I’m making this to be a catch-all thread to discuss unreleased or new movies that are not deserving of their own threads, so that they do not get swallowed in the Mini Movie Review thread, which is mostly about older movies. This would also be a place to talk about trailers and upcoming films we are excited about or dreading that are not part of a big franchise.
I’m not posting trailers directly in the thread because too many YouTube videos make threads glitchy and crashy.
Anyway,
Sting
There’s a trailer for this new horror movie about a giant, man-eating spider. It looks a bit predictable, but maybe effective for arachnophobes.
Fly Me To The Moon
Scarlet Johansson stars in another ill-conceived movie, this time a wacky comedy about how NASA faked the moon landing.
Challengers
Zendaya teaches two boys about tennis, love. This looks really painful.
Maxxxine
The sequel to X and Pearl. It’s going for an 80’s crime/noir neon horror vibe, and I think it nails it. Looking forward to this one.
Speak No Evil
A horror remake starring James McAvoy as a creepy guy, this time with a gross serial killer beard. Might be a solid film?
Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead
Apparently an almost scene-for-scene remake of the original, but starring black actors instead of white. The YouTube comments section for this one is more disturbing than James McAvoy with a beard.
The Teeth of the Hydra Are Upon You
The trailer is just an attempt at viral marketing. Looks like it’s working.
Cuckoo
An artsy jump-scare horror movie? Maybe it will have an Identity-level twist.
Bad Boys 4
Martin Lawrence looks to be carrying Will Smith for a change. Looks like they’re making a move to be the new Fast franchise.
The trailer for Fly Me To The Moon looked pretty good, not my cup of tea from the looks of it, but looked like a decent flick.
Abigail - April 19 release date
The horror film focuses on a group of kidnappers who capture and must watch over Abigail, the daughter of a powerful underworld figure from whom they demand a $50 million ransom. However, they soon get more than what they bargain for when they realize that they are trapped inside with no ordinary little girl.
Easy E wrote: Fly Me to the Moon also has Channing Tatum!?!
This might work if it was directed by the Cohen Brothers, but I don't think it is. Anyone else? It is a big lift to pull off.
Edit: Great idea for a thread.
Thanks.
And yeah, if you told me a month ago that a Scarlet Johansson Channing Tatum rom com would be more politically worrying than the movie about a 2nd American Civil War in an election year, I would not have believed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nels1031 wrote: The trailer for Fly Me To The Moon looked pretty good, not my cup of tea from the looks of it, but looked like a decent flick.
Abigail - April 19 release date
The horror film focuses on a group of kidnappers who capture and must watch over Abigail, the daughter of a powerful underworld figure from whom they demand a $50 million ransom. However, they soon get more than what they bargain for when they realize that they are trapped inside with no ordinary little girl.
Abigail looks pretty cool. Feels like they took Popsy and unlocked its full potential.
Zendaya teaches two boys about tennis, love. This looks really painful.
Saw the trailer at Dune 2 and swear I could hear my wife's eyes rolling into the back of her head as well as a couple groans from the audience. To make matters worse the theater nearby is putting it into multiple screens including the big boys as if it were a big budget popcorn film that is gonna draw in the bigliest crowds.
Upcoming limited release will have Alien(1979) showing in theaters April 26th, one night only I believe.
Another biopic of a famous, dead musician. The actress looks and sounds a lot like Winehouse from what I recall. Still, the trailer looks completely formulaic.
Amy Winehouse needs to think about her whole life before she *chugga-chugga-snoooorrrt*!
Looks like a tearjerker coming of age movie from A24. The trailer is (accidentally) a perfect parody of a snooty, up-its-own-butt Oscar-bait art flick. I could not stop laughing:
Currently slated for 16th August. Set between Alien and Aliens.
Teaser trailer shows some promise, and I’m optimistic. Whilst of course just a trailer, they seem to have the aesthetic spot on. Dingey, not dark (AvP Requiem got that completely wrong), utilitarian and lived in. Plus there’s what I presume to be an earlier model of Pulse Rifle, perhaps a Civilian Issue one.
I’m not as enthusiastic about the film, but I agree they’ve captured the look and the design language. It shows the people making it care.
Sasquatch Sunset
This trailer shows a bunch of Sasquatch doing everyday Sasquatch things. According to the comments, a bunch of people walked disgusted out of a showing at some film festival when the Sasquatches performed all their bodily functions on the big screen.
This looks like a live action Looney Tunes cartoon, if it were made in the 30’s. I’ve never seen so many nut-shots in a trailer with so many art house seals of approval.
Looks really fun and more in keeping with the original cartoon's target demographic.
Too many old men who stayed attached to their childhoods a little too hard are complaining that it doesn't follow the thing they liked exactly, but that seems to be the norm these days. people unable to let go of something getting angry at others for daring liking it in a different way.
Transformers always strikes me as a franchise that was made for younger kids but which got adopted by a lot of teens to young adults (now old adults).
I don't think it helps that you've things like the original film which is clearly more teenage targeted but the actual G1 animated series are clearly aimed at a much younger audience.
Overread wrote: Transformers always strikes me as a franchise that was made for younger kids but which got adopted by a lot of teens to young adults (now old adults).
I don't think it helps that you've things like the original film which is clearly more teenage targeted but the actual G1 animated series are clearly aimed at a much younger audience.
