Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Piscian]

Venom: Let There Be Carnage

Utter. Fucking. Trash.

And yet, I don't know if it was better or worse than the first movie? I feel like the first film was overall a better made movie (but still not good), but it was also so dull that it is ultimately unmemorable. The second film is just really bad, but it starts to cross into "so bad its good territory", as you start to laugh at the absurdity of it, and not necessarily at its jokes.

For me the movie was so incoherent with its plotline and scenes transitions that I started thinking Id forgotten scenes, but then I remembered its so short and cut to pieces I'm remembering all the scenes and there just weren't that many. Still bogles my mind that so many people not only like it but think it's a good movie. Hell I've seen movies on MST3K that were better.

 

[Bartholen]

Videodrome (1983) which I watched a couple of weeks back. 8/10

It's one of David Cronenberg's quintessential body horror films, and deservedly so. It almost feels like a 70s film made in the 80s, which makes it refreshing. Often when you think of 80s films you think of cocaine-laced excess, glitz and glamor. Videodrome is incredibly dirty, grungy and grounded, and has a ton of thematic relevance even today. The seedy world of hardcore filth broadcasting it depicts is very absorbing subject matter. James Woods is great, and manages to make a wholly unlikeable character sympathetic. The effects unfortunately haven't aged that well in parts, you can clearly tell it's just warping soft plastic, but it's still visually very interesting. One thing I took note of was the set and location design, which I usually don't pay attention to at all, but here it was a standout. The environments convey so much information about the world and characters without a single word of dialogue.

This is also one of those incredibly rare films I feel needs a remake, or a 21st century update. Since it's about new media and how it affects individuals, culture and the social fabric, it's begging to be made into the internet age. So much has changed in the almost 40 years since its release with the rise of the internet, social media, livestreaming and influencer culture that the sky's the limit with what you could do. You could also go balls out with the effects, and since our use of technology has skyrocketed since the 80s, you could get some incredible body horror out of it. The original is about a secret broadcast that's driving people insane, and what is social media doing to humanity but driving us all insane?

I also apparently haven't talked about Dune, which I also saw a few weeks back. It's hard to give it a grade since it's only one half of a story, but right now I'll settle on an 8/10.

With this film I think Villeneuve has proven himself once and for all as probably the greatest director working today. Granted, he kind of already did with Blade Runner 2049, what with making a sequel to a quintessential cyberpunk classic, and not only matching it, but arguably improving on it. With Dune he's filmed the unfilmable, and the result is nothing short of magnificent. The visuals are absolutely jaw-dropping, the insanely star-studded cast are all on their a-game (but especially Timothee Chalamet), the music's great and the story feels incredibly relevant and modern. The things I appreciated about it most are

1. The tone. Despite this being PG-13, it is a film genuinely made for adults. The rating compromises some of the graphic content (there was some very convenient blocking in certain scenes), but not the tension, which is at times up there with Villeneuve's most harrowing films like Sicario and Prisoners. There's never any cheesy one-liners or a comedic sidekick to alleviate the tightening noose around the audience's neck, and I loved it.
2. The story. The film never feels the need to overexplain itself, and expects the viewer to keep up with its very complex plot and themes. There are tons of characters, factions and agendas going on, and the film's worst part is probably the very start where there's like 15 minutes of almost pure exposition. But after setting the groundwork it's off to the races, and it never stops being interesting. Another gold star this film gets from me is that despite it being just one half of a complete story, it still manages to end in a way where it feels like something significant has happened.
3. The scale. I'm gonna say it: We haven't seen something this vast and epic in scope since Lord of the Rings. I'm 100% serious. All of Villeneuve's big movies have felt massive, but this film feels fucking gigantic. You feel the weight of every ship, the size of all the environments, the enormity of the central conflict, and especially the foreshadowing. In one scene especially it feels like even a single word spoken could change the course of history for the entire galaxy. Yet marvelously, it's all laser focused on just a few key characters, so the story feels personal and galaxy-spanning at the same time.

