel she (Or someone that looked like her) may have stayed at, so I gave up.
Desperately needed more story and less shots of a woman anxiously smoking.
After seeing the Tom Cruise version, we had to get the bad taste out of our mouths. Metaphorically. Also literally because we’d eaten some Trader Joe’s pickle popcorn. Anyway…
WOTW is a classic 50’s alien invasion film. The heroes are a scientist, his female companion egghead (with a master’s degree in 1950’s USA), the fast acting military man, the priest who dies by science, and a busload of other poindexters who get carjacked in LA. The villains are Martians with one of the most iconic war machine designs in all science fiction, and also goofy puppet bodies. Watch the Martian war machines blow stuff up good, including some famous LA landmarks in scenes of cataclysmic destruction directly responsible for ID4.
This is a film so good it didn’t get an 80’s remake, it got an 80’s continuation TV series via syndication that surely scarred hundreds of children mentally.
That version of TWOTW is iconic! And responsible for the best cameo in Ready Player One. I'll have to watch it again (TWOTW, not RPO). I think I saw maybe one random episode of the tv show. Is it out there in streaming land or DVD world? Was it any good?
See, this thread does win friends and influence people!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, what a man Dr Forester is. Doesn’t bat an eyelid at a pretty young woman not just being a scientist, but one with a Master’s degree, he’s alos a chisel jawed 1950’s hero who doesn’t smoke.
No Thunderchild moment. It may be due to Jeff Wayne’s excellent prog rock musical take, but that to me is such an important scene.
However, fair is fair. Jeff Wayne’s is set in the original turn of the century period, 1953 post WW2 and into the infancy of the Atomic Age. And so we’re looking at vastly different and far more destructive, not to mention numerous, weapons at mankind’s disposal.
Hence why the Martian saucers are given shields rendering them proof even against Nukes. So the shields prevent a Thunderchild moment, and without them, the Martians would’ve faced much stiffer resistance and a very different story.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Little Monsters
Fred Savage! Howie Mandel! Marv from Home Alone! Fred Savage’s Little Brother and Sister! Kevin’s Big Brother from Home Alone!
And a film I’ve always confused with The Monster Squad. And it’s a pretty decent gross out 80’s kids comedy.
Shades of Beetlejuice with Maurice the Monster, a dash of Drop Dead Fred, and almost certainly an influence on Monsters Inc.
No. Really. Look at Maurice and Sully’s designs. And Google suggests one of the designers for Beetlejuice was responsible for the monsters. And pretty decent they look too.
While the gross out elements might be a bit much for some kids? I’d have loved this as a nipper. And it’s a pretty decent entry movie to the wider horror genre.
Little Monsters got my brother in trouble at school for something he did with a Gatorade bottle. But that’s not why my parents banned us from watching it.
We were watching (a particularly gory) Tales from the Crypt when my mom walked in and demanded to know what movie we were watching.
That version of TWOTW is iconic! And responsible for the best cameo in Ready Player One. I'll have to watch it again (TWOTW, not RPO). I think I saw maybe one random episode of the tv show. Is it out there in streaming land or DVD world? Was it any good?
Last time I checked, it was on YouTube. It might also be on Tubi. I was really into the series when I was young, so I’m reluctant to rewatch it in case it disappoints me like She Wolf or London/Love and Curses.
Some of my friends had nightmares from the surprisingly gory effects (for television). I had a Fangoria subscription, so I loved it, at least during the first season.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, what a man Dr Forester is. Doesn’t bat an eyelid at a pretty young woman not just being a scientist, but one with a Master’s degree, he’s alos a chisel jawed 1950’s hero who doesn’t smoke.
Yeah, I was expecting it to be a lot more “old fashioned” in its treatment of women, like Star Trek TOS. I was preparing to have some conversations about the context of the times with my son, but never needed to (other than answering his question why she screamed ‘hysterically’ sometimes like she was in a 50’s horror film). But the film was surprisingly progressive in that the women were treated with the same respect due to any chisel-jawed scientist. More so with regards to the commanding head of the Biology department, who seemed to be second only to Forrester in the knows gak category.
I also really appreciated that Forrester was no two-fisted hero. Every time he got into a physical confrontation (with a human) he got his ass handed to him like the nerd he is.
Also, he’s really sympathetic with Sylvia once they’ve escaped the initial attack and she’s feeling like a wreck.
Sure he compliments her appearance, but it was the 50’s, and he first lists all the things she’s just been through in a really short period of time. And that frames the “and you still look great” as something light heartedly encouraging and not creepy/demeaning.
The Crites are back! On Earth! And they’re still hungry! And still Puppets! And it seems to be a Latter Day Sequel, rather than a reboot.
It’s…OK. Not as hatstand as the originals, so it’s not quite the full shilling. But it still has its moments of amusement.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think I’ve worked out what’s annoying me about it. It’s the Crites not enjoying themselves as much.
Like Gremlins, Crites should be malevolent little gits having a great time. And that twisted humour just isn’t real there in this film.
And with younger protagonists (no Charlie, no Ug for instance) it feels like it’s pulling its punches for a matching younger audience. And that’s to its mild detriment.
Because don’t get me wrong, this is still enjoyable. But it’s not as crazy or manic as the originals, and that’s disappointing to me.
I dare say if this was someone’s first Critters movie, it’s a decent jumping off point. But I’d have the first ones on hand all the same.
The Hitchcock classic where Jimmy Stewart plays a detective paralyzed by his fear of dolly zooms.
It was fine.
The first half was great. The second half felt like a slow deflation with a failed tragic ending. A slide whistle, trombone and Three Stooges sound effects might not have saved the ending, but they’d sure fit.
My favorite character was the city of San Francisco.
Streets of Fire is a timeless classic that is also super 80’s. It’s got romance, action and kickass music. All your favorite 80’s movie cliches, from Roadhouse to Fame, dress to the nines and trade snappy barbs in a nightlife city evoking The Warriors and Batman’s Gotham. SOF then masterfully pulls off the triumphant final concert that The Last Dragon and Howard the Duck tripped on.
If you enjoy character actors, you’ll find an “it’s that guy!” every five minutes. I don’t want to ruin who the bartender is, but you love him. My one big complaint is that the lead male actor is so completely outclassed by everyone else in the movie he almost disappears.
I can’t say enough good things about the soundtrack. The score is excellent. The performance songs are up there with the best Bonnie Tyler and Meatloaf ballads, perfect, perfect distilled 80’s.
Watch it!
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go find “Tonight is What it Means to be Young” on YouTube.
A classic for bloody good reason. Certainly to my mind the first mainstream movie which isn’t at all shy about the horrors of fighting a war.
Our protagonists absolutely are heroes, but still just men doing their best in horrific circumstances. And yet, they’re not all good men, as we see the execution of surrendering Germans.
It of course paved the way for Band of Brothers, Fury and many other bits of media in a similar “warts and all” vein. But this was the first to really break out, and possibly the first made.
I'd say though that SPR is kind of a post Platoon/FMG/Apocalypse now film. It depicts war as still being hard, but also focuses more on comradery, nobility, and how war can build people up rather than just tear them down. It's less oppressively nihilistic about war and being a solider than the previous generation of war films, willing to explore beyond the horrors of death and destruction to let little moments of friendship and courage really shine rather than just be the pointless waste that comes before horrific ends.
Slasher flick but you follow the movie monster, not the victims for nearly every step of the film. And I'll give them credit. It's an interesting idea. Bold.
But the plot suffers horribly for it, turning the film into one long 'follow a guy walking menacingly around while he kills some kids.'
I wish the movie endeavored to do something more creative with it. Tell an old-fashioned story in a new way rather than just follow the killer around between gory kills. Or maybe tell the killer's story even. For the life of me the movie alludes to the movie monster having feelings and stuff, but I couldn't tell you what they're supposed to be or why they aren't just the usual shallow excuse for a slasher film to explain some gory murders.
The gimmick is cool. It's kind of neat to watch for that alone but the movie otherwise makes a bold choice and proceeds to do nothing with it.
I just watched Moonraker (the 007 movie where Bond goes to spaaaace!) again the other night, and I have to say that it's possibly the cheesiest of all of the Bond movies. In other words, perfect for Roger Moore's version of the iconic character. So much of the space stuff just was so wrong in that movie; I kept saying "That's not how physics works!" over and over again just like I usually do when I watch Armageddon (another cheesy space movie). It's fairly obvious that Moonraker was the Bond filmmakers' attempt to cash in on the success of Star Wars, complete with a big pew pew laser battle.
All that being said, it's still a Bond movie, and I enjoy the movie in spite of its flaws.
About halfway through at the moment... Decided it was time to revisit it, as I watched it when I was about 17 and was completely underwhelmed. Teenage me was confused about what the apes were doing there, didn't mind the middle bit, and hated the ending.
Since then, I've read the book several times so understand why the apes are there, although I expect to still hate the ending.
It does strike me though that if the moon landing was faked, it wasn't by Kubrick. The special effects in 2001, while undoubtedly excellent by the standards of the time, have not held up as well as those in the moon landing video.
It is beautifully shot, though, and still a cool story. Aside from the ending.
I can never hate the end of 2001, not since my teacher told us how he had seen the film in a theater in San Francisco and during the big lightshow at the end, some guy tripping balls jumped up, shouted something about seeing God, and ran straight into and through the screen.
Anyway, 2001 was one of those films I was super impressed by in high school, alongside Full Metal Jacket, until one day I went to rewatch it and found it dull, self important and unimpressive. Something clicked in me and I just can’t stand Kubrick films anymore.
I think it's very much a product of the times. Like the three-week-long flyaround of the Enterprise A in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the drawn-out, musical scored space scenes would have been much more impressive to audiences seeing that sort of thing for the first time.
It does drag a little, bit I love all of the little touches to make the sets feel lived-in, and the choice to do the EVA scenes with just the sound of the astronauts' breathing is kind of cool as a contrast to all of the usual overly-sound-effect-laden space scenes we're all more used to.
Audience Firsts are definitely something it’s easy to lose sight of.
Whether they’re the result of clever special effects now commonplace even on TV, or a scene approved by censors for the first time in a horror film which by today’s standards is now extremely tame? We in the modern day find it easy to forget when a given scene was innovative.
An almost modern example? The Matrix’s use of “bullet time”. It was mind blowing at the time, an original and visually striking exploitation of CGI. But then….every bugger started using it. The same with wire fighting to western eyes. Amazing at first, then quickly deemed passed as everyone jumped on that band wagon.
Other TV based examples? The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. To those like me who hadn’t (and still haven’t) read the source material, having seemingly main characters killed off left, right and centre was quite the novelty after decades of Plot Armoured Heroes.
Another example off the top of my head? MCU post credit scenes and teasers. For a while it was the MCU’s thing. Now lots of people do it, and they’re incredibly funny when they’re on a film that was meant to kick start a shared universe but instead buried it 600’ under. Like Tom Cruise, The Mummy and the Universal Monster Universe.
ZergSmasher wrote: I just watched Moonraker (the 007 movie where Bond goes to spaaaace!) again the other night, and I have to say that it's possibly the cheesiest of all of the Bond movies. In other words, perfect for Roger Moore's version of the iconic character. So much of the space stuff just was so wrong in that movie; I kept saying "That's not how physics works!" over and over again just like I usually do when I watch Armageddon (another cheesy space movie). It's fairly obvious that Moonraker was the Bond filmmakers' attempt to cash in on the success of Star Wars, complete with a big pew pew laser battle.
All that being said, it's still a Bond movie, and I enjoy the movie in spite of its flaws.
Moonraker is my favorite Bond movie. Moore is up there as one of my favorite Bonds, and as you say, going to space fits him perfectly. it's a silly film, but that's what James Bond has always been
oh, and the space station set was incredible. James Bond has never lacked for great sets, but it's one of the best
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Audience Firsts are definitely something it’s easy to lose sight of.
Whether they’re the result of clever special effects now commonplace even on TV, or a scene approved by censors for the first time in a horror film which by today’s standards is now extremely tame? We in the modern day find it easy to forget when a given scene was innovative.
An almost modern example? The Matrix’s use of “bullet time”. It was mind blowing at the time, an original and visually striking exploitation of CGI. But then….every bugger started using it. The same with wire fighting to western eyes. Amazing at first, then quickly deemed passed as everyone jumped on that band wagon.
i watched The Matrix for the first time a few years ago, and what struck me most of all is that bar maybe one scene, i had seen it all before. references in other films, clips in video essays on youtube, homages, so on and so on. the film has become so utterly ingrained into pop culture that you don't even need to watch The Matrix anymore to watch The Matrix (but, of course, you should. no one does The Matrix better than The Matrix)
(PS: calling The Matrix "modern" is funny. the film is barely younger than me)
I did say almost modern you young whipper snapper you!
But yeah, The Matrix is definitely a victim of its own impact. Not just its lacklustre sequels, yet everyone jumping on the bandwagon, burying its originality in meme status.
Star Wars suffered the same, with the opening “that is a huuuuuuge ship” shot being spoofed and pinched and repurposed all over the shop, along with the other innovations being hired out to other productions.
It’s not a moan as such. Good effects are good, and help improve cinema overall. But it does muddy the waters as to just how impactful and breathtaking the first use was.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Flash
Crap CGI! Including I think an inexplicably CGI Batfleck! Worse use of super speed than the two redeeming scenes in those otherwise fairly ropey X-Men films! Instantly unlikable lead star! Absolutely no thought given to the impact of rapid deceleration on the human body! A script I’m sure someone thought was actually witty!
