Yeah, I'm the same - can't be watching that sort of stuff and I just don't understand how people can enjoy it (but I guess they do since they keep making them).
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
I actually watched Scream 5 (or just Scream, I guess) a few weeks ago. In preperation I tried to go through the previous sequels, but only made it through the second one before figuring 'eh, I made do fine with Halloween '18 '.
Anyway, Scream 5 sucks. It wants to be smart regarding legacy sequels/requels and aggressive fandoms, but besides the meta angle already being quite dull it totally submerges itself in the exact "legacy" panding it initially calls out. Both Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox are treated as these almost royalty type figures, and even Stu Macher's house from the first movie (where the third act climax happens) is framed like it's fucking Graceland. We get a full reverent zoom out of the house as if that means something. I mean, it was a great location, and the first movie did a fantastic job giving it life, but it's just a fucking house. Also, both Campbell and Cox are just kinda phoning it in, clearly not caring too much about acting anymore and just getting their paycheck. Another problem is that the actor who plays the main heroine is really not very good. Even Jenna Ortega, who she shares the screen with, is pretty flat in this role.
I mean, I have my issues with Halloween '18, but with both movies trying to revitalize an old horror franchise in a similar way, '18 absolutely crushes Scream 5. The filmmaking was rock solid, Jamie Lee Curtis actually cared about what she was doing, and Michael Myers was terrific.
Anyway, Scream 5 sucks. It wants to be smart regarding legacy sequels/requels and aggressive fandoms, but besides the meta angle already being quite dull it totally submerges itself in the exact "legacy" panding it initially calls out. Both Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox are treated as these almost royalty type figures, and even Stu Macher's house from the first movie (where the third act climax happens) is framed like it's fucking Graceland. We get a full reverent zoom out of the house as if that means something. I mean, it was a great location, and the first movie did a fantastic job giving it life, but it's just a fucking house. Also, both Campbell and Cox are just kinda phoning it in, clearly not caring too much about acting anymore and just getting their paycheck. Another problem is that the actor who plays the main heroine is really not very good. Even Jenna Ortega, who she shares the screen with, is pretty flat in this role.
I mean, I have my issues with Halloween '18, but with both movies trying to revitalize an old horror franchise in a similar way, '18 absolutely crushes Scream 5. The filmmaking was rock solid, Jamie Lee Curtis actually cared about what she was doing, and Michael Myers was terrific.
I remember Scream 1 (or just Scream then) being a big deal because it did subvert horror tropes and was a bit novel, but you can't just repeat a novel formula and be novel! I haven't seen Scream 3, which Scream 4 refers to a lot.
Edit: It turns out I watched Scream 6, not 4.
I saw Scream for the first time roughly five years ago and it was shockingly good, because I'd never had it spoiled. It must have been rad seeing it back when it was new.
Anyway. Duel at Diablo. A western from 1966 with Sidney Poitier and James Garner, a bunch if other lads and Bibi Andersson whose character fittingly has gone through Stockholm syndrome with some Apaches before the film takes place. So we have an interesting dynamic with her and her husband who doesn't know how upset he should be at the situation. Beautiful rugged scenery, lots of gunshots and horses. The physical acting is sometimes alright, but it's uneven compared to proper classics. 6/10
Anyway. Duel at Diablo. A western from 1966 with Sidney Poitier and James Garner, a bunch if other lads and Bibi Andersson whose character fittingly has gone through Stockholm syndrome with some Apaches before the film takes place. So we have an interesting dynamic with her and her husband who doesn't know how upset he should be at the situation. Beautiful rugged scenery, lots of gunshots and horses. The physical acting is sometimes alright, but it's uneven compared to proper classics. 6/10
Last edited:
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
Rewatched Borsalino (Jacques Deray, 1970). It's a nice gangster movie, very classic story of the scarface-like rise of a couple of gangsters in 1930 Marseille (for those unfamiliar with french geography, it's one of France's 2 or 3 most important cities, bordering the Mediterranean sea, beautiful but notorious for its history of corruption and gngsterism).
The film is okay, without being awesome, but is mostly known for its cast, made of two monsters of french cinema : Jean-Paul Belmondo and Alain Delon (back then it was like having Stallone and Schwarzenegger in the same movie, except actors). Given their ego, it ended in a bitter legal conflict between them both, about the placement of their names on the poster, but within the film, their chemistry worked well enough.