All of this could become undone if the second part fucks up, but considering it's already greenlit I have the utmost trust that Villeneuve will deliver. This genuinely has the makings of a classic on the level of Lord of the Rings. As one last thing I have to give a shoutout to Chalamet, upon whose performance the entire movie essentially hinges. If he wasn't good, none of it would work, but man does he do it.

 

[Piscian]

Kind of watching "Night Teeth 2021" on Netflix. It's not good in kind of the worst way. It's got a solid premise and interesting hook, but the dialog is so generic and uninteresting I'm kinda tuning out. It's not witty or passionate, it's just very textbook. It's also pretty bland when the storyline insinuates that this should be biblical levels of action.

I feel obligated to finish it, but I pretty much know how it's going to end, the writing isn't strong enough for me to expect to be wowed by some twist.

I tried to look up the production, but it's all nobodies. What's more weird is that this is the writers first film. Most people would defend that by saying first time writers sometimes do great things, but that's not true even break out writers have written shorts or something or indie film, before suddenly getting a Netflix deal. This guy's name is Brent Dillon and I can't anything online, not even an artist page. I really think he must be someone in productions nephew or brother or something.

This is the second film in the studio 42s 6 picture deal with Netflix, the first one being... drumroll.."Outside the Wire".

That was supposed to be Anthony Mackey's big break out film, but if you recall it at al, it was a boring forgettable drab dud. No slight against AM is was just bad writing again.

I think at this point I might honestly suggesting avoid "42" films on Netflix. Not sure if it's a a cash grab or some rich uncle who's funding getting his kids film credits, but this is dud number 2.

 

[McElroy]

Malignant
A movie about mothers and sisters. Fun for the whole family, adopted and biological alike. Ends on Cheese Mountain.

Director James Wan and the crew give us lots of cool shots and tasty gore and body horror. What is there not to like? 7/10

 

[SilentPony]

Just got back from Dune.

Its odd. Dune is one of those stories that's very difficult to capture on the big screen because it was written in '65, before huge blockbusters were a thing and every writers wrote movie friendly novels. Like this movie only does the first half of the first book, and they easily left out enough content for an entire second movie just covering the first half. And I say odd because what gets in and what gets left doesn't really gel together.

Like okay here there be spoilers, but its a book older than all of us, so whatever. Okay so its a trap. House Atrades is assigned Arakis as its new world, and its a trap, the Emperor has betrayed them, and they get destroyed. Sure, good, great. In the novel everyone knows its a trap. The Emperor and other houses aren't sublte at all basically saying "Oh yeah we removed all the valuable spice mining equipment off world so it doesn't get destroyed in the attack. Also don't worry about the orbital space lasers we have pointed at your new house." and all of House Atrades knows.
Here in this movie they don't know. They're completely blindsided. The attack happens and goes off basically without a hitch. Okay, odd take, but whatever.
Except they leave in a bunch of lines from the novel where Atrades is confirming its a trap:
"So...its done?"
"Its done."

"This is it?"
"This is it."

"Whatever happens, protect Paul."

"I didn't think it would be this soon. I thought we'd have more time"

And everyone is sighing and almost to tears, and yadda yadda. Except when the attack comes its all "Oh my gosh, we've been betrayed! Its a set up, we should have been worried about the space lasers the whole time!"
So they leave in a bunch of the famous lines, but completely remove the context, and its just people saying randomly cryptic lines that just leave you confused.

Also Zendaya? Yeah, you'd think from her face being all over the press tour she was in the movie. Nah, she's in the last ten minutes and has about as many lines. Kinda cheap. Feels like a bait and switch.