So low effort, you can tell the opening scene was filmed in Glasgow, because nobody thought to change the road signs or traffic lights.
Oh good. Gal Gadot is back to remind us she still needs acting lessons.
Ayyyy! Sanjeev Bhaskar! What did he do to deserve being in this cinematic drivel? He brought us the sublime Going For An English for heaven’s sake.
Will it get worse than the opening 20 minutes or so?
Automatically Appended Next Post: 45 minutes left to go, and it’s still crap.
Plot is nonsensical. It’s ripping off Spider-Man, Winter Soldier and End Game, with absolutely no charm.
Our main character is just utterly unsympathetic.
Keaton Batman does of course serve as a high point, but what a way to crap all over his legacy. Leaning far too much into ‘member berries over anything like wit and a snappy script. It’d also internally inconsistent. Barry 2 phases for the first time? Clothes don’t follow. Second time? Clothes follow.
Overall a fun, if pretty derivative outing. We’ve pound shop versions of better known Marvel characters and settings, and as is seemingly sadly par of the DCEU, decidedly ropey and inconsistent CGI.
On balance, it is fun enough to be worth your time, but I think I’d have felt ripped off by a cinema price.
A pretty comfortably 6.5/10.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Shazam, Fury of the Gods
Now this is a proper fun movie, and not a piece of the scenery is without tooth marks. Fun heroes, fun and effective enough villains.
And unlike the last two I reviewed? Not directly ripping off other movies, and for once the DCEU has solid effects.
Overall a fun, if pretty derivative outing. We’ve pound shop versions of better known Marvel characters and settings, and as is seemingly sadly par of the DCEU, decidedly ropey and inconsistent CGI.
On balance, it is fun enough to be worth your time, but I think I’d have felt ripped off by a cinema price.
A pretty comfortably 6.5/10.
Just saw this last week as it's finally made its way to basic cable. I definitely agree with the CGI not being up to snuff at times (Sabbac is particularly bad, and every time they mention him, I wonder why they're talking about a card game?).
80’s Dan Aykroyd as Joe Friday teams up with 80’s Tom Hanks to take on 80’s Christopher Plummer’s evil band of P.A.G.A.N.s. The film has decent comedy, decent action, a rap version of the theme song for the closing *and* opening credits, and one joke you will remember for the rest of your life.
Oddly enough, Dragnet had two music videos, and the Art of Noise video is the second best. If you have any love for art or music or joy, you owe it to yourself to watch Dan and Tom go Full Will Smith.
Dragnet was fun. Haven't seen it in ages, but the baddies organization left an impression on me.
Now. The Matrix. A very modern film OF COURSE. Iconic as hell. Years ago I sat with two ladyfriends and got raving about how great that film was and how it was just the right film at just the right time. They didn't like it, they said it was just some computer nerds power fantasy. :| That's where that dialogue ended. Oh well. No, the Matrix - apart from being just a rock solid, exciting action film - paved the way for everything in Western (and probably Indian too) action cinema thereafter. The influence is just so prevalent that we often don't notice I think. I think that in terms of how films were shot, tinted, looked and so on it possibly was more impactful than Star Wars.
Of course NYPD Blue did away with main character plot armour, but I wouldn't dare to scratch GoT's legacy.
I'm watching the three Gundam films on Netflix. Very nice. Loads of nice characters, I love the designs of all the machines, I like the family-like dynamics of the White Base crew, I like Amuro, I'm having loads of fun with Char. He certainly isn't your regular Darth Vader type (which I initially thought he was). The whole conflict isn't too black and white, it's all lovely.
Goodness. I was in Linear Algebra and Differential Equations when the Matrix came out. That ad campaign, “No one can be told what the matrix is”, was the I Didn’t Do It of the math department, by turns hilarious and infuriating.
…
I cannot hate the Flash no matter how bad it is because it gave me Nicholas Cage’s Superman fighting a giant spider. That and the George Clooney cameo were two of the best fan service experiences I’ve had in years.
….
About the baddies from Dragnet—I always love a good evil cult. Dragnet and Young Sherlock Holmes had the two best cults led by robed socialites wearing animal masks. I’m not sure I could choose between them.
I mean, You g Sherlock Holmes has that Waxing Elizabeth Etare Rametep chant, a fantastic bit of music, but Christopher Plummer’s virgin sacrifice rhyme is too cute. “White and pure as driven snow/ From Orange County, here we go!” Brilliant.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Shazam: Fury of the Gods was fun in a cheesy Krull or Doctor Mordred of way. But it was budgeted like an Iron Man. Without the DC baggage, it still would have bombed, but I think it would be remembered fondly as a cult classic like House 2 or Legend.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: I think it's very much a product of the times. Like the three-week-long flyaround of the Enterprise A in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the drawn-out, musical scored space scenes would have been much more impressive to audiences seeing that sort of thing for the first time.
It does drag a little, bit I love all of the little touches to make the sets feel lived-in, and the choice to do the EVA scenes with just the sound of the astronauts' breathing is kind of cool as a contrast to all of the usual overly-sound-effect-laden space scenes we're all more used to.
It’s not the space scenes that are the problem for me.
Bobtheinquisitor wrote: I cannot hate the Flash no matter how bad it is because it gave me Nicholas Cage’s Superman fighting a giant spider. That and the George Clooney cameo were two of the best fan service experiences I’ve had in years
Not even Barry Allen’s moronic laugh, which you just know is Ezra Miller’s real laugh, and was laughed when they were busy choking people, stalking people, threatening people, harassing people, committing burglary etc etc?
I hadn’t really followed that news before seeing the movie, just like I saw The Road Warrior before I heard Mel Gibson tell his wife to get ******** by a ******* of ********, so it wasn’t on my mind at the time. In retrospect, I would never want to watch the film again, but would absolutely recommend watching clips of Nicholas Cage on YouTube.
To some extent I generally try to separate the artists from their art unless their objectionable qualities become inextricably linked to their art (like Kanye). In this case, Ezra Miller isn’t a talented enough actor to warrant the effort.
Sigur wrote: Now. The Matrix. A very modern film OF COURSE. Iconic as hell. Years ago I sat with two ladyfriends and got raving about how great that film was and how it was just the right film at just the right time. They didn't like it, they said it was just some computer nerds power fantasy. :| That's where that dialogue ended. Oh well. No, the Matrix - apart from being just a rock solid, exciting action film - paved the way for everything in Western (and probably Indian too) action cinema thereafter. The influence is just so prevalent that we often don't notice I think. I think that in terms of how films were shot, tinted, looked and so on it possibly was more impactful than Star Wars.
To be fair, on the surface Matrix is just a superhero origin movie. Two decades later, especially after the run of good Marvel movies we got for a decade, its original impact would be gone for good because the context in which the movie exists to first time viewers is now completely different.
I watched all four movies last week, and the fourth one for the first time. The first three are fine. I've never been big on the Matrix, but they have enough going for them to keep interest through the many drawn out, stylized scenes of the second and third movie. The new one? I suppose the first half is okay as a parody of the original movie. I'm not even sure anymore what I watched, other than half a comedy movie. Watching the movies back to back, I did notice a discrepancy in the sets and maybe overall cinematography between the first three and the fourth one. The latter didn't catch the slick and rich look, for lack of a better expression, of the originals. Bit of a shame. But then it doesn't feel like the movie added anything to a concluded story, so whatever.
Absolutely phenomenal. A bum number at 2h 20m, but riveting, and quite unlike any prequel origins story I’ve seen, as it’s more of a biopic of our titular heroine.
It gets a real sense of time across, each segment flowing into the next despite often significant chronological gaps.
Most impressively? It dovetails in the previously non-canonical Mad Max video game, with Scrotus and Chumbucket being canonised.
That being said? If you didn’t enjoy Fury Road, there’s really not a lot here for you. Whilst a very different kind of film, it is still Mad Max in that specific vein, despite the slower and more deliberate pace.
I’m particularly taken with certain scenes which really harken back the previous Mad Max films in terms of style, really making the wasteland a terrifying place to exist.
Because I needed something rather specific rather quickly I finally caved and got that amazon prime trial week thingy.
Naturally I had a look at their video library. Boy, what a clusterhowdy. "You can watch this, but you gotta pay extra.", or "You can watch this for free, IF you also get a free trial week for some other streaming service!". And it's all mingled together. In the end I found somehting I'd wanted to watch ever since it came out back in 2017.
The Wall (2017)
A war film taking place in Iraq in 2007, directed by Doug Liman (does he have an ever interesting filmography!). Starring Aaron Taylor Johnson, who apparently is British, I read to my surprise and a post-Marine-, but pre-wacky-comedy phase John Cena.
The plot is this: Two US soldiers get pinned down by an enemy sniper and sit behind a wall. Kinda like the last 15 minutes of Full Metal Jacket. This wall is great. It's like this singular piece of terrain you put on the gaming table without any rhyme or reason. No other walls within 2km, just a single straight wall. For this film I'll allow it, on a gaming table it always looks kinda funny. It's also the wonkiest wall in the world. I'm sure that a lot can be read into it, its properties and what happens to it during the film, but either should be done by a much more clever or much less clever person than me.
Anyway, this premise got me hooked ever since I heard of it, because usually this is about 2 minutes of a film even though there is a LOT of potential in the situation. It's not a long film; about an hour and 17 minutes, and I feel like they didn't get the whole potential out of the premise, but I liked it alright.
Spoiler:
A few points: .) When the baddie pretends to be a US soldier on the radio he sounds like every single person in every single Call of Duty like game. .) Mr.Cena spends more time on the ground than he did throughout his whole WWE career! Ha! I'm sure that this very clever observation has been made by every single hack review writer.
A slightly more useful point: .) For most of the film, this actually feels like a slasher film. I actually like the characterization of the baddie. How he pretends to take revenge for what the US have done to his home, but really, he's just a mad git. He's clever and chatty and of course is classically educated. His plan is rather clever and probably fits the scenario very well, but it's also rather amusingly simple.
.) For a bit it gets even more metaphysical and I thought that maybe the main guy's just in hell or somehting, which would have been pretty lame. Not a bad allegory given the scenario, but kinda lame.
Yeah, I liked it just fine. If you wanna read into the thing I'm sure you could have hours of fun digging into it, but I'm not sure if it's worth it. But if you think that the premise is interesting you should Watch It.
No idea why, but just now I'm reminded of that Australian(?) thriller film in which the sniper dude has the teenagers behind the car pinned down. That one had more action and more screaming and so on, but I enjoyed it less. Btw, I'm NO fan of snipers. Okay, that's a given, but take it in the context of the tabletoppy-wargamey world we all inhabit. Some people have this fascination with them, I find them creepy and just unappealing. Maybe that's why I was so intrigued with that film.
Oh, I also caught a good chunk of that film where Vin Diesel plays a bulky lawyer who's got hair on his head. He sure looks more relateable in that role, and it's always cited as some of his best work, but somehow he still didn't convince me.
Let's start with the big thing. The movie is actually good. Weird, right? How did that happen?
Probably because while there's a ton of Beverly Hills Cop in there, it's also simply a well made action comedy cop movie that doesn't need all the nostalgia bait (of which there is plenty) to appeal. It also benefits from the complete absence of borderline super heroic feats in the original movies, so an elderly Eddie Murphy playing and elderly Axel Foley isn't actually too old for this gak and can believably play the role in a way that, say, Harrison Ford can't pull off anymore as Indiana Jones.
The production value and themes are there. There's a bit of modernization and a look at how things have changed over the years add a sense that the main character is not frozen in time, which seems like a fitting way of adding something worthwhile to the series.
Bonus points for an appearance of Luis Guzman as a bit of a goofball cartel boss.
An observation I made is that while the movie doesn't explicitly disown Beverly Hills Cop III, there are a few hints that suggest Axel F is to be understood as a continuation of the first two movies more than the third one. Not as in the third movie didn't happen, but more acknowledging that the first two movies are good and the third one is not, and we shouldn't give that movie any more thought than absolutely necessary.
Finally, as I learned from discussions of Ghostbusters Afterlife, apparently a movie can be too reverential of its forebears for some people's taste. I could see those same people have similar issues with Axel F. They got pretty much all the old actors together, some set decorations might stand out too much as references to the old movies and they made the good choice to use some of the songs from the first movie to get those 80s vibes back that got lost in the mania of the third movie's 90sness.
Overall if you like the first two movies, I think you might enjoy Axel F. It's not flawless, but as far as I'm concerned it has a lot of good going for it and it's nowhere near an embarrassment to the franchise as some other late sequels might be. And it's not Beverly Hills Cop III.
Some (Fury Road, Furiosa etc) are fantastic additions to the tale. Others are just lazy “remember the 80’s, do you? Do you remember? The 80’s. Remember?” affairs.
What makes good ones good? I’d say carrying its lineage on its sleeve proudly, without being afraid to be its own thing,
Ghostbusters Afterlife pulled that off nicely, and it didn’t poop all over its preceding films for shock value.
I honestly don’t know, as I’m not entirely convinced good story telling is tied to budget.
Some rely entirely on ‘Member Berries. Like a cinematic Peter Kay, constantly asking if we ‘member this or ‘member that.
Others play with the tropes of the property, offering a new take or translation, without ignoring or sending up everything that came before.
Another example of a genuinely brilliant Latter Day Sequel? Prey.
That is a stellar film which really delivered, but went straight to streaming. It wasn’t good because of a given budget, but because the writer, directors, producers and actors all seemed to have a strong understanding of what makes a Predator a compelling villain, even though it’s really not in the movie that much. All on a modest $65m budget.