I grew up on it, but have never clung to it has hard as some of these people. I mean, it started with two different continuities anyway - the g1 comic storyline and the g1 cartoon storyline. So right off the bat there is no 'one true lore'. And the gloriousness of that original film's cynical darkness has kept me entertained for years. In keeping with that corporate cynicism, the film was pushed to a PG rating in order to get it shown more (g movies apparently got less screenings back then), so the psychedelic happy accident of a film ended up with things that hit harder for the wrong reasons and it's why I think it kept TFs in the zeitgeist longer than other 80s toy properties.
I am actually looking forward to this film more than any of the others except Bumblebee. Michael Bay's lens did disagreeable things to these inherently crazy characters that just turned me off.
Trap A new film from M. Night Shyamalan. Trailer says "In the world of M. Night Shyamalan" which I'm not sure if means it has some connection to another film, like the Unbreakable films, or is just trying to make it sound like it might be, but totally isn't.
Josh Hartnet is playing a dad who takes his daughter to a big pop star's concert (Lady Raven, played by Shymalan's daughter) and while there discovers the concert has been closed off and encircled by the police keeping anyone from leaving. It turns out a serial killer is hiding at the concert and the police are there to find him, and of course our main character is the serial killer. That isn't a spoiler, btw, it is shown in the trailer and is just the set up for the rest of the film. Considering the director I'm sure there will be some sort of unexpected turn in the narrative.
Between getting one daughter a bump in this film and the other (Ishana) getting a major studio release as a directorial debut this year for The Watchers it is looking like a good year to be a Shyamalan daughter.
At this point the movie I'm most excited for this year is Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes. All of the first three in the new movie series have been pretty good so far, and from the trailers this one looks like no exception
Did they ever do a version where the apes progress to space travel and they go to a future world dominated by humans? Just wondering what kind of gloriously convoluted title they could use for that
Edit - I see the original series kind of did that, with more mundane titles. Oh well
Flinty wrote: Did they ever do a version where the apes progress to space travel and they go to a future world dominated by humans? Just wondering what kind of gloriously convoluted title they could use for that
Edit - I see the original series kind of did that, with more mundane titles. Oh well
Summary : the film follows a group of american veteran journalists working for Reuters (war reporters + 1 young civilian that wants to become a war reporter) while they travel to Washington D.C., in the hope of getting, what appears to be, the last interview of the US President before the US governement falls (it's not a spoiler, you learn that in the first 10 minutes of the film) after Texas, California and Florida (at least) chose to secede from the union (California and Texas formed an alliance while Florida chose to remain independent while being aligned with California and Texas) and have fought an unforgiving civil war for an undisclosed amount of time. And the rebels are clearly winning.
I liked it a lot. However, it's not an enjoyable watch. Alex Garland chose an ultra-realistic approach in describing what could a civil war (and a war, period) in the modern US look like. From the empty streets, the destroyed buildings, widespread suspicion and fear, petty revenge among the civilians, confusion (are those soldiers really soldiers ? are they deserters ? are they looters that found uniforms ? if they are soldiers, which faction ? do they follow orders ? are they part of a faction within a faction ?) and the lack of justice, the scenes are not unlike what can be seen in Ukraine, Syria, former Yougoslavia or what always happened during war and especially civil war (spent too much time for my own good and mental health on r/combatfootage when the Ukraine war started ...).
Politics is almost never mentioned (you can vaguely guess who's who but the film will never give you more details and you won't get a crystal clear answer, mind you I am not from the US) because it isn't what the film is aiming for. To me, this film is almost a statement ; this is what modern warfare on your soil looks like, this is what a modern civil war on your soil looks like. Don't be like that.
It is well paced, well shot, well played, sometimes hard to watch (but the older I get, the less I am confortable with very realistic approach to violence so that might be just on me) and very engaging.
It sounds like an intense film. I was planning to see it by myself since my family isn’t interested, but had a change of heart when
1. I saw an interview with Alex Garland that rubbed me the wrong way and reminded me why I didn’t like Ex Machina.
2. I decided I would prefer to see something a little less grin on a day whenI would have to have dinner with my extended family.
3. In a theater I can’t turn it off and take a break if it gets too stressful.
Hopefully it will hit streaming soon.
Automatically Appended Next Post: How should we handle reviews in this thread? I would like to put some kind of a small review in here to let people know the movie is out and good/bad/whatever, but I feel like the Mini Movie Review thread is the best place for fuller reviews, since then everything would be consolidated in the more timeless thread. However, that would mean a bit of a double post here and there. What do you think? Is that a problem? Should we only cross post when we have something additional to add, such as a reply to another post or a second movie review?
Jodie Comer has been cast in this sequel to Days and Weeks. Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Ralph Fiennes too.
I’m excited.
I’m very curious as to what it’s actually going to be about; the Rage virus burns itself out so quickly it shouldn’t be like a normal zombie film, as you won’t have undead hordes wandering around.
Well, last we saw, Paris and presumably by extension everywhere but The Americas, Australia and such non-land-bridged areas were infected.
And if one can be a carrier, any forays into those areas would have to be super careful, as any inhabitants you find have to be assumed to be carrying the infection.
Hmm. Seems Paramount are rebooting The Naked Gun. With Liam Neeson as Lt Frank Drebin.
Now I’m not going to pretend the original three are sacrosanct and perfect examples and that, but they are classics, and very very funny. And most of that came from a dream team of writers and actors, all of whom seemed to be on the same wavelength, able to make comedic performances appear deadpan.
The good news for my brain thinks is I can see Liam Neeson in the role. And I accept it may be a different style of comedy. But I’m seriously concerned that it’s doomed to suck.
Jodie Comer has been cast in this sequel to Days and Weeks. Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Ralph Fiennes too.
I’m excited.