But also the film is well known, and made an everlasting delight, through the soundtrack by Claude Bolling. Nowadays, I'd say that despite Delon and Belmondo (and Michel Bouquet, who was also a giant among actors, but as he was more of a theater actor he never was as popular in the general public), this movie itself is still less known than its music.
The film is okay, without being awesome, but is mostly known for its cast, made of two monsters of french cinema : Jean-Paul Belmondo and Alain Delon (back then it was like having Stallone and Schwarzenegger in the same movie, except actors). Given their ego, it ended in a bitter legal conflict between them both, about the placement of their names on the poster, but within the film, their chemistry worked well enough.
But also the film is well known, and made an everlasting delight, through the soundtrack by Claude Bolling. Nowadays, I'd say that despite Delon and Belmondo (and Michel Bouquet, who was also a giant among actors, but as he was more of a theater actor he never was as popular in the general public), this movie itself is still less known than its music.
Tonight's movie was Dark Night of the Scarecrow, a made-for-TV thriller/horror movie from 1981. It was...surprisingly good. Being made for TV, it isn't a messy movie in terms of gore, but it more than makes up for that by just being really well directed and scripted. You are never quite sure if there is something supernatural going on until the very end, and the writing does a great job of making it so that you want everyone who ends up meeting their ends see it happen, while still establishing who the true villain of the group is. Add in some solid acting and suspense, and you have a very nice hidden gem. Well worth watching if you get a chance.
Batman vs. Two-Face (6/10)
If I had to sum this up in two words, it would be "delightfully stupid." However, you can tell by the rating that I'm still not that fond of it either.
To be clear, this deals with the 60s Batman incarnation in animated form, featuring the voiceovers of Adam West, Burt Ward, and William Shatner as Two-Face. I saw a few episode of the 60s show back in the 90s, I don't have any particular nostalgia for it, but I'm not really a purist as to Batman incarnations or whatnot, so I can roll with this movie being as bonkers as it is. And by bonkers, I mean absolutely bonkers. It's stupid, it's cheesy, it knows it, and for much of the runtime, I had a smirk. Why then, you might ask, haven't I ranked it higher?
The reason is that as things wore on, said insanity really started to wear on me. There's only so many times I can hear Robin exclaim "Holy [terminology] Batman!", or Bats using convoluted logic to thwart a convoluted scheme. The plot, such as it is, is largely held together by paperclips, and while I get that this is intentionally being goofy and whatnot, there's a noticeable lack of meat.
So, yeah. Dumb fun, with the dumbness and the funness sort of balancing each other out.
If I had to sum this up in two words, it would be "delightfully stupid." However, you can tell by the rating that I'm still not that fond of it either.
To be clear, this deals with the 60s Batman incarnation in animated form, featuring the voiceovers of Adam West, Burt Ward, and William Shatner as Two-Face. I saw a few episode of the 60s show back in the 90s, I don't have any particular nostalgia for it, but I'm not really a purist as to Batman incarnations or whatnot, so I can roll with this movie being as bonkers as it is. And by bonkers, I mean absolutely bonkers. It's stupid, it's cheesy, it knows it, and for much of the runtime, I had a smirk. Why then, you might ask, haven't I ranked it higher?
The reason is that as things wore on, said insanity really started to wear on me. There's only so many times I can hear Robin exclaim "Holy [terminology] Batman!", or Bats using convoluted logic to thwart a convoluted scheme. The plot, such as it is, is largely held together by paperclips, and while I get that this is intentionally being goofy and whatnot, there's a noticeable lack of meat.
So, yeah. Dumb fun, with the dumbness and the funness sort of balancing each other out.
The Elvis biopic. I'm not specifically an Elvis fan, but I've got time for it.
I liked this film, but it also made me sad that the passing of time destroys everything.
I liked this film, but it also made me sad that the passing of time destroys everything.
Just watched the 2002 movie Ghost Ship. To paraphrase Family Guy: Nothing's happening, nothing's happening, something about gold, nothing's happening, nothing's happening, movie's over, a lot of people in the audience look pissed.
Wasn't fussed on this one. Adam West and Burt Ward got a proper send off in Return of the Caped Crusaders, which just worked as a 60s style Batman film. This one tried to be a bit serious and modern at times (Harley Quin is in it) and it just didn't really gel, IMHO.
Harley was kind of a weird addition, but I also kind of appreciated it. I saw Harley more of an easter egg than a key character.