Another one I mentioned is Fury Road, which had at least a $154m budget.
Both are excellent and worth additions to their respective franchises with bold ideas and strong storytelling.
Because I’m a simpleton who’s easy to please I’m currently trying to think of really bad latter day sequels. They are out there like, and I’m not that easily pleased.
I guess maybe Prometheus. $120m or so budget. And it managed to ask a super interesting question “where did the Xenomorph come from”, then present the most boring of all possible answers in a muddled, confusing movie full of unlikable and unsympathetic characters doing increasingly stupid things.
There are far worse examples (Prometheus was at least visually beautiful!) and I’ll come back when I’ve dredged one up.
I guess maybe Prometheus. $120m or so budget. And it managed to ask a super interesting question “where did the Xenomorph come from”, then present the most boring of all possible answers in a muddled, confusing movie full of unlikable and unsympathetic characters doing increasingly stupid things.
I'd point out this is what Prometheus marketed itself as.
But then that whole question turned out to be a huge footnote in the movie, which was actually asking 'Like, what if God was just a dude, bro? And like, what if we're god, man. Blows your mind man. Don't you see how deep and profound we're being man? Come on man this is so big just think about it bro!'
Covenant interestingly tried to double down on both questions and did both even worse imo, despite having better action bits here and there.
As for crummy sequels, Prey is fantastic, but dear god, can you imagine The Predator had been an actual studio backed project, and not some awful fan film that never ever actually happened? Just how bad would a movie have to be, that fans near universally ignore that it was ever talked about existing. It's pretty freaking bad. Lots of fans gak on the sequel trilogy, but even they weren't so bad that the people who didn't like them are grateful they don't exist.
I’m the first to admit I like a lot of not very good movies. I’m an optimistic kind of idiot and can usually find something to enjoy to redeem even the ropiest of movies.
That can range from “I see where they were going, and where it didn’t work, but I applaud the effort” to “oh Deity Of Your Prefefence this is so camp and it doesn’t even know it”.
But The Predator just….doesn’t make any sense. At all. Worse than that? It’s boring. An action adventure film following on from some classics, with a super cool villain? And it’s boring. That to me is its worse crime. For all Prometheus and Covenant’s many flaws? They’re not completely boring and do have their moments. Or perhaps a moment.
But The Predator is just boredom committed to celluloid.
Compare to Predators. Now that is a dodgy film I really enjoy. The wheels come off in the last bit, sure. But I love the concept of Predators figuring out “hey, these humans are fun to hunt! Let’s abduct some and give them a sporting chance!”. And it’s got some genuinely cracking scenes.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I honestly don’t know, as I’m not entirely convinced good story telling is tied to budget.
.....
Yeah, I wasn't referring to budget. Netflix pump ungodly amounts into their lame films. I was more referring to actual people being behind a film that's meant to be a film rather than "the algorithm says this is how to tie people to our website for 2 hours" - "couldn't we make it into a tv show instead? That'll tie them down for 8 hours.". Stuff like that.
I very much agree that a good film has little to do with budget. In fact I think that from a certain amount of money there necessarily is a detrimental effect on the quality of the film, simply because it becomes too much of a risk to the producers to have it fail.
I’m still working on my media literacy, as in trying to understand why I do or don’t like a thing. And indeed, why I like a thing others don’t, or even I find to be sub-average but still got a kick out of.
It’s paying off, as whilst I don’t pretend I’m convincing others I can at least make an argument as to why I enjoy stuff others don’t. And hopefully without pooping on the opinions of said other folk.
And I guess somethings? Somethings just tickle the pickle in ways we genuinely can’t explain. And there’s nowt wrong with that. If you like a thing, you like a thing.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m still working on my media literacy, as in trying to understand why I do or don’t like a thing. And indeed, why I like a thing others don’t, or even I find to be sub-average but still got a kick out of.
It’s paying off, as whilst I don’t pretend I’m convincing others I can at least make an argument as to why I enjoy stuff others don’t. And hopefully without pooping on the opinions of said other folk.
And I guess somethings? Somethings just tickle the pickle in ways we genuinely can’t explain. And there’s nowt wrong with that. If you like a thing, you like a thing.
i have a blog where i write essays about media, and there's definitely a strong difficulty in describing why you like things sometimes. i would consider myself quite literate in this way, and there's still a lot of times where i can only shrug and say, i like it because i like it. to paraphrase an anime i still need to finish, sometimes it's just that good things are good
i have a blog where i write essays about media, and there's definitely a strong difficulty in describing why you like things sometimes. i would consider myself quite literate in this way, and there's still a lot of times where i can only shrug and say, i like it because i like it. to paraphrase an anime i still need to finish, sometimes it's just that good things are good
I had a classmate in my career schooling in the army who was an extended relative of a VERY well known hollywood name. This classmate had a double major bachelor's degree, majoring in film making, and political science.
This dude was probably the most technically well versed person I personally know with regard to cinema and film making. Our small cadre of students would gather in the day room and watch whatever movies had a semi-consensus, and invariably, he'd dissect, scene by scene, what the director was trying to do, what they got right, what they got wrong, etc. Some movies, he'd point out were brilliant because they were textbook execution of all the best tricks for camera work/setting up shots. Some movies, he'd pick apart showing how huge a steaming pile the whole film was, but yet it was popular because the story and acting chops carried over top of the shoddy camera work.
And finally, some of his favorite movies had it all: absolute gak camera/cinematography, an absolute hair-brained story, actors phoning in the role, their co-actors absolutely over-acting every little scene. . . In short, this should be among the worst movies of all time, but they were his favorite because: "I dunno, I just like it"
Nice to know it’s not just me being a bit thick 🤣🤣
I do still enjoy trying to understand stuff. For instance, the battle over Endor lands well because of how the shots are composed, not least giving us a solid sense of scale between the various ships. That was lacking in the Prequels, and so I still can quite envisage how much larger a First Order Resurgent Class Star Destroyer is compared to an Imperial Class Star Destroyer.
The same thing happens in TFA, with Han’s new ship. It’s clearly quite large, very comfortably landing the Falcon. But, the interior scenes make it seem….really small.
Now fixing those wouldn’t great films make like. But now I understand how such comparatively trivial things impact engrossment? I can look for other “almost, but not quite” elements which combined detract from the whole.
Compare the excellent Battle of Scarrif. That Hammerhead Cruiser is tiny. Yet, because space physics (and I dare say at least some artistic license), it’s able to push a crippled Star Destroyer into another, taking out all three ships. That’s a cool application of scale and a truly stand out scene in an already terrific battle.
I’ll still entirely unapologetically enjoy the sequels, because I do.
If Disney want to make all of the money, can they not just hire whoever composed the Battle Scariff scene and get them to do a decent Rogue Squadron series? Is it too much to ask?
Just don't let whoever did the Exogal scene know anything about it as they may irretrievably pollute the team.
I've been watching The Critical Drinker's videos recently, and while I don't agree with all of his viewpoints, I get his point about a good film comes from a good story, using characters that get a development arc from a writer that respects established lore in the universe and isn't just using it as a vehicle to ram a political or social agenda down the viewer's throats. He has some interesting points about viewers being able to spot when characters act in ways contrary to expectation, and therefore feeling less satisfied as a result as it just devolves into "well, I guess this happens now" territory, rather than a satisfying story arc.
Other free military streaming films (or at least they were) that are different to the hollywood US fare and are excellent are The Siege of Jadotville (Irish in Congo) and Danger Close: The Battle of Long Tan (Aussies in Vietnam).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flinty wrote: If Disney want to make all of the money, can they not just hire whoever composed the Battle Scariff scene and get them to do a decent Rogue Squadron series? Is it too much to ask?
Given all a team has to do is go find a good autobiography, remember most of the pilots will die, and film it with lasers. I suggest Samurai! if they want to do a story using Tie fighters.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m still working on my media literacy, as in trying to understand why I do or don’t like a thing. And indeed, why I like a thing others don’t, or even I find to be sub-average but still got a kick out of.
It’s paying off, as whilst I don’t pretend I’m convincing others I can at least make an argument as to why I enjoy stuff others don’t. And hopefully without pooping on the opinions of said other folk.
And I guess somethings? Somethings just tickle the pickle in ways we genuinely can’t explain. And there’s nowt wrong with that. If you like a thing, you like a thing.
That's a good take. I'm increasinly worried that I only like old stuff because I'm starting to get seriously old. But when I watch old stuff and new stuff... man, the old stuff is so often so much better. Which makes me worry more. But I guess that's just the natural order of things.
@The_Real_Chris: Oh, I meant to watch Danger Close for a while now! Got a bunch of 15mm Vietnam ANZACs and North Vietnamese army a bunch of months ago. I'm especially interested in the New Zealand stuff.
So I'm still on amazon Prime for a few more days. Was very pleased to see that Harley Davidson & The Marlboro Man are on there! Been meaning to re-watch that for ages. Great sci-fi (ehem) silly-men-will-be-silly-men films. Somehow this always struck me as a companion piece to Tango&Cash, but with a way better last third. Harley Davidson & The Marlboro Man is better than Tango&Cash though.
I love this film, almost as much as the mind blowingly brilliant and satirical first.
But the opening scenes bug me.
See, we get some scrotes doing a relative smash and grab on a gun store. When the Police are on strike.
Now this is a gun store with serious firepower in it. The legality of which, given the break down of law and order in Old Detroit is questionable in terms of what it’s satirsing.
And….the owner wasn’t prepared at all?
I mean, surely the robbers should’ve entered scene and obtained an immediate Face Full Of Lead?
Luckily the rest is really good, so I’ll let this slide!
The owner might have been well prepared - but a bomb went off in their face moments before the smash and grab. We see them knocked down, bloody and very clearly half out of it during the raid.
Heck that's likely why they used a bomb in the first place; entirely disabling the owner and any weapons they might have reached for.
Naw more likely they visited the store as customers earlier in the day and hid/left a bomb somewhere in the store that didn't get noticed, then just waited out the explosion.
Could even be one was an employee and hid it during worktime then left and waited.
I can't help but think Pitt, Bullock, and Tatum all filmed this on the side while making The Lost City
This is a goofy action film where some sort of operative gets on a train for a simple job and things get out of control fast, as he is not the only one on this train.
Loads of weirdness, snappy dialogue, bizarre asides, and interesting characters. A fun time, and I noticed Antoine Fuqua was a producer and all the pieces started to fall into place for me. Plus, I am a sucker for Train-base action movies like Gene Hackman's {b]Narrow Margin[/b].
A good time, and much better to watch with like minded audience members.
Nowhere near as bad a movie as it's made out to be.
Yes, it is still a bad movie. The plot is flimsy, the acting is ropey and no amount of heavy-handed editing can hide the fact that most of the cast can't actually fight, but between Raul Julia chewing the scenery and Jean Claude Van Damme taking the whole thing far too seriously it's a remarkably entertaining film.
Please Don’t Destroy The Treasure of Foggy Mountain
An utterly charmless, two dimensional, straight-to-streaming “comedy”.
Are our heroes meant to be losers on a mission of redemption? Well. They’re socially awkward - except the one with the loving girlfriend. They’ve got dead end jobs - except they clearly live in a really nice house, that isn’t their parents. Essentially they only seem to be dysfunctional losers when the plot remembers they need to be, just in time for any given joke to land flat.
John Goodman narrates, but doesn’t seem to appear. Presumably he’d lost a hand of poker, but not that badly.
You remember the gross out comedies of the 80’s and 90’s? Where rude words, bodily fluids and gratuitous female nudity were all liberally applied to cover up that it’s not in fact all that funny? Well. This film is what happens when you try to make such a comedy, leaving out the rude words, bodily fluids and gratuitous female nudity, and also forget jokes are meant to be funny, your cast has had a mechanical charisma removal and just nobody gave a flying proverbial.
Oh. Wait. Wikipedia informs “Please Don’t Destroy” are in fact a comedy troupe. Which feels like a misnomer. Three Talentless Charmless Tossers. That’s a better description. Oh and they rose to something approximating fame on Tik Tok.
Yep. That explains an awful, awful lot. Also I think they’ve watched It’s Always Sunny, but understood none of what makes that show work, and just went for the mindless screaming.
Right. That’s enough of this utter pish. I’m off to get a lobotomy instead.
Pierce Brosnan is <checks notes> a Mississippi mob enforcer for an aging crew. Impressive casting right there......
Anyway, this is a pretty standard old guy revenge for harms done to him flick. Finds love along the way. Some silliness, but most of the action is of the quick shooting variety.
There is one fun scene where Charlie (Pierce B.) goes to get some guns, money, and false IDs from his stash. He grabs a few pistols, and then picks up and looks at a Walther PPK for a few moment, before setting it aside.
My son was intrigued by the Queen soundtrack. The movie was pretty enjoyable, but didn’t quite live up to the potential of the premise. Clancy Brown really elevated the film, and Connery brought some charisma. Lambert was also there. This is one of the few films that could be improved by a well done remake.
If you haven’t seen it, then I recommend it for its place in pop culture, and for Clancy Brown and the Queen soundtrack.
Flinty wrote: And the upcoming remake with Henry Cavill?
That reminds me of a very entertaining precursor to The Witcher, where Christopher Lambert plays a grizzled, white haired monster hunter. Beowulf (1999). To be fair, that one is set in the post apocalyptic future, rather than the dark and spooky central European countryside.
Once Henry Cavill becomes the Highlander, the circle will be complete.
I think Henry Cavill has more charisma and physical presence than Lambert, but less mystique. If the movie leans into forensics cop obsessed with sword collector, it probably won’t work. If it leans into the romanticism and epicness of the series, it could land. Cavill feels more like big screen Adrian Paul than next gen Lambert.