Visually its incredible. This is high sci-fi. Every starship and machine looks incredible. And its weird its the first part, without a sequel being confirmed.
Also Timothy Chalamet is still a very awkward actor. His character, personality, skills and mannerisms changed every scene, and around the halfway point he just becomes this hardcore stone cold badass, despite the entire first half he's a scrawny awkward kid who is very much not ready for the primetime.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The Florida Project (2017) 4/5

So this is what Floridian trash live like. Felt authentic. Willem Dafoe is cool. While other aged actors who have been in big productions continue to do those movies even when they are mediocre or choose to rather disappear for long periods if they can't get anything major, this star is comfortable displaying his talent in the kinds of smaller movies that need three to four different intros.

Frankenstein (1931) 4/5

The Invisible Man (1933) 4/5

Dracula (1933) 3.5/5

Yeah, wasn't as impressed by the last one, but it still had qualities I admired. I cared for the characters' plights more in the first two. Impressive production values on all of them, inventive effects particularly in The Invisible Man. Did feel like they were milking the effects a bit, but it's fine.

Now I just wanna check out The Mummy and The Wolfman and I think that will be it for my Universal horror. Already watched Bride of Frankenstein last year. I know, weird to watch the sequel first, but I was curious about that hair. Misleading, though, the posters and stuff, and what I remember of RLM's video. She doesn't appear nearly as much as Frankenstein.

Yeah, love the painted backdrops in Frankenstein, and that scene where the guy carries his daughter through the street where there's the party going on was very well done.

 

[Piscian]

Halloween kills - blegh. The first one was solid enough if not good, but this one is nigh unwatchable. It's dumb, like really dumb. Just..just skip it.

 

[BrawlMan]

Halloween kills - blegh. The first one was solid enough if not good, but this one is nigh unwatchable. It's dumb, like really dumb. Just..just skip it.

There is (supposedly) one more after this, as both films were shot back to back.

 

[Piscian]

There is (supposedly) one more after this, as both films were shot back to back.

I honestly can't bring myself to discuss it. They dropped all the tense elements that normally come with Halloween and instead he's just slashie stabbie like Jason, but there isn't even that much of that. It's mostly just people running being dumb and doing some of the worst dialog I've ever heard in a film. I spaced out for most of the middle.

 

[Bartholen]

Evil Dead (2013), 5/10

I chose to watch the remake after watching the original earlier today, and I'd heard some good things about the remake. Which it kind of isn't, because it does the plot and characters very differently. It starts off quite strong, and has a genuinely clever conceit to justify why the characters won't leave the cabin they're at: one of them is an addict going cold turkey, and they're at the cabin trying to get her through it. As such, it makes total sense why they wouldn't believe her terrified reaction, because they brush it off as just withdrawal symptoms.

While it is a more technically competent, better written and acted film, this unfortunately means it's also more formulaic, predictable and generic. There is some quite good cinematography early on, but that fades away around the middle, and it ends up looking like every horror movie made this century. While there is more depth to the characters and a bit more groundwork established than in the original due to the slightly longer runtime, it still ends up pretty dull and repetitive towards the end. It doesn't have the madcap energy of the climax of the original, where it's a frantic struggle for survival. In this version it's a far more formulaic ambience -> scare -> ambience -> scare structure which means that it kind of stops and starts, whereas the original just went crazy and wacky. The fact that they don't even try to recreate the innate charisma of Bruce Campbell is a double-edged sword: on one hand you avoid the comparisons to Bruce Campbell, but on the other you don't have a Bruce Campbell equivalent to root for at the end. They do build an actually pretty good dynamic between the two main characters (who are siblings in this version), but it needed to be present more to really hit at the end.

The main draw here is the gore, which despite being very well done and plentiful, ends up feeling mostly generic much like the movie itself. It's quite nasty, juicy, technically well executed and there's lots of variety: nailguns, syringes, boxcutters, turkey carvers and chainsaws all get their spot in the limelight, and the effects are genuinely great. But it being played very straight means it also feels largely devoid of the mad energy of the original, where they maybe didn't have the budget but gosh darn they had the passion. The movie only reaches the same level at the very end where it goes genuinely crazy, and the big final gore shot is just delightful.