Sort of wary to the sequel, especially with it being such a long time since the last two movies were released. 28 Days Later was lightning in a bottle in terms of it being a surprise hit that helped change the zombie genre and it was good in the sense that it wasn't too large scale and more character focused. 28 Weeks Later was a signficantly weaker sequel where it relied on a lot of plot contrived idiot balls being passed along the characters to justify bringing the Rage Virus back into the UK. If they do explore 28 years later, (which frankly it should have been 28 months later if they're following the time frame for naming conventions), I feel like it should go back to its roots of it being a more localized outbreak (maybe the Rage Virus mutates and it becomes a recurring issue somehow rather than burning out like it did in previous movies) but we'll see where it goes.
It’s definitely a tricky character. Whilst often seen as deadpan, there’s more to it than that. To play a ridiculous man completely straight, without nod and wink to camera, mugging etc isn’t easy.
It’s the very slight exaggeration. To have the chaos and nonsense going on around you, and be able to treat it as normal. To be earnestly silly
Now I’m not saying Liam Neeson can’t do that. Just that it’s not an easy thing to portray. And frankly, for them to abandon that character trait is unconscionable.
My issue will likely be that the studio might well create a cop comedy but it won't have the same feel, style or such as the original. Or it will have some elements but not enough to feel like a continuation.
Ergo we again get an adaptation that shares the name and the "official story continuation" but is in reality just something else entirely
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Hmm. Seems Paramount are rebooting The Naked Gun. With Liam Neeson as Lt Frank Drebin.
Now I’m not going to pretend the original three are sacrosanct and perfect examples and that, but they are classics, and very very funny. And most of that came from a dream team of writers and actors, all of whom seemed to be on the same wavelength, able to make comedic performances appear deadpan.
The good news for my brain thinks is I can see Liam Neeson in the role. And I accept it may be a different style of comedy. But I’m seriously concerned that it’s doomed to suck.
Also of note, Paul Walter Hauser will be playing Frank Drebin's partner, Ed.(despite Ed being his captain in the original films ).
30 years after the release of “The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert,” the cult classic from director Stephan Elliott is getting a sequel. Original trio of stars Terence Stamp, Guy Pearce and Hugo Weaving will return to their roles for the new film.
Overread wrote: My issue will likely be that the studio might well create a cop comedy but it won't have the same feel, style or such as the original. Or it will have some elements but not enough to feel like a continuation.
Ergo we again get an adaptation that shares the name and the "official story continuation" but is in reality just something else entirely
I agree, there’s a real question of what style do you go for? The Naked Gun was mainly spoofing on 50’s and 60’s US cop shows, which everyone was familiar with at the time, but don’t really exist now (and haven’t for decades). So if you do it in the original style, it will probably fall flat, because no-one (including probably the writers) will really get what it’s spoofing. Or do you update it to spoof more modern crime procedural type shows? But that’s a completely different feel, at which point it’s not really a reboot or remake, but just a different film that you’ve slapped some familiar names on.
The other thing is the time-span. If they'd kept making Naked Gun movies every few years spoofing on the current state of cop shows then it would be a series and the changes would be broadly accepted as it would have shifted and evolved over time much like Bond has.
But what you instead get is a huge time gap and that can be insanely tricky to bridge.
The worst thing is if they try to do both - make a faithful to the old, but modern re-interpretation that's somewhat totally different. Because what you then get is a film that feels like it wants to be Z, but can't fully embrace it because its got to keep a bunch of not really fitting well elements, tropes and themes from Y. The result is something that doesn't please audiences of Y or Z and the film gets stuck between the two with no clear identity. And yet sadly producers seem to be happier to invest into that concept over and over again with current Hollywood. They don't want to break new ground with Z because "its a risk" and "there's no established audience" and such.
Honestly one big difference is old cop shows were all about the cop (and in US ones about the two cop buddy system); whilst modern ones are often a LOT more about the forensics whilst the cop kind of floats around waiting for the lab results to tell them who did it.
The Crow (1994) is going to be re-released for the 35th Anniversary of the film on May 29th. Will include a new additional conversation with the Alex McDowell (Production Designer) on how they designed the look of the film of the film.
Coppola just posted a clip of this on YouTube and a lot of film nerds seem very excited about it. Apparently it was a passion project he shared with his recently late wife that they had been working on together for decades.
Kind of looks like a generic Sci Fi thriller from the clip.
I'm a film nerd and I'm not excited by it. He's been working on it for twenty plus years but I haven't seen anything from him that was all that interesting in decades either. Having some great movies 40+ years ago isn't enough to make me assume this will be some masterpiece that I need to preorder tickets for. The last movie he directed that was decent was The Rainmaker in 1997.
Two awkward high schoolers bond over their love of a weird TV show. When the show is suddenly cancelled, the girl vanishes and the boy must track her down. Or come to terms with life without her and his coping show. Or something. It looks weird.
Reviews are positive so far, calling it beautiful and emotionally wrenching. It’s been described as “Lynch for teenagers”.
Honestly, I’m not sure I want to put myself through it, even though the trailer really grabbed my attention.
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this. Almost 30 years after the original (which makes me feel kind of old lol), and I'm not sure what connections there are with the characters and events of the original given that I haven't looked too hard into it. But then again, it's a movie with giant tornadoes on the big screen, so I'll probably go see it anyway.
Did anyone go see the original Twister for the characters and storyline?
I keep seeing an ad for some HULU show called Davey and Jonesy's Locker. It looks like it is aimed at pre-teens and the production values look relatively low. However, it may have some high-energy, multiverse shenanigans.