So late to party on this one as it's from like 2015. But an oddly excellent coming of age film about 1 girl who runs away, the boy who goes after her, and some friends who go along for the ride. It was fun, cute, not nearly as over the top as most coming of age films, and really stuck the landing. Caught it at a hotel we stayed at this weekend at first just cause it came on after Flash (of which the only redeeming quality is Keaton) and caught me before I turned it off to make the kids go to bed.
Slasher flick but you follow the movie monster, not the victims for nearly every step of the film. And I'll give them credit. It's an interesting idea. Bold.
But the plot suffers horribly for it, turning the film into one long 'follow a guy walking menacingly around while he kills some kids.'
I wish the movie endeavored to do something more creative with it. Tell an old-fashioned story in a new way rather than just follow the killer around between gory kills. Or maybe tell the killer's story even. For the life of me the movie alludes to the movie monster having feelings and stuff, but I couldn't tell you what they're supposed to be or why they aren't just the usual shallow excuse for a slasher film to explain some gory murders.
The gimmick is cool. It's kind of neat to watch for that alone but the movie otherwise makes a bold choice and proceeds to do nothing with it.
Just finished it.
Could’ve been 30-40 minutes shorter and nothing would’ve been lost. A shorter run time would’ve helped it, I think. There were times about 1/4th into it where I increased playback speed to 1.5, sometimes 2. I love me some nature shots, but it got old fast.
It also had some of the most tropey horror movie victim tropes that I’ve ever seen.
Sting (2024)
Alien spider creature feature.
A mindess horror flick that brings nothing new to the table, but these kind of movies are what I grew up on, so I had to check it out. I suppose it was fun, definitely more fun than In a Violen Nature detailed above. It didn’t take long for gak to hit the fan in this movie, which I appreciate. Also, the eponymous creature Sting is a Hobbit reference, which I loved.
Yeah, I may have to watch Bullet Train at some point. It kinda sounds like fun.
I actually bought a film on Amazon Prime. I feel like a bad person. And was instantly punished accordingly. For years I've been looking for a cheap second hand copy of Chungking Express on DVD, never found one. I'd watched the film many, many years ago and remembered it ever since (it got me to like California Dreamin' by the Mamas and the Papas. The song always made me think of the film.). So I saw it was on Amazon prime for like three Euros and I got it. Sound is perfectly okay on the original language audio track, on the German dub it's all messed up. Music and background noises are horrifyingly loud compared to the dialoge. I'm aware that this is a thing they do now for some silly reason and that modern TV sets can fix that somehow. My PC can't, or at least I haven't found a way to do it yet. Very annoying, but a rockin' film.
12 Angry Men (1997)
I love me some 12 Angry Men. I greatly enjoy the Sidney Lumet version from 1957, I like the German TV film from 1963, but so far I'd never heard of the 1997 version by Friedkin. Same old story (and thus endlessly rewatchable) and a very fun cast with Jack Lemmon in the main role (not too impressive, but the character isn't supposed to be. The more reduced this one's played I think the better), William Petersen, Tony Danza and Tony Soprano. Technichally it's James Gandolfini, but he's playing Tony Soprano really. It's amazing. For Gandolfini's performance alone and the nice feeling it evokes it's worth a watch. The story of course is untouchable to this day. Friedkin kinda placed it in the 90s, and added to the racial element a little bit by turning one of the roles into a Nation of Islam guy with the hat and bowtie and all. It's not badly done though I thought. They did not go with the Holocaust thing though, which was a good choice. Very relevant in the 50s version, not so much in a film sat in the 90s. Instead there's been some subtle twists with several of the characters, which is really interesting to see if you're familiar with the other versions especially.
Watch It. Watch all the 12 Angry Men all the time. It's a classic, it's timeless, it's about democracy and civil society and so on. Great play, endlessly rewatchable. And with that cast, it adds another layer. Highly recommended.
A horror anthology comedy, which feels kinda antiquated in itself with all its comedic references to horror classics, citing tropes and so on. There's some funny bits in there, several jokes that land flat, and a bunch of really cool practical effects. Feels like a labour of love by people who care, but aren't very good filmmakers or actors. Either way, it's not bad at all. I was thinking if this was one to have on at a halloween party or something. Perfectly OK.. Could as well have been made many years before that (some time 2006-2010) and just released 2020. I'm sure there's a ton of stuff in there I didn't pick up on because I'm not that well versed in horror films (they do recreate several camera angles, shots, little background things, stuff like that). Features Goldust and Joe Bob Briggs.
Got about halfway through this last night before a thunderstorm knocked out power. I was enjoying it, but Jody Cromers voice/accent drove me up a fething wall and she's the main narrator. Take a shot of your hard liquor of choice whenever she says "you know". If you survive, you are some kind of immortal, invulnerable being.
It details a somewhat benign motorcycle riders club that seems to be descending into an actual motorcycle gang of the criminal sort. Some interesting characters, and the trailers that I've been watching for the past 6 months didn't really give it all away which I appreciate. I'll finish the rest tonight, but so far its an 8/10.
A decent enough flick, but probably would’ve been better served as a streaming mini-series. Definitely felt disjointed with the 5 or 6 stories being told concurrently.
For me, it moved along well enough, despite being a 3 hour movie. During the height of the pandemic, I must’ve read 8 books about the various Indian Wars in the American west, so the subject matter is of great interest to me. YMMV.
I really enjoyed this. Well written and the old hands and younger cast members seem to gel really well.
Dan Akroyd seems to love it. The joy of his character imparting knowledge to the kids bleeds over into what feels like a genuine delight at reprising his role.
The young people save the day while the vets are reduced to plucky side kicks. So it’s not perfect.
The Limehouse Golem
A Victorian-era murder mystery that’s right up Mrs Souleater’s alley but not really my cup of tea.
Costumes, atmosphere, etc are good. The way they present the various suspects performing the grisly murders isn’t a new idea but is done well.
However, by at least halfway I was pretty confident that the murder was one of two characters. But without the final confession of the actual murderer I couldn’t see a way that the detective (Bill Nighy) could have told them apart. As the clues all turn out to work by their ambiguity.
Madam Webb
A film that has genuinely prompted me to try going sober again because I bought it on sale while tipsy.
To keep my lengthy criticism and disbelief of this film fairly short - I thought the YouTubers saying mean but funny things about this film were exaggerating things. They actually had to leave a lot of stuff out.
We tried to find it on Tubi today. No luck, unfortunately.
Navigation on those silly streaming websites seems to be generally horrible. I have no idea why they can't just do proper listings of what's available.
I found out that Maverick, the light-hearted Jodie Foster/Mel Gibson wildwest-poker film is on Prime so I listened to that. Always nice. However, it's one of those things - again: ridiculous streaming website practice but I think Amazon is most guilty of that - where they only got the German dub audio for some silly reason.
Bob Hoskins is a crime boss about to go legit, so why has someone started attacking his organisation?
This one is seen as a bit of a British classic, and I would agree, I'm not usually into gangster films (Or the crime genre in general) but this is really good.
No idea how this ever got green-lit and looked so good.
Costumes and set designs are great. The plot does what it says on the tin, the actors do their jobs with Jake G being a stand-out, and the action and derring-do is good. It is let down a bit by an obvious and by the numbers plot and somewhat weak resolution.
I watched Margin Call again. Great film. I like it way better than the other one with Steve Carell.The Big Short. Some of my favourite things of that film include the one middle management dude (my favourice character though) trying to justify his absurd income with his beyond-absurd spendings and how the people who actually understand numbers all come from different backgrounds originally (engineering). The higher-ups just don't understand the tables and numbers and graphs, they have to have underlings explain it to them. Jeremy Irons' hair is just unnerving enough.
I watched Margin Call again. Great film. I like it way better than the other one with Steve Carell.The Big Short. Some of my favourite things of that film include the one middle management dude trying to justify his absurd income with his beyond-absurd spendings and how the people who actually understand numbers all come from different backgrounds originally (engineering). The higher-ups just don't understand the tables and numbers and graphs, they have to have underlings explain it to them. Jeremy Irons' hair is just unnerving enough.
"Please, speak as you might to a young child, or a golden retriever" says the guy responsible for taking the first big brick out of the foundations of the global financial system.
I think about this movie constantly. Great performances all around.
Iron's rant about the cycle of finance through history at the end is iconic, imo.
The batgak live-action musical starring Robin Williams and Shelly Duvall.
I vaguely remembered seeing it as a kid, and vaguely remember feeling confused by it while the adults around me all seemed bored, disturbed or angry. Since my son is really into weird old movies, this came up as a suggestion and he (being a fan of the cartoon) insisted we see it. So we did.
When you think “Robert Evans production” and “cocaine” this is the movie you’re thinking of. It’s a glorious mess of amazing production design, muddled storytelling, brilliant yet overly-choreographed vaudeville action, and truly awful musical numbers, that overstays its welcome a good 15 minutes.
Robin Williams and Shelly Duvall shine as live action cartoon characters. All of the background characters sell hard. Sweet haven feels like a fever dream shanty town, with constant busyness and cross-chatter filing the background. (Subtitles are a must.)
In the same conversation as Popeye, we discussed another weird flop of a film. And we had to see it.
Howard the Duck
When you have Star Wars money for cocaine.
Most 80’s kids movies loaded up on the trauma. This one went another direction: disturbingly raunchy. Yes, this film has that infamous human-duck seduction scene…it also has duck boobs and a painfully long bath house/brothel scene. If you’re thinking “that doesn’t sound like a kids movie”, you haven’t seen Tim Robbins in it.
Still, I can’t hate it. The film has some impressive special effects in the expressive Duck suit, the Dark Overlord*, and Lea Thompson’s hair. Jeffrey Jones slays it as the monster. And the concert finale almost makes me forget all the film’s flaws. It doesn’t quite stick the landing like Streets of Fire, but the song “Howard ..the Duck” still pops into my head regularly.
Watch it if you want to see a bizarre flop almost as ill-conceived as Mac and Me and weirder than Bob Hoskin’s Super Mario Bros that still manages to have some endearing moments.
*The Dark Overlord effects are the main reason why I saw this film so many times as a child. If you love stop motion monster effects, find the scene on YouTube. you won’t regret it.
An attempt by Studio Ghibli to recapture the whimsy of some of their earlier films, and it sorta works.
The animation and artistry is on point, but the writing is a mess, the story is all over the place, pretty disjointed and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
But overall not a bad film, I'd rank it somewhere in the middle of Ghibli's output.
@Bobtheinquisitor: Funny thing is that I think I've don't even seen that film in full ever. But I'll stick up for it, because it's different. It's bad, but at least different. And features early 90s Lea Thompson. AND it's better than the Tyrannosaurus Rex one with Whoopie Goldberg.
@aku-chan: Haven't seen it, I'm sure it's good and very pretty.
I watched more things on Amazon Prime. 14 seasons of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, which is good fun. It kinda reminds me of Seinfeld crossed with South Park. I tried to watch American Ninja 1 and 2, but Amazon's sound levels are all over the place. They try to counter that by offering "Dialogue Boost" on some things, but that's also a very crude tool. Remarkable how this tech giant (which should be split up ) doesn't manage to get it right. I watched an episode of King of Queens, and somehow it feels like the whole thing is slowed down a bit? Not sure, maybe I'm wrong, but it's weird.
I watched Dredd, it was pretty much exactly what I expected, and as such very nice and enjoyable.
I watched the first three episodes of The Boys. First off - I didn't read the comics, so I'm sure some things are on the source material's side, some on Amazon's side. The show is also kinda what I expected, though slightly less annoying, but it might get there. The humorous bits are bad. The casting is good. Homelander is really good, but might turn out to be used too bluntly. The dweeby main dude (god, I hope he doesn't turn out to have superpowers. That would undermine the whole show's point. Funny thing is that the show seems to know so, so there is hope.) has an unnerving face, the blonde lady is doing a good job with a character who's VERY reliant on tropes we've seen very often. Karl Urban is good as a character people can ledge on to, because who else would they. The graphic violence is unnecessary. I know, maybe I sound very old, but it's that mix of 'showing everything' and 'loads of CGI' (wich some notable exceptions I think). Just feels rather self-serving. Funny thing is that the whole affair feels a bit dated, on every level. Maybe it's because the comicbook was made a while ago.
It does tackle 2 important things which point out why comicbook super heroes are problematic - the fact that if you got a small group of Herrenmenschen (especially combined with that whole showbusiness and economic interests stuff in tow) it IS a problem for any society, and of course the outsourcing of national or civic security to those people. If this was a film, they'd be able to get that across much swifter and more concise I'm sure, but it's a streaming service, they turn anything into a tv show and muddy things up with characters and backstories and twists and turns. Because you gotta watch something whilst doing the ironing.
Personally, I think that’s a big part of why it is so hated. It’s not a good movie in that it is wildly inconsistent in tone and character, doubles down on jokes that don’t land and has pacing issues—but it is nowhere near the worst movie of the decade or even the year it came out. I think a lot of people have a problem with “weirdness” in movies. When they see something different enough from the usual conventions, it makes them uncomfortable, and they interpret this as the film being bad.
A recent example from my life is Hundreds of Beavers. It’s a brilliantly executed comedy, but it is weird with a capital WEIRD compared to mainstream movies. My son and I loved it, but my wife hated it. She was uncomfortable, almost phobic, throughout the whole movie. Some of it is the costumes and the violence, but from her description her main issue with the movie is that she kept thinking “WTF is this?”.
