Probably my favorite line in Excellent Adventure, because it so perfectly encapsulates #6 on your list: "You killed Ted, you medieval dickweed!"
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
This movie upholds some fantastic tension... until the movie decides to snap its neck... and then it still works. That scene of the mom putting two and two together with the batteries and then turning to the doll (still dormant) is fucking chilling. But as soon as those magical words "You stupid b*tch! You filthy slut, I'll teach you to fuck with me" come out of Chucky's mouth any semblance of tension leaves the franchise forever and an icon is born.
A line that sees its return in Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey; "You totally killed us, you evil metal dickweeds!"
By the way, Bogus Journey is lowkey one of my favourite movies ever.
Passengers: Really Good / Great
Jim Preston is one of over 5,000 others who've embarked on a 120 year-long journey in hibernation pods from Earth to another planet, Homestead II. He awakens from his pod to a prerecorded message ensuring him that his journey is almost over only to subsequently learn he was awoken early, 90 years early, to be exact, and is unable to go back into hibernation. Loneliness will make a guy do some fucked up shit.
Another one that slipped under my radar; came out in 2016, and here I am brand new to the world. Really good movie, one of those thought starters that has you continually putting yourself in the characters' shoes pondering what you'd do in their situation. Sad and beautiful. Recommended.
Jim Preston is one of over 5,000 others who've embarked on a 120 year-long journey in hibernation pods from Earth to another planet, Homestead II. He awakens from his pod to a prerecorded message ensuring him that his journey is almost over only to subsequently learn he was awoken early, 90 years early, to be exact, and is unable to go back into hibernation. Loneliness will make a guy do some fucked up shit.
Another one that slipped under my radar; came out in 2016, and here I am brand new to the world. Really good movie, one of those thought starters that has you continually putting yourself in the characters' shoes pondering what you'd do in their situation. Sad and beautiful. Recommended.
The (?) Fall Guy: What a messy movie. I thought I'd get to enjoy it because Ryan Gosling is always a treat to watch, but he was like the sole reason to watch this movie. Emily Blunt gives an embarrassing performance, not once was she able to meet Gosling's wacky energy and just came off as uncomfortable to watch. Although that's mainly the dialogue's fault. Also, for a stunt man movie made by stuntmen, I found it rather boring to watch. There wasn't a single stunt or sequence that I would remember after a day. The cinematography for regular scenes felt rather amateur, like the director thought it would be a visual treat but felt more like an ambitious student film. Overall, meh. This movie will fade from history after this year.
Fantastic Four (2005): According to my younger sisters, it's all over social media right now due to a certain Marvel movie. It has that same cheesy charm that the first Spidey trilogy had, but with some severe miscasting. Jessica Alba as Sue Storm was awful and several shades of problematic. Whoever played Doom should not have played Doom. Everyone else, fantastic.
Fantastic Four (2005): According to my younger sisters, it's all over social media right now due to a certain Marvel movie. It has that same cheesy charm that the first Spidey trilogy had, but with some severe miscasting. Jessica Alba as Sue Storm was awful and several shades of problematic. Whoever played Doom should not have played Doom. Everyone else, fantastic.
I like the actor in the Bear who is to be cast as Ben Grimm but he is no Micael Chiklis in this role.
Michael Chiklis | Actor, Producer, Director
Known for: The Shield, Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
www.imdb.com
A ★★★½ review of Hollow Man (2000)
“You know, Matt, it’s amazing what you can do when you don’t have to look at yourself in the mirror any more.” As some casting trivia, Guy Pearce and Edward Norton were both considered for the role of Sebastian Kaine, while Robert Downey Jr. was considered for the role of Matt and Jennifer Lopez...
letterboxd.com
Yeah Michael Chiklis especially is gonna be a right bastard to replace, the guy just looked and sounded like Ben Grimm before they even stuck an ounce of makeup on him.
A ★★★½ review of Vampires (1998)
“Let me just ask you one thing. After 600 years, how’s the dick working? Still good?” This film was initially planned to be directed by Russell Mulcahy, with Dolph Lundgren being set to play Jack Crow and Willem Dafoe eyed for Valek. However, due to conflicts with the studio, Mulcahy dropped...
letterboxd.com
The Lord of the Rings (1978)
Animated adaptation of (part of) Lord of the Rings, by underground animation veteran Ralph Bakshi. This movie was... really not very good. I mean, I like to give credit where credit is due, but for all the good will I have, I found this boring, hard to follow and unbelievably ugly. It's a movie of some historical interest, I suppose, but even if the Peter Jackson movies didn't exist, I'd recommend anyone with an interest in Lord of the Rings to just read the book instead, because this version, honestly, doesn't convey any of what makes it great.