I don’t remember Twister much because I didn’t find the movie particularly compelling, but wasn’t the main conflict between the actual scientists and the did-their-own-research our heroes? I don’t think that dynamic will play the same these days.
If I recall it was more just different research teams; one was the plucky self-funded small time one and the other was the "I left to go get a big science grant from big institution and have all the money"
It was a strange film because a lot of the epic moments were more about just dealing with life as a tornado chaser and encounters with the tornado rather than really intense drama or such between characters. There was some, but not a "omg world shattering" amount.
That said in its day it was a big film partly because of the CGI and the effects and so forth of creating the Twister itself.
Warner Bros. will release the first of its new batch of live-action “The Lord of the Rings” films in 2026, which will focus on Andy Serkis’ Gollum.
Original “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy filmmaker Peter Jackson and his partners Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens are producing the movie and “will be involved every step of the way,” Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav said during an earnings call Thursday.
Silmarillion stuff isn't even that highly detailed to make films of either. You have to invent a lot to fill in a lot of gaps in terms of plotting and pacing.
Thing is LotR is a machine for making money and I suspect they don't want to remake the original 3 films. That leaves them with hunting around for other things if they've still got a licence and if the Tolkien Estate allows them.
And lets face it LotR is a very very powerful IP. It's right up there with Starwars as a very long lasting IP even through long periods where nothing was done directly with it. Heck LotR had VERY little done with it at all over the decades in a big way until the films; and yet its still a very iconic and powerful IP.
Part of me is kind of sad, but also not surprised. I'm just going to cross my fingers it's done more like LotR and less like The Hobbit.
I feel like I’ve consumed just the right amount of Gollum. No room for more.
The Fall of Gondolin and The Children of Hurin were both expanded to novella length; why not make them into movies? (I’m sure they can sneak Gollum in somehow.)
So there’s just one question: What, exactly, could it be about? With real experts on the text like Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, and Fran Walsh involved, there’s one thing that leaps to mind immediately — a 50 day slog during which Aragorn captured Gollum in a marsh and dragged him bodily overland for close to 900 miles until they reached the court prisons of the elven king Thranduil.
So there’s just one question: What, exactly, could it be about? With real experts on the text like Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, and Fran Walsh involved, there’s one thing that leaps to mind immediately — a 50 day slog during which Aragorn captured Gollum in a marsh and dragged him bodily overland for close to 900 miles until they reached the court prisons of the elven king Thranduil.
Still not too keen on this.
Agreed. It is not clear what this would add to the development of either character.
Warner Bros. will release the first of its new batch of live-action “The Lord of the Rings” films in 2026, which will focus on Andy Serkis’ Gollum.
Original “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy filmmaker Peter Jackson and his partners Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens are producing the movie and “will be involved every step of the way,” Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav said during an earnings call Thursday.
I hope this prequel showers us with big, epic scenes that answer all our questions, like how did gollum learn to catch fish, and where did he get his loin cloth.
Humor aside, I can understand that they want to do something with the IP. If they absolutely have to, I don't think this is the worst way to go about it. I prefer expansion like we've seen with Star Wars or Alien over endless reboots, remakes or the multiversal fad we're experiencing right now. And a short series of movies per decade doesn't seem excessive compared to Marvel's output, or Fast and Furious.
Execution is a different question. Especially since it's Warner. But at least in principle I don't think all the snippy comments (including my own ) are warranted just yet.
Legendary’s been having the most successful year of any big studio, and they seem comfortable working with Warner. I say we give them a chance. Maybe it’s time for Balrog X Smaug: Rise of Ungoliant.
Geifer wrote: Humor aside, I can understand that they want to do something with the IP. If they absolutely have to, I don't think this is the worst way to go about it. I prefer expansion like we've seen with Star Wars or Alien over endless reboots, remakes or the multiversal fad we're experiencing right now. And a short series of movies per decade doesn't seem excessive compared to Marvel's output, or Fast and Furious.
Execution is a different question. Especially since it's Warner. But at least in principle I don't think all the snippy comments (including my own ) are warranted just yet.
This may also be one of those wonderful contractual things where they have to do something with the IP every “x” years, or the rights revert back to the original holder. And that’s why we get such a stream of quality* Spider-Man related spinoffs from Sony.
* noting that “mediocre”, “bad” and “atrocious” are valid points on the scale of quality…
Flinty wrote: Is it supposed to be a modern take on Metropolis?
No. It has been a passion project for almost forty years and the description has changed constantly: "The story still seems like a bit of a mess—in a recent statement, Coppola said it was inspired by the New York financial crisis of 1990 but also the Catiline Conspiracy but also Studio 54 but also 9/11 but also Hitchcock but also all the prophets but also etc., etc., etc."
The main character is named Cesar Catilina, played by Adam Driver, and is an architect who can control time trying to rebuild a Rome/New York City stand in while facing opposition from Mayor Cicero (Giancarlo Esposito).
The trailer starts with Ewan MacGregor’s elderly mother (Ellen Burstin) refusing to get off of a furniture store couch. Looks like a family drama until the trailer suddenly veers into Mother! territory. Looks unfun.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Hmm. Seems Paramount are rebooting The Naked Gun. With Liam Neeson as Lt Frank Drebin.
Now I’m not going to pretend the original three are sacrosanct and perfect examples and that, but they are classics, and very very funny. And most of that came from a dream team of writers and actors, all of whom seemed to be on the same wavelength, able to make comedic performances appear deadpan.