Howard the Duck is the kind of movie that makes people think “WTF is this?” a lot.
Mansion of the Doomed. Aka The Terror of Dr Chaney, Massacre Mansion, Eyes, Eyes of Dr Chaney and House of Blood
A film in which a transplant surgeon with revolutionary ideas on eye transplants goes completely hatstand off the deep end when his beloved daughter loses her sight, and sets about stealing eyeballs to put her right.
Not only does Mr Surgeon look a bit like Charles Bronson, but pinching the eyes of Lance Henrikon is frankly below the belt. He needs those.
Anyways his surgery kinda works, as in he pops the new (well, second hand) peepers in his daughter’s bonce and she’s able to see. For a bit. Because tissue rejection and that. But he’s also kept the unwitting donors alive, promising himself that once he’s cracked it he’ll in turn sort out their peepers and they most definitely won’t want to kick his brainy if demented head in for stealing their eyes in the first place.
Oh and then it steps up a gear or twelve when he reckons the eyes of kiddywinks would be better.
Previously banned under the Obscene Publications Act, this is genuinely much better than I’ve made it out to be. It’s not overly gory and not especially sensationalised. The acting is pretty good, the “oh no I’ve got no eyes” makeup is basic but effective.
In terms of genre? Despite being pegged as an exploitation movie, I’m put in more of a mind of Italian Giallo, probably because it relies more on atmosphere than gore.
As with many such films banned during the Video Nasty panic, this is surprisingly tame. You can absolutely see why it revolted some, but its not a tawdry Torture Prawn bit of nonsense.
Despite suffering from "more is less" syndrome it remains a fantastic fantasy trilogy in its own right and a solid adaptation of the book. The first two films - Unexpected Journey, Desolation of Smaug - almost cover Tolkien's book, while Battle of the Five Armies famously brings to life an epic battle that's only briefly described at the end of it.
Less is more...but then again I'm only delighted for any opportunity to return to Middle Earth, when its this good. Roll on December and The War of the Rohrirrim!
The classic comedy about two local access TV stars almost selling out. It still holds up. We’ll have to watch the sequel, too, if only for Gordon Street.
Wizards
The weird-ass cartoon that is weird and ass.
Okay, so my son enjoyed it way more than I did. It has a lot of reasons to like it, being a very, very 70’s animated fantasy. It’s also predictably terrible, being a very, very 70’s animated fantasy.
If you find modern animated films annoying because they often cast live action actors who know Jack about voice acting, you might be surprised to find out how much worse ‘voice acting’ was in the 70’s. Casting Ray Romano, ScarJo and the guy who played Frasier’s brother would have tripled the quality of the voice work in Wizards, as harrowing as that sounds. Black wolf and the narrator were good, though.
The Warriors
Come out to playyyeyyyayyyy!
Still the greatest gangland action movie ever made—can you dig it? Calling all boppers to hang with that real live crew from Coney. *Nowhere to run. Nowhere to hide.*
We saw the original theatrical cut. Apparently the director’s cut inserts comic book art in between the chapters. I’ve heard it ruins the flow of the movie.
Oh yeah, The Warriors rules. Walter Hill's films of that time are so full of motion and liveliness; extremely modern film which is always fun to watch.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Yeah, his early films all seem solid. Looks like 48 Hours is going on the list!
definately.
Phantasm (1979)
Horror classic which I just got to see now. It's a cut version too, because to this day the uncut version is banned in Germany, and streaming services don't care to make exceptions for Austrian laws (where it would be perfectly fine to watch uncut as far as I know). Oh well.
This is the first of the Phantasm series of films, of which there are just four, the latest one having been released in 2016 IIRC.
The film circles around a 13 year old boy, his older caretaker (after the parents died), who also happens to be a pop singer, so he has to get back on tour and plans to leave the boy behind with his aunt or something. We get treated to the dude singing a song, which evoked Pod People vibes. Either way, this sense of impending loss on the boy's side hangs over the whole film, and adds a pretty interesting layer to this whole story. Basically the boy sees an undertake, The Tall Man, being weird. And pretty much right from the get-go we get loads of scary dream-like scenes, with a bunch of cool effects.
Good film, a classic, part of horror film canon and so on, so Watch It.. It's not super scary, it's not annoying.
It is a modern MI movie. If you enjoyed the last few you'll enjoy this. Not as strong as Fallout but definitely up there. Incredibly well shot with amazing stunt work and set pieces. The antagonist being a more subtle existential threat is certainly interesting, though I'm not sure I am completely sold on it. If you liked the others or just like well made action/adventure give it a watch.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Yeah, his early films all seem solid. Looks like 48 Hours is going on the list!
definately.
Phantasm (1979)
Horror classic which I just got to see now. It's a cut version too, because to this day the uncut version is banned in Germany, and streaming services don't care to make exceptions for Austrian laws (where it would be perfectly fine to watch uncut as far as I know). Oh well.
This is the first of the Phantasm series of films, of which there are just four, the latest one having been released in 2016 IIRC.
The film circles around a 13 year old boy, his older caretaker (after the parents died), who also happens to be a pop singer, so he has to get back on tour and plans to leave the boy behind with his aunt or something. We get treated to the dude singing a song, which evoked Pod People vibes. Either way, this sense of impending loss on the boy's side hangs over the whole film, and adds a pretty interesting layer to this whole story. Basically the boy sees an undertake, The Tall Man, being weird. And pretty much right from the get-go we get loads of scary dream-like scenes, with a bunch of cool effects.
Good film, a classic, part of horror film canon and so on, so Watch It.. It's not super scary, it's not annoying.
The Phantasm series is great, it's just a shame each film brings up more questions that they never get around to answering.
I've only seen the first film now, but given how that one was I think that kinda fits the feel of the film. Also, let's remember how horror series of several more films tried to 'explain things' and got tangled up in their little backstories.
A good horror movie that is more about tension than actual horror. The monsters look ridiculous.
A Quiet Place 2
A direct continuation of the first in terms of story, tone and quality. The monsters’ toughness is wildly uneven, distractingly so.
A Quiet Place: Day One
A good horror movie in a more exciting, dynamic setting*. The cat is the least believable part of the movie.
*Farmhouse horror has felt played out for me since Signs. I find it hokey, especially when it plays into romanticized survivalist tropes, not that AQP did too much of that in the first film.
Twister
This was what a mediocre, mid-level “dumb fun” movie used to look like. Today it feels like a masterpiece of set up and payoff and character writing. Plus, who doesn’t love the cast?
Twisters
Just as good as the first one in most qualities, but the cast just doesn’t have the same spark. Glen Powell isn’t as instantly likeable as Bill Paxton, nor is what’s-her-face the next Helen Hunt.
This movie is all allegory, and very British. You see, these people live in a high-rise building designed by Mr. Royal. The folks at the top of the building start taking the resources used to supply the people at the lower levels... and..... well.... did I mention it is a British allegory about the Class System?
Not very subtle, but also some very odd choices.
The Law of Hell
Great title! This is a movie about an inn-keeper caught in the middle when the Samurai start investigating a group of smugglers on his little island. Intense Japanese conversation/interrogation scenes as the inn-keeper tries to keep himself from getting tangled up in all the nonsense. Of course, it leads to some swordplay.
You have to be okay with 70's style Japanese Samurai movie pacing for this movie to work for you at all. Plus, I am not sure the Pay-off for your patience is worth it. However, some of the Samurai and Inn-keeper scenes are very tense.
Justice League: Crisis on Infinite Earths:- Part 3
And so we reach the final part, it's also easily the best part as it doesn't have to devote a big chunk of it's runtime to setup.
However, much like the first two films, while it has its moments it is still pretty lacklustre overall.
I've been a big fan of DC's animated movie line for years at this point, and while it has had it's ups and downs, I think the good has outweighed the bad (I'd argue that there has only been two outright terrible films in the entire run) so it's a shame that it couldn't come to an end on a higher note than 'meh'.
It’s always baffled me that DC/WB’s amination team can produce really, really solid fare. It’s Live Action TV Team also produce better than average fare.
Whereas its Live Action Movie Team have only produced a series of increasingly wet farts.
Sure as with any long running series the quality is inevitably mixed. But as said above, there’s only a couple of outright stinkers (the Japanese Batman is to me, unwatchable as soon as the Batmobile keeps breaking down into smaller and smaller and smaller vehicles)
A Nick Cage and Disney adventure film from 2010. It also features Monica Belucci, Alfred Molina, and Jay Baruchel. Not a bad cast.
This had an A-list budget and a B-movie script team. Good effects and some fun BUT ultimately the by-the-numbers writing left the whole thing a bit cold to me. It felt SUPER Disney to me.
Still, in the genre of family-friendly adventure flicks it holds-up. A workman-like production with everyone doing their part. I wouldn't go out of my way to see it again and will forget about it as soon as I finish this mini-review.
This was a lot of fun if you like a romp through the jungles of Columbia and a bit of a treasure hunt.
I love this movie and frequently quote it. Probably one of my favorite '80s adventure movies. "Look at those snappas, Ralph!"
The sequel wasn't half bad either, but not as good as the first.
We plan to watch the next one when we find the time, hopefully this week.
Ira yelling back to Ralph "We'll come back for you" was brilliant after the "Thundergun" episodes in always sunny.
Luc Besson always knew about shoot/cast/stage/write for leading ladies. And fun films in general.
I'm watching Bloodsport 2 now. Not sure why. Never seen it in the original audio, so that's reason enough, I suppose. I kinda like Daniel Bernhard as an action guy since i first saw him in the Mortal Kombat tv show. He's tall and capable and has a face. Unfortunately, he isn't very charismatic. But he's Swiss, which is weird enough for me to like him.
Just saw Twisters earlier this evening, and I thought it was good, although it was only tangentially connected to the first movie (mostly just little winks and nods rather than returning characters).
It’s so ridiculous and trope-y that it feels like they set out to make a so-bad-it’s-good movie and accidentally made a good movie instead. Everyone seemed to have a blast making it. The effects are memorable and the soundtrack kicks clown butt. Also, Royal Dano! Perfect B-movie.
Side note: John Vernon is the scariest thing in this movie. He’s also the scariest foe in the Ernest series, and Ernest fought an army of trolls. How is this guy so intimidating?
ZergSmasher wrote: Just saw Twisters earlier this evening, and I thought it was good, although it was only tangentially connected to the first movie (mostly just little winks and nods rather than returning characters).
I’m really glad they didn’t fill the movie with sad, tired, old characters from the previous film. This feels like the first legacy sequel not to make that mistake.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Did The Sorcerer’s Apprentice ever use that music from the Mickey scene in Fantasia? I hope so.
It’s so ridiculous and trope-y that it feels like they set out to make a so-bad-it’s-good movie and accidentally made a good movie instead. Everyone seemed to have a blast making it. The effects are memorable and the soundtrack kicks clown butt. Also, Royal Dano! Perfect B-movie.
Side note: John Vernon is the scariest thing in this movie. He’s also the scariest foe in the Ernest series, and Ernest fought an army of trolls. How is this guy so intimidating?
Love that movie.
They just released a Killer Klowns co-op horror survival video game back in June. I keep hovering over the "buy" button, but I'm told the novelty wears off after a few hours.
That’s the second legacy game I’ve heard about recently after The Warriors. I like this approach much better than legacy sequels, which kind of spoil the original films even when they are decent*.
At some point I have to catch up on Killer Klowns. I MAY have seen it years ago, but I'm not sure. I'm fairly certain that the video game only holds one's interest for a few hours indeed (if that).
Now that I'm watching Bloodsport 2 I remember that I probably watched that one more than the original film. The protagonist really is bland, but all the characters around him make up for that. It's a fun film, and the Bloodsport/Kumite formula is hard to beat as long as you got a gallery of colourful contestants.
edit2: Okay, Bloodsport 2 just plain rocks. Really good fight scenes, loads of fun. It's on youtube. It's also got a theme. They tried to capture the magic of the Mortal Kombat film theme to a deg
Easy E wrote: They do an homage to the broom scene from Fantasia in The Sorcerer's Apprentice but it is not the exact same music.
Someone dropped the ball in my opinion.
That’s really disappointing. That would be like including a Nicholas Cage as Superman homage and not having him fight a giant spider, something even the people behind The Flash figured out. Even the people behind The Flash.
I went into this thinking it might be a bit like the Equaliser… it is not like that film whatsoever. It is dark and tragic at every point through its run time, and it’s slow enough that you just marinade in the despair. I can’t really recommend this one.
Did you ever wonder what Gremlins would be like if it didn’t have good special effects or any horror or good music or if the whole movie was the bar scene? Munchies is the answer.
According to old showbusiness legend, when Chevy Chase and Bill Murray came to blows at SNL, the insult Murray used to break Chevy was calling him “Medium talent”. Munchies is the cinematic embodiment of Medium Talent.
The big star of the film, playing two roles, is Harvey Korman, of Star Wars Holiday Special fame. The sister from Critters (who you forgot existed) outshines the rest of the main cast, which includes that guy who runs from the Yama Yama Yama scene in Police Academy IV and isn’t David Spade. There are a couple good cameos from Robert Picardo and Paul Bartel, but this is still a Z-grade production.
There are a few fun surprises in the film, but a lot of the jokes land somewhere between 70’s Variety Show and 2000’s anti-humor. If you’ve seen The Stuff, it has a lot of the same energy, but without the satire.
I don’t really recommend it, but if you’re looking for a bad movie night movie to laugh at, check it out.
This movie was lots of fun. It almost has it all.