I suppose it would not be fair to compare this to the animated Hobbit movie, because that adapted something much shorter and simpler, but even aside from the different source materials, Hobbit, questionable as some of it was, at least had a consistent style. Lord of the Rings is, frankly, one of the ugliest movies I've ever seen. It uses a weird blend of of animation and live action that clashes terribly. About 60% of the movie consists of animated characters among crowds of live action people and creatures (Which here means, live action footage of people in costumes with ugly colour filters laid over them) in front of drawn, or weird, abstract backgrounds. And... I don't know, there's a point when something looks so shit that "it's stylized" just doesn't cut it as an excuse anymore. I honestly can't fathom how anyone would ever look at it and conclude that it looks good enough to release. I have seen some of Ralph Bakshi's movies, his style is definitely an acquired taste, and his better movies (by which I mean American Pop and... well, that's really about it) make it work but Lord of the Rings really doesn't.
I might have been less harsh on the way the movie looks if it had been a better adaptation of the material, but it doesn't really come together that way either. It covers most of the major beats of the sections it adapts (About the material of the first two Peter Jackson movies) but what it's missing, mostly, is all the compelling character stuff. Part of it might be due to time constraints, but the members of the Fellowship would completely blur together, if it weren't for some idiosyncratic character designs. Aragorn looks like a native american, Sam is an obese yokel, Gimli is wearing silly hat, Boromir is a cartoon viking. Making all the character interactions unengaging. Something that the plot doesn't really make up for, not just because the movie ends in a completely arbitrary place, but because the movie just doesn't manage to set up a sense of urgency or tension. Everything about it, even the battles, is paced in a way that can only really be described as ambivalent. It's all so aggressively unengaging, which the truly, truly dreadful score doesn't help. I mean, I took the piss out of the cheesy folk music in Hobbit, but this made me long for it.
There is very little about this to like and what little there is, is probably unintentional. The ridiculously over animated facial expressions make for some absolutely hysterical reaction shots. Between the three different versions of Gollum I've seen, it has most definitely the worst one, but it is very fun how this interpretation has this weirdly posh british accent. And who could forget how the movie can't decide on whether the white wizard is called "Saruman" or "Aruman" before eventually settling on "Aruman" in the latter half. I think I've heard some rumors that this decision was made because the names "Saruman" and "Sauron" were too easy to confuse, but the movie barely ever mentions Sauron and when it does, it's usually just under the title "The Dark Lord".
Honestly, nothing about this worked for me. Good on them for trying to adapt something that was clearly way out of their reach, I think most people involved took this project rather seriously. With all due respect, though, I think this was a trainwreck. There are just no circumstances whatsoever under which I could see myself recommending it to anyone. If I hadn't been watching it with friends, I think I wouldn't have bothered watching it to the end. It's interesting it exists, but that's about it.
Animated adaptation of (part of) Lord of the Rings, by underground animation veteran Ralph Bakshi. This movie was... really not very good. I mean, I like to give credit where credit is due, but for all the good will I have, I found this boring, hard to follow and unbelievably ugly. It's a movie of some historical interest, I suppose, but even if the Peter Jackson movies didn't exist, I'd recommend anyone with an interest in Lord of the Rings to just read the book instead, because this version, honestly, doesn't convey any of what makes it great.
I suppose it would not be fair to compare this to the animated Hobbit movie, because that adapted something much shorter and simpler, but even aside from the different source materials, Hobbit, questionable as some of it was, at least had a consistent style. Lord of the Rings is, frankly, one of the ugliest movies I've ever seen. It uses a weird blend of of animation and live action that clashes terribly. About 60% of the movie consists of animated characters among crowds of live action people and creatures (Which here means, live action footage of people in costumes with ugly colour filters laid over them) in front of drawn, or weird, abstract backgrounds. And... I don't know, there's a point when something looks so shit that "it's stylized" just doesn't cut it as an excuse anymore. I honestly can't fathom how anyone would ever look at it and conclude that it looks good enough to release. I have seen some of Ralph Bakshi's movies, his style is definitely an acquired taste, and his better movies (by which I mean American Pop and... well, that's really about it) make it work but Lord of the Rings really doesn't.
I might have been less harsh on the way the movie looks if it had been a better adaptation of the material, but it doesn't really come together that way either. It covers most of the major beats of the sections it adapts (About the material of the first two Peter Jackson movies) but what it's missing, mostly, is all the compelling character stuff. Part of it might be due to time constraints, but the members of the Fellowship would completely blur together, if it weren't for some idiosyncratic character designs. Aragorn looks like a native american, Sam is an obese yokel, Gimli is wearing silly hat, Boromir is a cartoon viking. Making all the character interactions unengaging. Something that the plot doesn't really make up for, not just because the movie ends in a completely arbitrary place, but because the movie just doesn't manage to set up a sense of urgency or tension. Everything about it, even the battles, is paced in a way that can only really be described as ambivalent. It's all so aggressively unengaging, which the truly, truly dreadful score doesn't help. I mean, I took the piss out of the cheesy folk music in Hobbit, but this made me long for it.
There is very little about this to like and what little there is, is probably unintentional. The ridiculously over animated facial expressions make for some absolutely hysterical reaction shots. Between the three different versions of Gollum I've seen, it has most definitely the worst one, but it is very fun how this interpretation has this weirdly posh british accent. And who could forget how the movie can't decide on whether the white wizard is called "Saruman" or "Aruman" before eventually settling on "Aruman" in the latter half. I think I've heard some rumors that this decision was made because the names "Saruman" and "Sauron" were too easy to confuse, but the movie barely ever mentions Sauron and when it does, it's usually just under the title "The Dark Lord".