So what are we left with? A decent gorefest, but the movie takes its time getting there. A decent setup, which falls mostly by the wayside when the gore kicks off. Pretty good production values, but lacking the heart and passion of the original. Decent atmosphere, but it feels pretty derivative and formulaic, and isn't very scary. Everything about is just... alright, but it doesn't focus enough on one strength to really warrant a recommendation. My ultimate recommendation would probably be that if you're a big gorehound, skip to about 20 minutes in and enjoy the splatter. For fans of the original it's nowhere near as bad as some other horror movie remakes of 80s classics, but doesn't really bring enough to the table to really demand a watch.

One final thing to mention is that this movie recreates the most infamous scene from the original (the tree rape), which you wouldn't really expect to fly anymore. The odd thing about it is that it's both more hardcore and also more tame than in the original. Visually it's done much more disturbingly, but the context around it and some visual details are changed ever so slightly that it doesn't necessarily even register as sexual assault. You can even make the case that it's not supposed to be happening literally, since the character at that moment is experiencing severe withdrawal symptoms. I don't know if that makes it better or worse. I would say it's actually done more tastefully than in the original, as much as you can ever call a rape scene "tasteful".

Whoa mama, I wrote all this about a forgotten remake of a classic horror movie? Damn.

 

[BrawlMan]

I honestly can't bring myself to discuss it. They dropped all the tense elements that normally come with Halloween and instead he's just slashie stabbie like Jason, but there isn't even that much of that. It's mostly just people running being dumb and doing some of the worst dialog I've ever heard in a film. I spaced out for most of the middle.

Double Toasted more or less said the same thing. I already had little to no interest from beforehand, and reviews aren't helping. Most horror films don't do anything for me anymore. Only a few special do. We may be gone from the days of Saw and torture porn, but there's still a lot of crap horror out there.

Evil Dead (2013), 5/10

I chose to watch the remake after watching the original earlier today, and I'd heard some good things about the remake. Which it kind of isn't, because it does the plot and characters very differently. It starts off quite strong, and has a genuinely clever conceit to justify why the characters won't leave the cabin they're at: one of them is a junkie going cold turkey, and they're at the cabin trying to get her through it. As such, it makes total sense why they wouldn't believe her terrified reaction, because they brush it off as just withdrawal symptoms.

While it is a more technically competent, better written and acted film, this unfortunately means it's also more formulaic, predictable and generic. There is some quite good cinematography early on, but that fades away around the middle, and it ends up looking like every horror movie made this century. While there is more depth to the characters and a bit more groundwork established than in the original due to the slightly longer runtime, it still ends up pretty dull and repetitive towards the end. It doesn't have the madcap energy of the climax of the original, where it's a frantic struggle for survival. In this version it's a far more formulaic ambience -> scare -> ambience -> scare structure which means that it kind of stops and starts, whereas the original just went crazy and wacky. The fact that they don't even try to recreate the innate charisma of Bruce Campbell is a double-edged sword: on one hand you avoid the comparisons to Bruce Campbell, but on the other you don't have a Bruce Campbell equivalent to root for at the end. They do build an actually pretty good dynamic between the two main characters (who are siblings in this version), but it needed to be present more to really hit at the end.

The main draw here is the gore, which despite being very well done and plentiful, ends up feeling mostly generic much like the movie itself. It's quite nasty, juicy, technically well executed and there's lots of variety: nailguns, syringes, boxcutters, turkey carvers and chainsaws all get their spot in the limelight, and the effects are genuinely great. But it being played very straight means it also feels largely devoid of the mad energy of the original, where they maybe didn't have the budget but gosh darn they had the passion. The movie only reaches the same level at the very end where it goes genuinely crazy, and the big final gore shot is just delightful.