The good news for my brain thinks is I can see Liam Neeson in the role. And I accept it may be a different style of comedy. But I’m seriously concerned that it’s doomed to suck.
Also of note, Paul Walter Hauser will be playing Frank Drebin's partner, Ed.(despite Ed being his captain in the original films ).
A few more names have been added to the cast. Per Deadline, Liza Koshy, Cody Rhodes, CCH Pounder and Busta Rhymes will be appearing in the film, with Cody Rhodes' appearance will be a cameo.
Another film from Yergo…Yurgl…the director of Poor Things. The trailer gave me no idea what it could be about.
Maxxxine
The second trailer dropped. It’s a but more mainstream and less flashy than the first trailer, but I am still psyched. Sadly, I will be out of town when the movie comes out in theaters, and seeing how the box office is doing it will probably be out of theaters before I get a chance.
A “Spaceballs” sequel is in development at Amazon MGM Studios. Josh Gad is set to star, and will produce alongside Mel Brooks.
Josh Greenbaum will direct the film from a screenplay by Benji Samit, Dan Hernandez, and Gad, while Kevin Salter will executive produce. The project is in early stages, and plot details are being kept under wraps. Amazon declined to comment.
Writing duo Samit and Hernandez are best known for their work as screenwriters for “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem,” “Pokemon Detective Pikachu,” “Addams Family 2,” and the upcoming Disney+/Lucasfilm special “Lego Star Wars: Rebuild The Galaxy.”
The original 1987 MGM film “Spaceballs” starred Bill Pullman as Lone Star, John Candy as Barf, Daphne Zuniga as Princess Vespa, Rick Moranis as Lord Dark Helmet and Brooks as President Skroob and Yogurt. The space opera is a parody of both the “Star Wars” franchise and other popular sci-fi franchises like “Star Trek” and “Alien.”
Gad, best known for his work on Broadway in “The Book of Mormon” and as the voice of lovable snowman Olaf in the “Frozen” franchise, is next set to make his directorial debut with a Chris Farley biopic starring Paul Walter Hauser as the iconic comedian. He most recently starred alongside his “Book of Mormon” co-star Andrew Rannells in “Gutenberg! The Musical!” on Broadway.
This isn’t Brooks’ first time revisiting a classic comedy in recent years. In 2023, he wrote and produced “History of the World, Part II,” a follow-up to his 1981 “Part I” feature. Brooks, one of the few entertainers to boast prestigious EGOT status, directed and starred in films such as “Blazing Saddles,” “Young Frankenstein” and “Robin Hood: Men in Tights.” He was also honored with the Career Achievement Award at the 84th Annual Peabody Awards earlier this month.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Ok, but why? I love Brooks, but this seems pointless. And it's not like Star Wars hasn't mocked itself into oblivion at this point anyway.
First one was a decent and somewhat different type of horror movie though it did kind of fizzle out towards the end, from what I remember. Felt like a different kind of The Ring or It Follows.
The PR campaign leading up to the release of the first one was pretty awesome. They had people in the stands of baseball games just constantly staring with a big old gak eating grin at the cameras. Was creepy and went somewhat viral. Wonder what they got in store for us this year, if it hasn't started already.
Released in 1987, "Spaceballs" parodied the "Star Wars" franchise and was directed and co-written by Brooks, who also starred alongside Bill Pullman, John Candy and Rick Moranis. Though the film never received a sequel, it did jokingly tease a follow-up titled "Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money."
Released in 1987, "Spaceballs" parodied the "Star Wars" franchise and was directed and co-written by Brooks, who also starred alongside Bill Pullman, John Candy and Rick Moranis. Though the film never received a sequel, it did jokingly tease a follow-up titled "Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money."
That title works for me
Honestly, it's the safest approach. If it turns out to be amazing, then it was true to its source material. If it is a shameless cash grab, well, at least it was true to the title. Either way the studio can claim that's what it meant to do.
Was History of the World Part 2 actually funny? I really hope we’re not getting another outdated comedian movie with the follow up ranting about the young people not letting you tell jokes any more.
I keep seeing an ad on Instagram for some Peacock show called Those About to Die.
Some thoughts:
1. Can it out-do the first two seasons of Spartacus? Doubtful....
2. There is no way I would get Peacock just for this
3. I am absolutely the target audience for this!
4. I love me some gladiator on screen.... even bad ones.
5. Anthony Hopkins will be in anything for money..... I respect that a lot.
6. I suspect Sir Anthony is in about 1 episode before he dies and is replaced by a new Emperor.
7. My bet is on a Marcus Aurelius to Commodus timeline.
Two Mormon missionaries* make the mistake of entering a house with 2020’s Hugh Grant. An A24 horror movie that looks like a Richard Dawkins-themed escape room as imagined by Kirk Cameron.
*The Mormon missionaries are young women going door to door. Is that a thing now? None of my female Mormon family ever got to go on a mission, and I had the impression it just wasn’t done.
Now I feel like we lost out on the A24 Mormons In Peril movie they should have made, where two young men are held in a Chick Tract style Dungeon of Danger by Toni Colette.
A coming of age dramedy where a young woman meets her middle aged self during a spiritual journey (drugs), who teaches her about life and advises her to avoid the pitfalls. It looks like that recurring Julie Nolke skit with a dash of TNG’s Tapestry. Starring Aubrey Plaza and probably some other people.
Humanist Vampire Seeks Consenting Suicidal Person
A dark comedy from France about a young vampire with the vampiric equivalent of veganism being pushed by her family to make her first kill. And yes, the romance looks better than Twilight.