I just watched M3GAN, and dang, what a fun movie! Nothing about is outstanding or special, it's just a solid-as-a-rock creature feature. I never watched the Child's Play remake, but something tells me M3GAN is a far better one. It ventures into well trotted territory - A.I., capitalism over safety, the loss of trust between two loved ones due to the introduction of a third party - but it does so with more than enough confidence to make it its own. Even the very typical 'obviously shady future threat' of M3GAN is handled with plenty of wit.
People (well, you know, movie youtubers) speak a lot about the death of the mid-budget film, but horror movies really seem to have that covered, which is probably why I've been liking them so much recently.
People (well, you know, movie youtubers) speak a lot about the death of the mid-budget film, but horror movies really seem to have that covered, which is probably why I've been liking them so much recently.
Yeah, I too was pretty surprised by how much I actually enjoyed that movie. I didn't want to watch it at, especially when the biggest buzz around the film was all the TikTokers mimicking the infamous dancing scene, but when I did, I was shocked how much I enjoyed it.
Also, those two toy commercials we see in the beginning really did not need to be such a bop... and yet they were.
The Holy Mountain(1973) by Jodorowsky.
Short version: WTF did I just watch?
Longer version: I enjoyed it. I was very very interesting but I'm not quite sure I have any idea what was going on half the time. Jodorowsky has lots of opinions and damn if he doesn't try to squeeze all of them into a surreal 2 hour film while on drugs(apparently everyone was tripping). Also tons of religious references and alluisions all over the place. I don't think trying to explain the plot helps because that really don't capture what the movie is if anything can.
Also the entire movie is probably a trigger warning and NSFW. There is graphic sex, graphic and gory violence, on screen rape and all sorts of other stuff. It's like if someone made a religius parable but took all the drugs before and during and after doing it. There's a few jokes in there to boot, like an arms dealer who sells weapons, some of which are exclusively for Buddhists, Jews and Christians and they're basically just guns with appropriate religious symbols glued on, because it's cynical marketing to religious demographics. Which for some reason gave me a chuckle.
Short version: WTF did I just watch?
Longer version: I enjoyed it. I was very very interesting but I'm not quite sure I have any idea what was going on half the time. Jodorowsky has lots of opinions and damn if he doesn't try to squeeze all of them into a surreal 2 hour film while on drugs(apparently everyone was tripping). Also tons of religious references and alluisions all over the place. I don't think trying to explain the plot helps because that really don't capture what the movie is if anything can.
Also the entire movie is probably a trigger warning and NSFW. There is graphic sex, graphic and gory violence, on screen rape and all sorts of other stuff. It's like if someone made a religius parable but took all the drugs before and during and after doing it. There's a few jokes in there to boot, like an arms dealer who sells weapons, some of which are exclusively for Buddhists, Jews and Christians and they're basically just guns with appropriate religious symbols glued on, because it's cynical marketing to religious demographics. Which for some reason gave me a chuckle.
It's one of those movies that are incredibly impressive just for having actually been made. Like, just the fact that someone funded, produced, directed and worked on this.
Whether it's especially good is a different matter. Matter of fact is that Jodorowsky's a guy whose religious beliefs are probably best summed up with "everything" and that he's a massive pervert. I've actually been reading his comics lately. The man has an uncomfortable obsession with rape. Holy Mountain is probably his most unhinged movie. Lots of really compelling stuff, lots of really off-putting stuff, definitely not an easy watch. One of the all time great endings, though.
Last edited:
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
One other reason why I'm considered an absolute monster on this planet is that I'm actually happy he didn't make his version of Dune.
Yeah I'm not a Jodo fan. I enjoy Moebius enough to appreciate most of the Incal (except when it gets all mystical, as Jodorowsky stuff tend to), but I've only watched El Topo, and yeah, it was informative enough to make me pass on the Mountain thing.
Do these motherfuckers ever look? They're plenty of mid-budget action, horror, or both. There's plenty with the good straight-to-DVD action movies. These YouTubers either don't know shit, or walling in self-pity and nostalgia.
Yeah, M3GAN is a better Child's Play Remake than the actual remake. I didn't care much for the movie ending on a sequel hook, but it's a Blumhouse film. They sequel bait almost any chance they get.
As fancinating as his Dune project sounds, it doesn't sound like it's DUNE. It sounds like it would be called DUNE but be yet another bizarre Jodorowsky movie. Also, nobody except the most dedicated would want to watch a 10 hour DUNE film.
Yeah, hearing him make two rape comments on the Documentary, straight to the camera no less, was on my mind a lot while watching Holy Mountain. Honestly, its one of the things that comes immediately to mind when I think of the documentary. That and Pink Floyd eating HAMBURGERS of all things.