Honestly, nothing about this worked for me. Good on them for trying to adapt something that was clearly way out of their reach, I think most people involved took this project rather seriously. With all due respect, though, I think this was a trainwreck. There are just no circumstances whatsoever under which I could see myself recommending it to anyone. If I hadn't been watching it with friends, I think I wouldn't have bothered watching it to the end. It's interesting it exists, but that's about it.
Last edited:
Akschually... it was a gorilla.A ★★★½ review of Hollow Man (2000)
“You know, Matt, it’s amazing what you can do when you don’t have to look at yourself in the mirror any more.” As some casting trivia, Guy Pearce and Edward Norton were both considered for the role of Sebastian Kaine, while Robert Downey Jr. was considered for the role of Matt and Jennifer Lopez...
Also, how does invisibilty give someone the strength to smush a dog like they're Jason Voorhees?
Uh huh…yeah it was the late 80’s, when things kinda went down an edgy road for American horror in a bad way.
A ★★★★★ review of Unbreakable (2000)
“It’s all right be be afraid, David. Because this part is not like a comic book. Real life doesn’t fit into little boxes drawn for it.” As some casting trivia, Julianne Moore was initially cast in the role of Audrey Dunne, but dropped out in order to make Hannibal instead. This film follows a...
letterboxd.com
Y'all were right on this one.
I saw Alien: Romulus, which I think is a merely ok Alien movie if you're in it for a haunted house experience with facehuggers, which I gather is what a lot of people were hankering for after Prometheus and Covenant. Romulus is a hodgepodge of Alien & Aliens, set sometime in between the two, and doesn't do a whole lot of anything new. It's an expertly crafted fan film with lots of familiar set-pieces and the occasional gimmick, like playing around with zero g. Cailee Spainey leaves little impression as yet another Ripley expy, but the dude playing the android steals the show.
In the realm of questionable taste, they deepfake Ian Holm into an Ash-like android, where I think getting someone merely similar would've worked 20,000 leagues better. It's an android after all, it's supposed to look uncanny. It's synthetic skin over robot parts. Why go the long way round with a CGI monstrosity?
Nitpick: I'm not sure why it's called "Romulus".
In the realm of questionable taste, they deepfake Ian Holm into an Ash-like android, where I think getting someone merely similar would've worked 20,000 leagues better. It's an android after all, it's supposed to look uncanny. It's synthetic skin over robot parts. Why go the long way round with a CGI monstrosity?
Nitpick: I'm not sure why it's called "Romulus".
Last edited:
A ★★★★★ review of Unbreakable (2000)
“It’s all right be be afraid, David. Because this part is not like a comic book. Real life doesn’t fit into little boxes drawn for it.” As some casting trivia, Julianne Moore was initially cast in the role of Audrey Dunne, but dropped out in order to make Hannibal instead. This film follows a...
Y'all were right on this one.
I loved the next 2 as well. I loved that you didn't know part 2 was part 2 till the very end.
I don't think it's such a great film, however, it's a perfectly respectable film. It was trying something different put the effort in, and succeeded. The twist, I thought was a bit gimmicky, though.A ★★★★★ review of Unbreakable (2000)
“It’s all right be be afraid, David. Because this part is not like a comic book. Real life doesn’t fit into little boxes drawn for it.” As some casting trivia, Julianne Moore was initially cast in the role of Audrey Dunne, but dropped out in order to make Hannibal instead. This film follows a...
Y'all were right on this one.
This is gross every time and I wish movies would stop doing it.
It also has that 'everyone's sad, but not really, though I guess they are' that's in everyone of his movies. Nobody has bouts of joy, or anger, or laughter, or anything, just this monotone demure... apathy. I guess in Unbreakable it kind of fits since it involves people (Bruce Willis, Sam Jackson, Robin Wright) whose lives haven't turned out the way they hoped, but then even the kid is stuck in this mode when he finds out his dad is a superhero.
It depends I think. I mean, Hollywood has been reviving dead actors for decades, now they just have more advanced tech to do so. Though I guess it's always been kinda gross, even when Forrest Gump did it. With something like Harold Ramis in Ghostbusters: Afterlife it felt seriously icky; like, we couldn't actually get Ramis into this nostalgia baiting movie, because he recently died, so here's his CG ghost (who doesn't even actually look like how Ramis looked in his later years). And here's three of the other original actors reacting to said ghost of the dead actor, some of whom were actually friends with Ramis. And it's all presented as this love letter to him!? Fucking blegh!
With Romulus it doesn't even make sense though. Ash is supposed to be undercover in Alien; the Nostromo crew is not supposed to know he's an android. If Ash is just a model of android anyone, whether Parker, Lambert, or Brett, could've reckonized Ash as a robot immediately. That would've been a major oversight from the Company seeing as how badly they wanted that alien specimen.