Automatically Appended Next Post: With Nosferatu and Abigail earlier on, this is looking like a great year for vampire movies.
Watched the last half of Enemy Mine on Turner Classic Movies last night and it reminded me that I hadn't seen anyone mention the announced remake here:
Terry Matalas, the showrunner who steered the final season of Star Trek: Picard to new ratings and critical heights, has been tapped to write an update of the 1985 cult sci-fi movie Enemy Mine for 20th Century Studios.
Set in a future where mankind is warring with a reptilian alien species, Mine starred Dennis Quaid as a human pilot and Louis Gossett Jr. as an alien who crash land on a desolate planet. Both have deep-seated hatred for one another, but are forced to overcome their prejudices to survive. Things are taken up a notch when the human pilot must take care of the alien’s baby when the reptilian is no longer able.
Mine was the English-language debut of German filmmaker Wolfgang Petersen, who took over the project after 20th Century Fox fired original director Richard Loncraine during production. The imbroglio, which necessitated reshooting the film, ballooned the budget, with more woe coming when the movie crash landed at the box office.
Years later, however, the movie enjoyed a reappraisal, with many lauding its themes of tolerance and respect, earning it a cult following.
Donald Glover plays a musician who wakes up to the end of the world and finds himself the useless tagalong to a band of survivors. It’s an action-comedy apocalypse movie, so it looks to have strong Shawn of the Dead and World’s End vibes.
Unless the reviews come back with insane audience reactions, it’s probably a streamer.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Enemy Mine already felt like it had a bunch of action crammed in by studio notes. I can’t imagine what the remake would look like in this era where the studios wield unlimited power.
This manga is actually rather old, but it is a fantastic dark fantasy/revenge story in the style of Beserk.
It has the benefit of now being a completed series to boot as the manga wrapped up in 2019 after a fifteen year run and I have been waiting for an anime adaptation for a long time.
I don't even know how to process Time Bandits returning - I'm a tiny bit hopeful as the trailer does have a lot of quirky energy to it that the original had - though it seems that the whole squad of Bandits won't be dwarves this time around.
Ubel Blatt looks really cool - honestly when they do "serious" DnD style adventuring manga/anime can come up with some really thrilling adventures!
CINCINNATI - The new Superman movie will be filming in Cincinnati on July 18 with real-life police officers as cast members.
This comes as the Cincinnati Museum Center announced on its website on Saturday that Union Terminal will be closed to the public for a "private event rental" on the same date.
While the Museum Center has not confirmed what the event is for, there has been previous reporting that Union Terminal has been discussed as a potential setting for the Justice League's headquarters in the film, as Union Terminal is the building that Hanna-Barbera cartoonist Al Gmuer originally based the Justice League's headquarters off of in the animated television series "Super Friends".
"Super Friends" was based off of DC Comics' pre-existing "Justice League of America" comic book series and ran on Saturday mornings on ABC between 1973 and 1985.
This shared history has led to speculation among many on social media that the filming date and the closing of the Museum Center are related.
Previously, real-life police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and military members have already been called upon in Cincinnati to film scenes across six different dates within the past month, according to a casting call for the movie seen by WLWT.
July 18 is the last listed date on the casting call for the movie's filming dates in Cincinnati.
Once completed, the movie will be the latest installation of the long-running Superman film franchise.
The last appearance of the man of steel in film was in 2017 for "Justice League". However, Superman has not had a starring role since 2016, when the superhero appeared in 2016's widely panned "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice".
The newest franchise addition, simply titled "Superman", will star David Corenswet in the titular role according to the movie's IMDB page. Rachel Brosnahan will play the role of Lois Lane, while Nicholas Hoult will play Lex Luthor.
This comes as Cleveland has been abuzz with several sightings of Corenswet and the movie's production crew throughout the past week among Cleveland news outlets, including one such sighting at Progressive Field, the home of the Cleveland Guardians.
The film is currently set for theatrical release on July 11, 2025.
II would love to see the real-life inspiration for the Hall of Justice on the big screen
I'm hearing good things about Long Legs, and the trailer looks intense. Might be selective editing and production put into the trailer, but it looks like a scarier version of Silence of the Lambs with an occult twist.
It is absolutely selective editing, but in the way people always say they want in that it isn't giving away everything. Could you even tell from the trailer Nicholas Cage is in the film? It is keeping secrets and you should go find out what they are.
Before my Borderlands experience I was subjected to dozens of trailers. Too many..... and I love previews!
I was horrified to see it was almost all horror movies (I guess October is right around the corner), re-boots, or needless sequels. I mean; Beetlejuice 2, Smile 2, Alien: Romulus, The Crow,etc. Who wants these? No one. They will all probably bomb.
There was only one original film that caught my eye by Dreamworks called The Wild Robot. The trailer tells you everything about the movie, but the trailer rocked hard with so many twists and genre swaps just in the trailer. It looked interesting.
There was also a new John Wick movie, only starring Batista. The premise was amusing, but the rest looks pretty by-the-numbers.
There was also a Channing Tatum led horror movie called Blink Twice that looked like it thought it was really clever, but I don't think it will be as clever as it wants us to think it is going to be. If that made any sense.....
Not only has Prey proven those old chestnuts still have some legs, but the trailers suggest they’ve at least nailed the overall atmosphere. That difference between dingey and dark, where you can never be quite sure if that thing just about visible is a pipe or a Xenomorph.
Here is what I took from the trailer. If you like Alien you should probably just go watch Alien. It looks like Scott as the Producer is just having the new director make their version of the original Alien. Fair enough, but nothing new to see there really.