It reminds me in parts of a Mad Max movie.
I hadn't seen this one in many years so I was surprised at how much I misremembered it.
I enjoyed that movie when I was a child. I remember what the Jewel of the Nile was, as well as a fun sequence involving an F-16, as well as some of the least convincing fire effects I’d seen in a film.
It's good fun. The bad guy is devious but not the brightest candle on the birthday cake.
I'd thought Ira returned at the end of this one but I believe my brain damaged brain mixed the two movies together some how.
We watched the Maltese falcon the other night. I can't say I'd seen it before. Maybe in passing but not all the way through till this week. My Brother mentioned it so I had to see it.
I enjoyed it. Lots of fast talking by Sam Spade.
He, humphrey bogart, didn't look like I thought he did. Interesting characters all over.
O’Brien is on a plane. Which ditches into the sea and sinks a bit under the surface. O’Brien is half drowned, but saves little girl and her granny (hurrah!). He then saves granny’s husband’s army cap, retrieves a precious bottle of oxygens off a dead person, then gets ate off a Shark. Thus ends O’Brien’s tribulations.
This is certainly an interesting premise, as we have a handful of survivors in an airlock up the back of the plane. And it’s about how do they get from there, back up to the surface. Oh, and the Sharks wot ate O’Brien clearly found him way too tough, as they’re really quite insistent on scoffing the soft lads left behind.
However, it’s oddly free of tension. Maybe it’s the overall hopelessness of their situation. Maybe it’s because other than Granny and Kiddo, we’re given no reason to care a jot about anyone. In particular I’m not sure if one of the lads is himself gay, or incredibly homophobic. Could be both I suppose if he’s a Friend of Aslan.
watched Hideaki Anno's Love & Pop with some friends over discord last night. but the subs I grabbed for it turned out to be pretty badly mistimed (consistently a scene ahead of where we were), so I turned them off, and it turned into a fascinating experience as a result
the cinematography and direction of the film perfectly convey the tone and mood it's going for. one of the people watching had seen the film before, and it was really funny for her to be consistently annoyed at us not getting the dialogue, yet confirming everything we were saying about the themes and meaning of the film— its themes transcend language
and good lord, what a gorgeous film it is. it well and truly feels like an anime director trying to make an anime film in live action. the eccentricity of the shots creates such a singular atmosphere for the film. the things Anno does with a camera here are unbelievable. avant-garde to the max. this is a film that could only have been made by these people at this time. but the unique ways this film are shot aren't just there to be weird. the entire time, they're building towards an atmosphere, one that changes as the way the film is shot changes. it creates the sense of watching childhood innocence die. at times, it feels dissociative, and not just metaphorically— this film truly captures what it is to face something for which your only response is to have a temporary shattering of consciousness
I wouldn't hesitate to call Love & Pop a masterpiece. what a wild film. I'm going to be thinking about this for a long time
also watched Three Resurrected Drunkards. have less to say about it. but the format of the film really stood out in an interesting way, and the ending in particular is incredible
also also watched Hundreds of Beavers (thanks for the recommendation btw!). incredible movie. it needs to be seen to be believed. it is simultaneously a live action cartoon and a video game that you watch instead of play. there is nothing else like this, and never could be
What if a Chick Tract was also The Rocky Horror Picture Show?
What if The Devil’s Advocate was a camp masterpiece?
What if you saw an actual, actual, actual Vampiiiiiiiiiiire?
Behold the dystopian terror of far-off 1994! A world ruled by Satan’s own music label will seduce the souls of two folk singers from Moose Jaw. See the ridiculous costumes! Hear the terrible music! Witness the least sexy choreographed coitus put on film! Boggle at the worst-executed Deus Ex Machina in pop culture!
But seriously, check out the future car designs, especially if you’re a Simpsons fan.
The best TLDR review I’ve seen: “God defeats Disco”.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: also also watched Hundreds of Beavers (thanks for the recommendation btw!). incredible movie. it needs to be seen to be believed. it is simultaneously a live action cartoon and a video game that you watch instead of play. there is nothing else like this, and never could be
I hope it opens a door to a whole lot more low budget, creatively bonkers movies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And putting Love and Pop on the list.
rewatched Casting Blossoms to the Sky. remains an absolutely gorgeous film. even better the second time. one of the most beautiful depictions of grief and recovery ever set to film
It’s Mad Doc’s Monkey* Madness! Today, I binge the modern Planet of the Apes movies.
Beginning with….Rise of the Planet of the Apes
This is an alright film. Whilst the CGI hasn’t aged especially well (there’s a definite odd weightlessness to things), the mo-cap performances are all superb.
The plot is also interesting enough. However, Tom Felton’s delivery of the “damned dirty Ape” line is really bad, bless him.
At 1h 47m it moves along at a decent clip, and whilst a bit rough around the edges doesn’t outstay its welcome or ever really fail to entertain.
*Not actually Monkies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Much like the prior movie, this is also alright.
The effects have improved and the odd weightlessness is gone. But the plot remains a bit wonky in execution.
However the performances, set dressing and overall spectacle all win out for it to remain entertaining.
The entire cesar ape trilogy holds up pretty well I've found. And they were genuinely decent to good films when released. The new one was along the same vein. I really hope we actually get the entire saga done as the consistency and tone are excellent.
They definitely do a solid job of “how did we get from us to them”, and yeah the overall tone and consistency is solid. Whilst the individual movies I’d argue aren’t anything especially fancy, as a series it’s much better.
Kind of the opposite of the Star Wars sequels, where I can find stuff to enjoy in each on, but they just don’t work that well as a trilogy, instead feeling like Disney secretly made three trilogies, and there was an accident in the film storage room and they all got muddled up.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I particularly like how Caesar continues to gain intelligence as we head down, showing the virus which kicked it all off is progressing within him.
How Andy Serkis didn’t win a load of awards for this I’ll never know. He’s superb.
I’m impressed how well the new series has kept consistent quality. I can’t think of many four-movie-series that have been so consistently good. We tried watching some of the original POTA sequels and needed a hiatus after the first movie.
Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo
The most famous sequel name of all time, but does it hold up?
If you ever wanted to fill your bathtub with concentrated 80’s, then step in, hold your breath, and plunge into total immersion, this is your movie.
The plot and characters are undiluted formula straight from the 80’s Slobs Vs Snobs/Stop the Developer tap. (There’s a bit of John Carter effect as this film might have originated the formula.). However, those things really only exist as a framework on which to hang some of the most radical fashions and phenomenal dance set pieces of the 80’s. If you ever saw the Beat It video and wanted 90 more minutes of it, this is your movie.
About an hour in, and this is wonderful. As the latest edition to a now 13 year old series? If continues the overarching story nicely.
The CGI is naturally the best of the series, as it’s always been cutting edge stuff.
On reflection, this is probably the best franchise in recent years, almost certainly helped by a casual release pace. If they’d pumped them out every year or two, I think the in-universe progression wouldn’t have come across quite so well. Instead it feels quite real and organic. Though watching in a binge has definitely helped the series shine.
I’m definitely up for more in this series, and they can take as long as is necessary for another organic addition.
About an hour in, and this is wonderful. As the latest edition to a now 13 year old series? If continues the overarching story nicely.
The CGI is naturally the best of the series, as it’s always been cutting edge stuff.
On reflection, this is probably the best franchise in recent years, almost certainly helped by a casual release pace. If they’d pumped them out every year or two, I think the in-universe progression wouldn’t have come across quite so well. Instead it feels quite real and organic. Though watching in a binge has definitely helped the series shine.
I’m definitely up for more in this series, and they can take as long as is necessary for another organic addition.
It's funny how the franchise revival of a 60s film franchise (we don't speak of the Tim Burton one) is going so strong and with such well done movies while revivals of more recently successful franchises have been so hit and miss.
I of course can’t prove, but strongly suspect them taking their time between films is part of the secret to that success.
Each has progressed the overall tale nicely, building on what came before and adding to it, as I said in a very organic way. And in a binge it really works.
I still stand by my opinion that individually the films are simply Above Average. But as a whole? It’s a class in effective story telling and world building.
I of course can’t prove, but strongly suspect them taking their time between films is part of the secret to that success.
Each has progressed the overall tale nicely, building on what came before and adding to it, as I said in a very organic way. And in a binge it really works.
I still stand by my opinion that individually the films are simply Above Average. But as a whole? It’s a class in effective story telling and world building.
I'd agree. Individually they are just good flicks. It's when you can watch them all together it really elevates. Compare it to any other "franchise" currently running. Was John Wick 4 better John Wick? Most modern day franchises have to ever elevating action films which actually makes the Apes movies kinda amazing.
It might also be because its a "lesser" franchise.
That might just mean there's less "suits" messing with things to fit models/stats/theory and so forth and thus allowing writer and director more chance to just tell the story as is. Sometimes I think the issues with things like Starwars is that there's too much money behind them and at stake which causes loads of people at the top to double down on a bunch of stuff that "in theory" helps but in practice makes for a weaker story as they try and maximise its profitability.
Possibly. But then, they’re CGI heavy, which adds to the cost. And whilst I’ve not exactly gone looking they don’t feel like they’ve been heavily marketed. Certainly only a fraction of Star Wars. And as we know? It’s the merchandising that brings in the reliable big bucks.
What I’ve particularly enjoyed on the binge is the “sins of the father” vibe. That the apes are every bit as flawed as humanity has been throughout our history. Which given the events of the original films sets up a fairly nice cycle of events and that.
Low budget, weird as feth French movie about a French diplomat waylaid somewhere in Eastern Europe. It got high critic ratings for reasons that are beyond me, though the puppetry of the titular character was neat. It just seemed like a high school production most of the time.
Its apparently based on a book about a particular kind of Eastern European vampire that predates Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” by roughly 50 years.
Now I’ve fallen down a wikipedia rabbit hole of Slavic folklore and mythical creatures…
I believe their is a short (part of a larger movie) featuring Boris Karloff with the same name. The name of the larger movie is escaping me at the moment.
I've finally seen The Gate (1987). A very nice scary movie for young people. It very cleverly deals with children's fears and the effects are incredibly charming and just good. The characters (Deakon Frost in the leading role!) are likeable throughout. The lad himself, his friend (who would be comic relief in lesser movies), the sister... and their girlfriends are funny too. Vicious, but funny. Very good outfits too. That party is something to behold.
Reminded me a bit of Monster House (which I like) in terms of vibe. Of course, The Gate is much more reduced in terms of space, but they make use of everything that's around. Cool film. Especially because of the iconic effects and designs.
Sigur wrote: I've finally seen The Gate (1987). A very nice scary movie for young people. It very cleverly deals with children's fears and the effects are incredibly charming and just good. The characters (Deakon Frost in the leading role!) are likeable throughout. The lad himself, his friend (who would be comic relief in lesser movies), the sister... and their girlfriends are funny too. Vicious, but funny. Very good outfits too. That party is something to behold.
Reminded me a bit of Monster House (which I like) in terms of vibe. Of course, The Gate is much more reduced in terms of space, but they make use of everything that's around. Cool film. Especially because of the iconic effects and designs.
Watch it.
I just brought this movie up the other day and was shocked other people remembered it. It's a super fun movie even nowadays.
@Hulksmash: Oh yes. It's a great mix of nightmarish atmosphere and fun effects. they hold up because they're all real (albeit quite a bit of back projection towards the end. ). Making the demons tiny and have small snouts was a genius move. That way they strike a great happy medium between scary and funny. They very much are defeatable, but they keep on coming. The bit where the kid steps on one and it kicks and struggles and all the others are scared is a great scene and helps make them look extremely organic and real.
over the last three days, i rewatched Seven Weeks, Hanagatami, and Labyrinth of Cinema. for the first, i found myself loving it more than ever before, on the same level of Casting Blossoms of Labyrinth of Cinema. for the second... well it's still an incredible film, especially the aspects of sexuality throughout, but otherwise it's my least favorite, and a rewatch confirmed that. and then for the third, it proved to be exactly as good as i remembered it: an absolutely singular experience in cinematic form. absolutely recommend going out of your way to see all three films, and Casting Blossoms to the Sky as well. truly one of the most incredible decades a director has ever had
Bored late night viewing had this pop up on Prime. Oddly good time. Ignore the fact that the CIA is operating on US soil Silly action/slasher where a teenage girl is the one doing the action/slashing. Apparently it was sequel and it may have a 3rd installment coming out. Worth a watch if you're reaching.
Wrath of Becky is the sequel to Becky. I'd recommend Becky to people who are into (home invasion) thrillers, but I also find it's a good movie that's worth watching if you're not. Wrath of Becky turned out a bit silly for my taste. It's still fun, but not as grounded as the first movie.
Netflix Germany uploaded a bunch of Bud Spencer films again, possibly due to Rainer Brandt's passing last week. A big loss. So I watched Even Angels Eat Beans (1972). A gangster film parody sat in the late 1920s. Two down-on-their luck guys (charming, low-level rogue ice cream vendor [Gemma] and wrestler [Spencer]) happen to beat up coppers who try to disperse people lining up for soup at the salvation army. They are observed by members of the local gangster family and invite them into the family.
This one was meant to be a Terence Hill / Bud Spencer film, but Hill cancelled and instead they got Giuliano Gemma. Who I think works great. The dynamic between the characters is different than with Spencer/Hill, but still endearing. Both actors are allowed to show a bunch of range actually; everybody being desperately in need for money (and food), playing cool when the situation requires it, being afraid (mostly Gemma, who in several situations switches between overplayed coolness and having to run for his life.). There aren't that many fight scenes (feel weird calling it that when it comes to a Bud Spencer film), the ones which are there are fun. However, there are several very funny set pieces and dialogue. The Netflix version features a few bits which were cut in the original Italian with German subtitles.