So what are we left with? A decent gorefest, but the movie takes its time getting there. A decent setup, which falls mostly by the wayside when the gore kicks off. Pretty good production values, but lacking the heart and passion of the original. Decent atmosphere, but it feels pretty derivative and formulaic, and isn't very scary. Everything about is just... alright, but it doesn't focus enough on one strength to really warrant a recommendation. My ultimate recommendation would probably be that if you're a big gorehound, skip to about 20 minutes in and enjoy the splatter. For fans of the original it's nowhere near as bad as some other horror movie remakes of 80s classics, but doesn't really bring enough to the table to really demand a watch.

One final thing to mention is that this movie recreates the most infamous scene from the original (the tree rape), which you wouldn't really expect to fly anymore. The odd thing about it is that it's both more hardcore and also more tame than in the original. Visually it's done much more disturbingly, but the context around it and some visual details are changed ever so slightly that it doesn't necessarily even register as sexual assault. You can even make the case that it's not supposed to be happening literally, since the character at that moment is experiencing severe withdrawal symptoms. I don't know if that makes it better or worse. I would say it's actually done more tastefully than in the original, as much as you can ever call a rape scene "tasteful".

Whoa mama, I wrote all this about a forgotten remake of a classic horror movie? Damn.

I did not like the remake of evil dead. While the gore is pretty good, it just was so forgettable and it dragged on for way too long. That movie could have been a half hour shorter. You can hardly find the movie electronic stores or even at Meijers or Target. Whenever I ever see Evil Dead on the shelf, it's either the original movie trilogy or the TV series. That shows you how forgettable it has gotten. I rarely ever see the Remake on store shelves outside of Amazon and maybe a Walmart at one point.

 

[Bartholen]

I did not like the remake of evil dead. While the door is pretty good, it just was so forgettable and it dragged on for way too long.

This. I mean, they hardly even pay attention to the door in this version. Nobody even punched a hole through a door. The trapdoor is pretty good, yes, because they reinforced it way better in the remake. But then it's just reopened off screen. At least in the original the door was a significant part of the environment.

 

[BrawlMan]

This. I mean, they hardly even pay attention to the door gore in this version.

Stupid google speak. I was not on my laptop at the time. I don't know how it can pick up on gore and replaced it with door.

 

[Piscian]

I think I've only ever seen the Evil Dead remake twice. Ironically some of the gore was a little too much for me. I'm probably the biggest evil dead fan you'll ever meet. I've got a tattoo of videogame concept art that was never released. I have Bruce's memoir hand signed, he's crazy nice. I've actually beaten all the games.

For me only the first film had any amount of classic gore and horror. It's a little scary, but It's all pretty goofy and so over the top it's almost comical. The remake was gore in a very serious unselfaware way so it made me a bit ill and it never really paid off. I left with mixed feelings. I did not like movie "thoroughly" the whole run time but in the last act when the junkie girl morphs into the hero I felt like I could get behind it. Ultimately the film left me wanting. I found the film itself less interesting then seeing where it was going next. I didn't hate it, but reading online I've heard a lot of it was cut out because the MPAA were being dicks which is frustrating. Don't fund a Evil Dead remake and then muzzle it. It's like what's the point? Your main audience are fans of what youre cutting. Evil deads big claim to fame is literally being insane and over the top.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

There is (supposedly) one more after this, as both films were shot back to back.

They haven’t shot the last one yet. Apparently there’s a pending strike that may disrupt the schedule but likely not enough to affect the release date.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I honestly can't bring myself to discuss it. They dropped all the tense elements that normally come with Halloween and instead he's just slashie stabbie like Jason, but there isn't even that much of that. It's mostly just people running being dumb and doing some of the worst dialog I've ever heard in a film. I spaced out for most of the middle.