Reminds me of how The Force Awakens is basically just A New Hope again.
I don't mind the same story structure being retold if its done well. Force Awakens problem wasn't that it retold a similar story to New Hope; its that it was just poorly told
Easy E wrote: There was also a Channing Tatum led horror movie called Blink Twice that looked like it thought it was really clever, but I don't think it will be as clever as it wants us to think it is going to be. If that made any sense.....
That is Zoey Kravitz's (Catwoman in The Batman) directorial debut and the original title she fought for but the studio, and really pretty much everyone else, would absolutely not go for is, and this is both spoilered and censored, was:
Easy E wrote: Here is what I took from the trailer. If you like Alien you should probably just go watch Alien. It looks like Scott as the Producer is just having the new director make their version of the original Alien. Fair enough, but nothing new to see there really.
Reminds me of how The Force Awakens is basically just A New Hope again.
You could say the same thing about Prey. At its core, it is just Predator. But, what it did right was presenting things in a very different way, and playing with the existing tropes in a new and genuinely interesting way. The film makers considered and understood what makes a Predator a fearsome foe, and found new ground to explore that in. And it worked out really well.
As I waffled about and even done a YouTube video on, Alien Ressurrection followed Aliens in that vein - taking the standard tropes and doing something interesting with them, even if the end product was a bit wonky.
Prometheus and the other one? Yeah they were exercises in answering a fascinating question in the dullest and least interesting way possible.
At least in Prey they change the setting drastically. Always a good way to re-invigorate an old plot, because conventions and even trope /genre expectations have to adjust with it.
For example you can not replicate the famous firing into the jungle scene within a pre-gunpowder Native American setting.
Alien: Romulus looks to be in a space station as opposed to a space ship. Not exactly a drastic setting change. Now, once it comes out I could be 100% and completely wrong.
I also have no doubt that the new director can bring the suspense and fear to make this a horror franchise again rather than a sci-fi one. He has proven his abilities in this area in the past.
Kinda surprising Disney goes for theatrical sequel in a title which did fine but wasn't huge or anything. But apparently it has done well in streaming services, and songs are really popular, so why not. Seems they're continuing on the theme of epic journeys.
LordofHats wrote: If I recall, Moana the movie did just okay in theaters, but merchandise was pretty successful.
And yeah. The songs were pretty catchy. I gotta give them that.
687 million for an animated movie is pretty dang good. It was also just a big deal with all the songs, promotion, pre-anti everything is woke even a story about another culture/mythos. It's the 4th most successful disney animation behind Frozen, Frozen 2, and Zootopia. Honestly I think they're hoping for what they got out of Frozen 2. A box office similar or greater to the original.
Hulksmash wrote: 687 million for an animated movie is pretty dang good.
Have to remember this is Disney so while not a bomb it isn't what they want out of their big releases; for most people that sounds like a lot but for them it is a rounding error; they aren't mad they're just disappointed.
Including the films budget and marketing, doubling your investment is (somehow) 'not good enough' in entertainment anymore.
I don't get it either.
I'm not saying Moana was bad or a failure. It was a modest success. I am saying that, aside from the film, there was a lot of merchandise for Moana and that stuff sold as far as I know.
The movie could have tanked and still be deemed a success as long as it sold enough merch. Moana sold merch. I'm not particularly surprised there's another one.
LordofHats wrote: Including the films budget and marketing, doubling your investment is (somehow) 'not good enough' in entertainment anymore.
I don't get it either.
I'm not saying Moana was bad or a failure. It was a modest success. I am saying that, aside from the film, there was a lot of merchandise for Moana and that stuff sold as far as I know.
The movie could have tanked and still be deemed a success as long as it sold enough merch. Moana sold merch. I'm not particularly surprised there's another one.
Hedging your bets, I guess.
Despite best intentions, every studio is gonna know some of their releases aren’t going to turn a profit. And it’s not always predictable which might flop. And so profits made on Movie A, could be balancing the books for Movies B and C, where B just about broke even and C tanked horribly. Net result in this deliberately simplistic example is across all three? You’ve barely, if at all, made profit as a studio.
With all that preamble out of the way, let’s discuss the often debated break-even number for most movies. For a long time, the typical break-even point has been a box office total that is 2.5 times the budget of a given film. This multiplier assumes that the total cost of the film is the budget x 1.5 and that studios will get 60% of the overall box office. Depending on where a movie makes most of its money and how much the studio spends on marketing, this can be a fairly accurate metric. It is still true, however, that a more accurate multiplier for many of today’s top-grossing big-budget films might actually be closer to 3 times the budget due to higher-than-average marketing spending and/or a smaller percentage of the total box office compared to previous years. Ultimately, we can still get a pretty good idea of how much a movie has made or lost, even though it is far from an exact science.
Charts with Dan breaks down how much the studios keep from box office sales based on region as well as the week, as studios keep more in the first two weeks than later weeks. Sometimes he’ll discuss how streaming, merchandising and other ancillary profit sources factor in, but compared to the 80’s and 90’s those bring in a lot less money.
It sounds like either some wild new form of viral marketing (libel sure seems like a great way to win over the critics XD) or it seems like the kind of feth up an AI would make. That or the director has firmly crossed the transwarp threshold up his own ass.