I have watched this film countless times, especially when I was a kid, and it's one of my tip top favourites Bud Spencer films. They all got a timeless quality, but especially the costume films (Westerns, mostly, and this one), will probably never feel outdated. Watch It. And don't be afraid because it's a Spencer-and-not-Hill film. I know, many of these are duds, but this one has all the fun of a Spencer/Hill film, with a slightly different vibe.
watched August in the Water with my discord server tonight. really fascinating film, and one that divided opinions heavily. it's a very magical coming of age story in the vein of Makoto Shinkai's films, or The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, but with only the bare minimum of a plot as is necessary to understand it as such. in place of that, the film lays on a heavy new age atmosphere. the film feels like it exists in metatextual conversation with these other films as a result, playing on the understanding of tropes it only suggests in passing. it almost feels like watching a film through the shadows on the cave wall
it also sort of reminds me of And So We Put Goldfish In The Pool, which is a riff on a less magical style of youth film, and does a similar sort of condensing, but where August in the Water replaces what it cuts with slow atmosphere, Goldfish doesn't replace at all. instead, it serves as a fast-paced edit of a movie which doesn't exist, taking the highs and lows of a coming of age story and cutting everything which is not a peak
I find Goldfish's approach much stronger in that a fast-paced "only the best moments" approach feels a lot more evocative than August in the Water's more atmospheric approach. it's most definitely an acquired taste, especially because you need both a familiarity with the sort of magical coming of age film it pulls on, as well as an appreciation for abstract, vibes-based cinema to really get into it. that's not really a common person, but, I am that person, and I really quite liked it
General thoughts, way better than the 6% on Rotten Tomatoes, but it is not good. Did people go into this movie expecting it to be good? There was no way that was ever going to happen! However, it is not even close to the worst movie I have seen in a movie theatre before.
But is it enough of a trainwreck to be worth our time?
For example, I saw Cats in the theater, and it was gloriously awful, a flaming garbage truck collision. What’s keeping me away from Borderlands is the fear that it will just be bad and boring, and not spectacularly terrible and bizarre. If it’s just Blue Beetle bad, it’s not worth my time or money.
I think that is probably where we're at. From others I haven't gotten the impression it is "so bad it is good" but more of a toothless, underwhelming experience.
Easy E wrote: More boring and by-the-numbers. Although, Blanchette was fun to watch, but not enough sadly. This will disappear into obscurity quickly.
we can but hope. Turning broad video games into even broader films and tv shows is a thing that's gotta be stopped right in its tracks before Hollywood/streamer peeps bother us for years to come. The whole superhero stuff should have taught us a lesson.
Bored late night viewing had this pop up on Prime. Oddly good time. Ignore the fact that the CIA is operating on US soil Silly action/slasher where a teenage girl is the one doing the action/slashing. Apparently it was sequel and it may have a 3rd installment coming out. Worth a watch if you're reaching.
Just saw the trailer, and it looks fun. Also—holy crap, that’s Sean William Scott as the big bad! I’ll make time to see this, even if I have to wait for the school year to start.
One of the great movies that inspired a whole (sub)genre. Unfortunately, the Special Edition adds 17(?) minutes of additional footage that messes up the pacing. See the theatrical cut first if you can, then watch the cut scenes as God intended: halfway down a YouTube rabbit hole between T3’s SergeantCandy and Little Shop’s Don’t Feed the Plants.
The one cut scene with the autoturrets is probably the worst that was cut as it does help explain a latter scene as more sensible (though it's not a huge issue I think).
On the fun front, I think the brief scenes we see of Hadley's Hope before all hell were pretty cool.
LordofHats wrote: The one cut scene with the autoturrets is probably the worst that was cut as it does help explain a latter scene as more sensible (though it's not a huge issue I think).
On the fun front, I think the brief scenes we see of Hadley's Hope before all hell were pretty cool.
And I believe the scene where Ripley finds out about her daughter is a cut scene, if I remember right?
John Cena and Awkwafina star in this sort of reverse heist lottery based slice of comfortable action nonsense.
The scenario? In 2026 California, in a desperate attempt to raise more money, introduces a new Lottery. With a catch. The winner is publicly announced, and if you can kill them before sundown, you get the prize. No guns, no bullets, everything else is fair game.
Awkwafina is our lucky winner, and Cena is her self-appointed “10% of the prize when I keep you alive” bodyguard. The prize? $3.6 billion.
The general public are aided in their efforts by drones tracking, and the lottery tickets having wee screens on them identifying the winner and their current location.
I don’t think this is an instant classic, but it is good fun. Absolutely nobody is taking any of it seriously, but they’re committed to the bit.
A series of short films dealing with people encountering the supernatural.
Probably more for the arty, film nerd types, I just found it weird and a bit boring.
Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday The 13th
It’s…another spoof of Scream and the slasher genre in general. Often seen as a cash-in on Scary Movie, this was actually made first, but not released as the studio weren’t convinced anyone would watch it.
And it’s not too bad! I’ve seen far worse spoofs. Certainly it sticks to sending up the films, so unlike Scary Movie’s reliance on general pop culture it’s aged a bit better. And it’s a good bit goofier.
Also, it stars Tiffani Amber Thiessen, therefore it’s great.
The movie responsible for millions of childhood nightmares.
In light of the recent discussion, decided to watch this with my son today. It still holds up!
It’s hard to describe the movie without resorting to a list of iconic horror scenes. There’s something traumatizing for every kid. I love, love, love the monster effects.
John Cena and Awkwafina star in this sort of reverse heist lottery based slice of comfortable action nonsense.
The scenario? In 2026 California, in a desperate attempt to raise more money, introduces a new Lottery. With a catch. The winner is publicly announced, and if you can kill them before sundown, you get the prize. No guns, no bullets, everything else is fair game.
Awkwafina is our lucky winner, and Cena is her self-appointed “10% of the prize when I keep you alive” bodyguard. The prize? $3.6 billion.
The general public are aided in their efforts by drones tracking, and the lottery tickets having wee screens on them identifying the winner and their current location.
I don’t think this is an instant classic, but it is good fun. Absolutely nobody is taking any of it seriously, but they’re committed to the bit.
I think I saw the trailer for that and thought it looked like the most John Cena film John Cena ever starred in. I hope he gets out of that niche. He's got a great talent for the silly comedy. Doesn't mean that's all he should do. Problem is that he's a huge, charismatic funny man. A self-aware cartoon hero. Which is good one one, maybe two films, but not good in the long run I think. Schwarzenegger had a phase of doing that, but eventually also did more serious (slightly) stuff. I hope that Cena can do that as well.
@Mad Doc Grotsnik: Huh, I didn't know that this was actually was made before Scary Movie. Interesting tidbit there. TAT (real fans call her TAT) I think runs a youtube cooking show, doesn't she? Not sure. Last I saw her was in the tv show Fast Lane, which was 100% better than it had any right to be. More fun than Fast&the Furious.
@BobtheInquisitor: Yeah, it rocks. It gets the mix of "fun horror house ride" and "actual proper nightmare fears" just right.
Tiffany Amber Thiessen is still alive? I didn’t think she was still alive back when she was still alive.
Right. I’ll do you for that!
Nobody says rude things about Tiffani Amber Thiessen. Ever. Anywhere. She’s an angel. Even, especially, if I’ve missed this in fact being a witty film quote.
But yeah. Stay there. I’m off to get the re-education bat!
The movie responsible for millions of childhood nightmares.
In light of the recent discussion, decided to watch this with my son today. It still holds up!
It’s hard to describe the movie without resorting to a list of iconic horror scenes. There’s something traumatizing for every kid. I love, love, love the monster effects.
The one with Johnny Depp as a shady antique book dealer? I remember that as very odd and unique, but not especially horrific.
You’re thinking of The Ninth Gate. Which I clocked on my streaming services the other day. Might give it a watch, as pre-Pirates Johnny Depp was usually pretty good.
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988, streaming on Amazon Prime)
Steve Martin and Michael Cain as dueling con men trying to rip of the American 'soap queen'. No FX, no explosions nearly all the comedy comes from Martin and Cain's considerable talents.
I’ve often wondered how much of that film was ad-libbed. The way Caine and Martin play off each other is masterful, and I can’t believe heavily scripted.
Steve Martin with Eddie Murphy, Martin is a washed up director trying to make "Chubby Rain" a film starting the world's greatest action star, but could never afford him. So he shoots the film with hidden cameras and an oblivious star. Also has Heather Graham as a starlet sleeping her way near the top, and Robert Downey Jr who is also there.
Funny, funny film.
But when will they finally make Fake Purse Ninjas?
Meh. I found this very underwhelming and fairly pointless. The first two Deadpool movies were much better.
As much as I dislike Channing Tatum, his Gambit was easily my favorite part of the movie. Not the action but that Deadpool had no idea what he was saying when he was speaking.
Hopefuly the cast got a solid pay day from this movie.
Comedy action flick starring Christopher Lloyd as a malevolent spirit, menacing some young adults who, too old for Trick or Treating, too young an uncool to get into High School Halloween Parties, decide to hide away in a Spirit Halloween store on the big night.
And…it’s pretty cool! Whilst not at all Adult (no gore, no bad language, none of the rude things that as we get older, get ruder and ruder), this isn’t a Kids film as such, and it might be a bit much for very young children.
Even though it’s a predominantly voice role, Christopher Lloyd is of course superb. And even our young cast are charming and enjoyable on screen as they navigate the twilight of their childhood.
It’s available on Amazon Prime for free (at least in the UK), and I’d say if you’ve kids of the right age? This might be a welcome addition to any Halloween rotation.
Hey, The Ninth Gate rocks. It's got atmosphere and it just spooky enough.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Bowfinger, a good film to remind you that Eddie Murphy is funny and talented. Or perhaps was.
Yeah, I only watched that film once, but it's good fun. But I remember Eddie Murphy being really good in it. Always makes me think of State and Main (2000? 2001?), probably becuase it has some similar themes. I should watch State and Main again.
Last night I watched Saturday Night Fever for the first time. I guess it's okay? The dancing is impressive (I guess i'm that old now...), the themes are as usual for the time (youth, harshness of the world, etc.). Nicely ambivalent characters.
tonight I watched The Other Side of the Mountain with my discord. while not without some pacing issues at the end, this is a gorgeous film which explores the national tragedy which Korea has suffered over the last eight decades. it provides a great sense of humanity to North Korea throughout, and I think everyone should see that
oh, and the locations that they used for this film were consistently gorgeous. I was watching a 360p version of this film I downloaded off archive.org, and it still made for a gorgeous watch, especially with how the cinematography uses the geography as a tool
Have you ever been in a car slowed by pedestrians and heard someone say, “50 points for the old lady”? Death Race 2000 is the reason why.
It’s another 70’s dystopian Sci Fi movie, but this one brings a level of satire, comedy and violence that won’t be surpassed until Robocop. David Carradine, Sylvester Stallone, Paul Bartel, Dan Steele and Joyce Jameson all deliver.
Watch it.
The Lost Boys
The one with the oiled-up saxophone player.
Thou shall not fall…
Dracula may have made vampires sexy, but The Lost Boys was the film that made them cool as feth.
Thou shall not die…
This comedy-horror somehow threaded the needle to deliver both an angsty teen horror movie and an 80’s children’s monster caper. There’s also plenty of subtext if you want to look for it.
Thou shall not fear…
Two Coreys and the Kiefer. You can’t beat that cast. And the soundtrack is top tier.
Thou shall not kill…
Heck, The Lost Boys is worth seeing just for the last line of the movie. Talk about going out strong.
A ghost hunting youtuber livestreams a show from a notorious abandoned asylum, how far will they go to earn those sweet, sweet views?
This Korean, found footage horror movie takes a little too long to get going (I almost stopped watching), but once it does it's actually pretty darn good.
I probably found it scarier than most people would (I seem to have only 2 settings:- "This isn't scary at all" and "Pants-wettingly terrifying", which is why I don't watch a lot of horror), but I think any fan of the genre would enjoy it, if they can sit through the first hour.
Have you ever been in a car slowed by pedestrians and heard someone say, “50 points for the old lady”? Death Race 2000 is the reason why.
It’s another 70’s dystopian Sci Fi movie, but this one brings a level of satire, comedy and violence that won’t be surpassed until Robocop. David Carradine, Sylvester Stallone, Paul Bartel, Dan Steele and Joyce Jameson all deliver.
Watch it.
The Lost Boys
The one with the oiled-up saxophone player.
Thou shall not fall…
Dracula may have made vampires sexy, but The Lost Boys was the film that made them cool as feth.
Thou shall not die…
This comedy-horror somehow threaded the needle to deliver both an angsty teen horror movie and an 80’s children’s monster caper. There’s also plenty of subtext if you want to look for it.
Thou shall not fear…
Two Coreys and the Kiefer. You can’t beat that cast. And the soundtrack is top tier.
Thou shall not kill…
Heck, The Lost Boys is worth seeing just for the last line of the movie. Talk about going out strong.
Two classics. For Death Race I always remember the unscrewing of the bionic hand with the build-in grenade. Literally - there is a half a WW2 hand grenade sticking out of the palm!
Two classics. For Death Race I always remember the unscrewing of the bionic hand with the build-in grenade. Literally - there is a half a WW2 hand grenade sticking out of the palm!
It's such a groan worthy pun, a literal hand grenade.