I kept my expectations low given the long, rollercoaster history with the series, but the biggest issue with it next to the prior one is certainly tonal inconsistency, aside from the occasionally cringey dialog ”EVIL DIES TONIGHT!!” It didn’t know what kind of movie it wanted to be so ended up dipping into it all, jumping from comedy to horror to tropey melodrama to more comedy, etc. I hope the final act gets back to darker horror/suspense, and aside from a four year time jump, they’ve hinted at examining the effects of trauma and perhaps more of a psychological angle.

The funny part is while the fist is undoubtedly the better movie, I personally had more fun watching the second, and more so the second time. Almost diametrically opposing the first in that its individual parts were more entertaining than the whole.
Also,

Spoiler

 

[BrawlMan]

Train to Busan - Great zombie movie, but with some frustrating parts. I can't really say more than that. I am glad that I finally got to sit down and watch it. I tried couple years ago when it was on Netflix, was too tired at the time, and just was not interested. I watched it on Amazon Prime. I heard the sequel is not that good, and I will hold off on that.

 

[Piscian]

Train to Busan - Great zombie movie, but with some frustrating parts. I can't really say more than that. I am glad that I finally got to sit down and watch it. I tried couple years ago when it was on Netflix, was too tired at the time, and just was not interested. I watched it on Amazon Prime. I heard the sequel is not that good, and I will hold off on that.

Haha I'm watching it right now. The second one is not terrible, but it's neither good on its own or as a sequel. Imagine if Michael Bay made a sequel to The Departed. That's the tonal shift. If Train to Busan is a drama, peninsula is a wacky dumb action movie with pretty bad writing. It's very unrewarding. I'd recommend watching the prequel instead. It's a little jarring that's animated, but it's a very serious film, very very depressing though.

 

[Bartholen]

I think I've only ever seen the Evil Dead remake twice. Ironically some of the gore was a little too much for me. I'm probably the biggest evil dead fan you'll ever meet. I've got a tattoo of videogame concept art that was never released. I have Bruce's memoir hand signed, he's crazy nice. I've actually beaten all the games.

For me only the first film had any amount of classic gore and horror. It's a little scary, but It's all pretty goofy and so over the top it's almost comical. The remake was gore in a very serious unselfaware way so it made me a bit ill and it never really paid off. I left with mixed feelings. I did not like movie "thoroughly" the whole run time but in the last act when the junkie girl morphs into the hero I felt like I could get behind it. Ultimately the film left me wanting. I found the film itself less interesting then seeing where it was going next. I didn't hate it, but reading online I've heard a lot of it was cut out because the MPAA were being dicks which is frustrating. Don't fund a Evil Dead remake and then muzzle it. It's like what's the point? Your main audience are fans of what youre cutting. Evil deads big claim to fame is literally being insane and over the top.

The operative word I was looking for when writing about that movie was tone. The original Evil Dead is, objectively looking, a pretty badly written film. But it mostly sidesteps that by being so bare bones and focusing so much more on the action that you can't really complain about it, because there's so little to be critical about to begin with. It's sort of like what Yahtzee said about Painkiller all those years ago: they spent all the story and characterization money on wacky slapstick and copious gore. Getting that sort of tone right while still being genuinely tense is a very tight rope to walk, and Evil Dead is one of the few movies that gets it right. That's what makes it special. I can commend the remake for not even trying to replicate that, but unfortunately it doesn't bring anything special of its own to replace it, and ends up generic and formulaic as a result.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Deadly Friend

A kid builds a robot (looks like a prototype for Wall-E), old lady from The Goonies blasts it when the darn'd kids lose their basketball in her yard, then the kid decides to implant the robot's "brain" into his brain-dead neighbor (thrown down the stairs by a comically abusive pa), leaving the actress wide-eyed, screeching beep-boop and swinging her arms like a robot: not the terrifying presence you want in your horror movie, especially when the only people at any risk are the dipshits who did either the girl or the robot any harm. It's all immensely stupid and for once I think the studio mandated reshoots did the movie a favor by adding some good kills and nightmare sequences. Which, hey, would be the only reason why Wes Craven would be directing in the first place.