With all that preamble out of the way, let’s discuss the often debated break-even number for most movies. For a long time, the typical break-even point has been a box office total that is 2.5 times the budget of a given film. This multiplier assumes that the total cost of the film is the budget x 1.5 and that studios will get 60% of the overall box office. Depending on where a movie makes most of its money and how much the studio spends on marketing, this can be a fairly accurate metric. It is still true, however, that a more accurate multiplier for many of today’s top-grossing big-budget films might actually be closer to 3 times the budget due to higher-than-average marketing spending and/or a smaller percentage of the total box office compared to previous years. Ultimately, we can still get a pretty good idea of how much a movie has made or lost, even though it is far from an exact science.
It was better that I thought it would be. The "tatoo-gangsta" theme is not my cup of tea at all, but otherwise I felt at home with it's supernatural avenging angel theme. We used to love films like Pale Rider and Robocop growing up, and the 1994 Crow was a welcome addition. This one is different enough and the action scenes are quite brutal - the goon squad has a really bad day at the office...
It’s a throwback to weird, disgusting 80’s movies—today! An unhappy square of a guy decides to add some spice to his life by calling a “party line” service to talk to Frankie Freako, a disgusting little creature who knows how to party. There are lots of stylistic callbacks to Garbage Pail Kids, Munchies, Munchie, Ghoulies and even Howard the Duck or Cool World.
It comes out in October and I hope I get a chance to check it out with friends.
When it was shown at Cannes there was a scene where someone in the film has a conversation with someone in the theater audience. I doubt we'll get that in most showings on general release but important cities with important theaters may get replicate that bit.
Transformers One is almost out! I'm absolutely delighted at the idea of a fully robot Transformers, without any time spent on humans. And it looks delightful.
I really hope this leads to unconnected animated projects bouncing out every few years- a Last Stand of the Wreckers film would be amazing! Not at all fun if they did it right, but amazing.
ZergSmasher wrote: Not sure why anyone thought we needed a movie of Minecraft but here we are. I'll reserve judgment at least until we see a proper trailer.
Unfortunately, this feels like it could be another Borderlands; originally intended to exploit the initial popularity a decade ago and been churning through development hell since and is only being released due to massive corporate inertia and sunk costs. We shall have to see.
Jadenim wrote: Unfortunately, this feels like it could be another Borderlands; originally intended to exploit the initial popularity a decade ago and been churning through development hell since and is only being released due to massive corporate inertia and sunk costs. We shall have to see.
Eh whilst Minecraft hit its geek popularity quite a while ago and has dwindled in traditional gaming channels since; I'd argue that its casual market is vast. MS paid billions well after its geek bubble had burst and it continues to thrive. I think its just that its now heavily populated with kids/casuals and so whilst the gaming market is focused on SpaceMarine 2 and other stuff; there's a whole massive playing active market for Minecraft out there that's still gaming and still big.
I think where the film might end up tripping up is that it maybe tries to be so inclusive of so many target market that it loses focus on what its trying to be. Or its a kids film and adults don't engage with it.
For anyone who thought Borderlands was a low as it could go
All Minecraft needed for a movie was the animation tech they already use for Minecraft cinematics, with a compelling in-universe storyline. But no, we have to make another Jumanji style isekai, and because we have no functional plot, we'll throw in Jack Black and bad standup oneliners.
Yikes, that trailer looks horrid, feels like they're just chucking Jack Black in every video game adaptation that they can find now ever since he did well as Bowser in the Mario movie. Borderlands and now this?
The best part is that given the general negative reception to the trailer, media articles are already rolling out claiming that the movie isn't for you, doing terrible damage control as usual. The funniest aspect of this for me is that they'll always say this, but when it inevitably fails they'll then turn around and say its failure is all your fault, to deflect from the fact it was just bad to begin with.
It is clearly a Jumanji rip-off, and that is what really kicked off Jack Black in these kind of things. Plus, it is an easy paycheck for him, so why not take it.
From the director of Upgrade and The Invisible Man.
It’s a modern version of the classic Universal monster. From the trailer it also looks the horror allegory version of the ‘man turns out to be abusive’ film that’s all the ..er, rage at the moment.
Apparently the Hollywood Horror Nights version of the costume for the film has leaked on social media and it looks awful.
Ooooh! We’re getting another entry to Predator, coming from Prey’s director, and he’s working on a sequel to Prey.
I’m cautiously optimistic.
Prey was an excellent film, playing with the tropes of the series in interesting new ways and not over engineering the wheel. So I’m confident Dan Trachtenberd is a safe pair of hands.
But, my caution comes in at their being two in development at the same time, by the same director. My fear is Good Ideas could end up unevenly distributed, or there not being enough to go round at the time.
I absolutely want to be proven wrong, but my caution must remain.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Ooooh! We’re getting another entry to Predator, coming from Prey’s director, and he’s working on a sequel to Prey.
I’m cautiously optimistic.
Prey was an excellent film, playing with the tropes of the series in interesting new ways and not over engineering the wheel. So I’m confident Dan Trachtenberd is a safe pair of hands.
But, my caution comes in at their being two in development at the same time, by the same director. My fear is Good Ideas could end up unevenly distributed, or there not being enough to go round at the time.
I absolutely want to be proven wrong, but my caution must remain.
Taking the optimistic view; less pressure for the “I have this really cool idea, but it doesn’t really suit this film” stuff to get crammed in regardless. Just throw it in the other one.
A horror-comedy about a coven of female vampires who discover new opportunities once video of one of them feeding goes viral. Looks super low budget, but 100 times more fun than Morbius.
To be fair, having seen it? Putting myself through a mangle, the rollers of which have been thoroughly coated in tiny bits of broken glass, into a vat of vinegar, five times in a row is still 100 times better than watching Morbius.
).
) are warranted just yet.