This is another great vampire movie from the 80’s. The effects are much more intense and disturbing than in any other vampire film I can think of. There’s a mouth effect late in the film that caught me by surprise with how creepily effective it was.
The teenagers in this film are no Coreys, but there are two excellent actors who carry the film: Roddy MacDowell as a Peter Cushing/Vincent Price type actor dragged into a real life vampire hunt, and Chris Sarandon single-handedly filling the quota for sexy, cool vampires in this vampire film. The soundtrack is pretty good, although there are a few generic stand-ins for real songs they couldn’t afford. Also, there’s plenty of subtext if you want to look for it.
If you like 80’s horror and practical monster effects, watch it.
Gymkata
Yakmala!
Picture it: Parmistan, 1985. Dollar store M Bison has a pommel horse built in every town. It’s time for the annual Death Race in a country that can afford only 5 horses. Out of work flag ninjas stand at every corner. And the one man wrecking crud chosen by the United States to win the Cold War through martial arts is a gymnast whose hair aspires to be as charismatic as the Encyclopedia Brittanica kid’s.
This film has atrocious editing, laughably bad writing, acting as flat and bland as last year’s matzah, a film score straight out of a Hong Kong editor’s garbage pail, and Manos-level cinematography, in that there are closeup dialogue scenes out of focus. Yet, it took me most of the movie to figure out what really made it feel uncanny. Then it struck me, like an arrow shot into a stunt man’s padded tummy—Richard Norton.
The villain of the film is Zamir, who is both played by Richard Norton and is also one of the few people given a horse and a bow and arrow. Let me rephrase that: they paid to get Kung Fu flick legend Richard Norton, who famously holds his own against Cynthia Rothrock and Jackie Chan, and they put him on a horse and made him shoot people to kill them. I still can’t wrap my mind around this. This is worse than hiring Al Leong and only filming him in a helicopter cockpit. It’s bad enough the film wanted us to take Gymkata seriously as a martial art, but teasing us with a major Kung Fu star only to deliver a late stage Cameron Mitchell character, that’s low. That really pommels my horse.
Do not watch. It’s bad, and mostly not fun bad.
Fantasmagorie
Labeled as the first cartoon, this 1908 short is delightful. Check it out.
Anchors Aweigh
The MC Skat Cat of the 1940’s.
If you ever saw Tom and Jerry and thought, “you know how I’d Roger Rabbit this franchise? By having Jerry dance his tail off next to the sailor with the tightest pants in the war”, then this is the movie for you. The dancing is top tier, and there’s plenty of subtext if you want to look for it.
What can be said of one of the most popular and beloved comedies of the 80s which turned Eddie Murphy from a star into a superstar.
It is... of its time.
Eddie Murphy is a renegade cop who plays by his own rules, and when his favorite second cousin (or whatever) is murdered the investigation takes him to Beverly Hills. In America's most posh town he meets up with the straight-laced by-the-books cops. Shenanigans, culture shock, cons, and violence follow.
The film is at its best when it relies on the charisma of Murphy and his three foils Judge Reinhold, John Ashton and future Omni Consumer Products president Ronny Cox. I would love 2 hours of Murphy conning and offending his way through high society (a tactical N-bomb gets him into an exclusive hotel).
But the action is rote, there's a great car chase for the opening, but the final battle in the drug lord's mansion is just... awful. Thugs with machine guns missing every shot, heroes with revolvers hitting every time. Makes you realize how much of a revelation the Hong Kong action directors were.
Apparently this was almost a Sylvester Stallone vehicle with him playing Axel Cobretti, a humorless thug. I can't imagine what that film would be like.
A ghost hunting youtuber livestreams a show from a notorious abandoned asylum, how far will they go to earn those sweet, sweet views?
This Korean, found footage horror movie takes a little too long to get going (I almost stopped watching), but once it does it's actually pretty darn good.
I probably found it scarier than most people would (I seem to have only 2 settings:- "This isn't scary at all" and "Pants-wettingly terrifying", which is why I don't watch a lot of horror), but I think any fan of the genre would enjoy it, if they can sit through the first hour.
Yes.
If you're a fan of found footage or just like B-tier horror flicks, this is a good one.
It’s payday! It’s Friday! And a Bank Holiday! And I’m a bit drunk,
Fallen Angels
Lawks a merch this is awful. Like, proper proper awful. Crap CGI! Even worse acting! Michael Madsen because I guess a new conservatory doesn’t pay for itself! And literally nobody else you’ve heard of before!
Seems Angels have their arse in their hands because reasons, and so…erm…..crap script and crappier acting?
See this film? Call the Winchesters. They’ll sort this out in like, 20 minutes, whilst bringing much need warmth, charisma and talent,
To the point I neither know now care WTF is going on.
But I also bought the sequel. Could that possibly be worse?
Stay tuned, Crap Fans!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Typical quote?
Hey, can I see your gun?]
No.
No?
You have your own gun
That makes sense.
Also, I’ve no idea who these arseholes are meant to be.
Phantasm gave us horror icons The Tall Man and his Sentinek Spheres, every bit as cool and menacing as Freddy and his glove or Jason and his hockey mask. It also gave us a pretty great score if you like the scores for Halloween and the Exorcist, with maybe a dash of Suspiria.
But is it a good movie? It’s uh, it’s a marmite movie. Slow pacing, plot holes left after the excision of an hour of story, a twist ending that makes ANOES’s ending look sensical, amateurish acting…but also a nightmarish atmosphere, passion, and an almost Evil Dead do-it-yourself-filmmaker energy. The gore effects are minimal yet memorable, and there are little things in there for Dune and Star Wars fans. I enjoyed it.
Very wild and twisted movie involving an FBI agent tracking down a satanic serial killer. I liked it, but it was pretty damn bleak. Nicholas Cage was unrecognizable and disturbing as feth. Probably not everyone’s cup of tea, but I enjoyed it.
Apparently there is some subtle hidden imagery scattered throughout the film, so I may give it a rewatch.
When Starfleet Captain Edward Jellico is shot by Red Sonja and Al the Hologram, Axel Foley drops everything to investigate!
Eddie Murphy once again teams up with Judge Reinhold and John Ashton to investigate the Alphabet Crimes a team of robbers led by Bridgette Nielsen and Dean Stockwell.
There's car crashes, shooting, and cons. Obligatory trips to a strip bar and the Playboy Mansion.
Not as funny as BHC I and like BHC I it's at its best when Murphy is fast talking and conning folks. The action is a bit rote, but the final battle is a step up from the end of BHC I.
Reinhold and Ashton get a bit more to do this time other than be white straight men to Murphy's clown. Reinhold seems to be going fully psycho carrying ever bigger guns and speculating which music his plants like better. Ashton gets a divorce. Ronny Cox is barely in it, apparently working on Robocop, but he gets hawt daughter who, to my surprise, is never taken hostage nor rescued by Murphy.
It’s the sequel! And this time it’s got Cuba Gooding Jr and Denise Richards.
But I’ve still no idea what’s going on. And the billed cast, 15 minutes in, are yet to pop up. Oh, wait. There’s Cuba now. And with him, the first example of anything approaching acting effort thus far. I think he might be playing God? No, wait. He’s Balthazar. And apparently he’s been sent to tell Gabriel (apparently a human?) he’s got to fight Arch Angel Michael and his army of demons.
Why is Michael building an army of demons? We don’t really know. Or maybe it’s just I don’t care.
From now on, whenever someone confuses mediocrity with crap? I’m going to make them watch this film.
The fights are few and lame, with Segal type slap fighting and painfully slow. And kick off for…..absolutely no reason.
Mr Gooding Jr has seemingly collected his cheque after his scene and legged it. Denise Richards is yet to appear. And I still haven’t the foggiest what’s going on or why. I don’t know who’s who, and I don’t care.
Pretty sure this is one of those tax avoidance movies. And somehow they’ve put negative effort into it. Flat dialogue, flat delivery.
There is so far nothing redeeming about it.
Wait, 50 or so minutes and Denise Richards has shown her delightful face. As some kind of weapons creator. But she also reckons snipers are best off with knives. So I think she’s a bit bonkers. Or she’s snuck in and is just having a bit of a laugh.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh yeah. And there’s one character who looks like a cross between Benny out of The Mummy and Dr Pershing out of The Mandalorian.
And all he does is just sort of…stand there. Looking demented. I’m genuinely wondering if he’s meant to be there, or was just some local fruitloop who wandered on to set, and they made some use of him.
Also, given this is the old heaven and hell stuff? One is left wondering why God didn’t just sort it all out. I mean…it’s his creations being difficult, and the whole omnipotence, omnipresence etc thing.
I'm rewatching the OG Toby trilogy. Still a solid set of movies imo. Good entertainment and the start of the age of comic movies.
But just to voice something that struck me; you ever notice how fethed up the 2nd movie presents 'doing the right thing?'
Like, Peter quits being Spider-Man but oh no. That man is getting mugged. Damn. Too bad Spider-Man doesn't exist tot do something about it; bitch you're there XD You could do something about it. Peter Parker! It's just a mugger not a supervillain come on if you really wanted to do something you could try!
And then like, total mood whiplash right after that scene where Peter is fessing up the Aunt May all 'Uncle Ben died because he was the only one willing to do the right thing' but it sure sounds like Uncle Ben died because a guy with a gun said give me your car and he was like 'what are you going to do if I say no? Shoot me?' Like yeah, Peter could have stopped that guy too but how is choosing to die over a car the 'right thing to do?' It's a car man. And at least in these movies the guy was just a thief up to that point. Money and cars can be replaced. A life can't.
And then it's just 'wait, was Uncle Ben just a stupid old man who died for nothing?'
Hits different when you're older XD
EDIT: Also MJ knows you're spider-man Peter and she's still being kind of a unreasonable friend. The sweet Russian girl has cake! Come on man there's potential there and MJ's just kind of a lot of work for a kind of vapid girl. Chose the cake Peter! She's into you! Go for it!
A 1986 Indiana Jones knock-off, starring *deep breath* Chuck Norris, Louis Gossett Jr, Melody Anderson, John Rhys Davis and Sonny Landham. All with a comedy bent.
I really don’t know what to make of this. It is funny, and there are production values. But….it feels like what would happen if you’re a talentless “content creator” on YouTube relying solely on AI tools to make a “what-if” video of the genre, feeding in Romancing The Stone, Scooby Doo and Indiana Jones, but accidentally dropped in a bunch of Italian knock-offs, and tried to balance it out with National Treasure.
It’s hokey. It’s not at all original. But dammit, it is bloody good fun! Chuck Norris plays against type, as it’s his treasure hunting buddy Louis Gossett Jr that’s the fountain of knowledge and crack shot. And it’s nice to see Melody Anderson on screen. Who is also psychic in this, and why not.
In fact…you know what? For British Dakkanauts? In this, Chuck Norris reminds me of Paul Chuckle out the Chuckle Brothers.
Probably a film best enjoyed with friends and few beers on a Dodgy Movie Night. Also probably a fun one for kids.
Been on a plane again, and binged The Lord of the Ring. Basic, general release versions. I was struck with what wasn't there, having been so used to the 'Extended' versions. No 'Concerning Hobbits' just seemed odd.
A 1986 Indiana Jones knock-off, starring *deep breath* Chuck Norris, Louis Gossett Jr, Melody Anderson, John Rhys Davis and Sonny Landham. All with a comedy bent.
I really don’t know what to make of this. It is funny, and there are production values. But….it feels like what would happen if you’re a talentless “content creator” on YouTube relying solely on AI tools to make a “what-if” video of the genre, feeding in Romancing The Stone, Scooby Doo and Indiana Jones, but accidentally dropped in a bunch of Italian knock-offs, and tried to balance it out with National Treasure.
It’s hokey. It’s not at all original. But dammit, it is bloody good fun! Chuck Norris plays against type, as it’s his treasure hunting buddy Louis Gossett Jr that’s the fountain of knowledge and crack shot. And it’s nice to see Melody Anderson on screen. Who is also psychic in this, and why not.
In fact…you know what? For British Dakkanauts? In this, Chuck Norris reminds me of Paul Chuckle out the Chuckle Brothers.
Probably a film best enjoyed with friends and few beers on a Dodgy Movie Night. Also probably a fun one for kids.
I remember having a good laugh at the ending. Haven't watched firewalker in years. I'll have to fix that.
I have a higher tolerance of Ryan Reynolds than for huge companies incorporating critique of their product to make more money. But I'm just no fun. In that regard, I did watch the Deadpool film several years ago and wasn't all that into it.
It's been even longer that I watched Firewalker, but that one was fun.
In which Chuck Norris is Chuck Norris, and there’s a bunch of baddies that need blowing up because drugs or something.
Some fairly brutal scenes so far, including the gratuitous shooting of someone in their Rude Bit for some reason, and a woman that didn’t do anything to harm the baddie so far as I can tell getting the pipe for her Showbiz Sherbert stuffed up her nose Dark Knight style, then lobbed out a window.
Bad guys have now come after Norris. And the opening shot could be misinterpreted as Norris himself, compacted down, being shot out the underslung grenade launcher, as we see the shot be taken, then Norris launched through a window on the opposite side.
Saw some buzz about this one on the 'indie horror' websites so I tried it out.
It's not bad.
I mean, it's a B movie in the vein of Alien and the Thing. Actually not atrocious in terms of its parts and for most of its run it's about as good as you can expect a movie that runs on curated cliches to be.
Then the end kind of gaks the bed with stupid gak but eh. If you want a goofy silly dumb horror flick that reminds of Alien and the Thing, it's okay.
