Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies, Books, TV & Media' started by 8Fingers, Mar 10, 2011.
It is NOT... in the FILE! IT IS NOT! -slams fist-
That shit was terrible. Shudder put that shit up and it was awful.
Haha! I guess it's not for everyone. It just reminds me that we all had a friend like Barry.
I actually loved it, I thought I wouldn't when I watched the trailer but I got a little fucked up then watched it and really enjoyed it. It was a ride for me, it's definitely on the goofy funny side and I'm a fan of comedy horrors too.
I don't use drugs or drink alcohol, so... yeah. I thought it was horrible and couldn't believe they got Joe Bob to show that trash.
It's really just a comedy horror flick with some action parts. If anything Barry is having a silent movie moment throughout the whole movie haha. I just saw it as a fun flick than a serious one. Also, I need to get more into Joe Bob.
George C. Scott really did do a good job in the movie. Believe if it or not, I actually enjoy this movie more for it's acting and not the actual scare scenes/special effects. The scare scenes/special effects are excellent but George's acting is the star of that movie, IMHO. Also loved him in The Changeling from 1980.
I saw EIII first, so... yeah. I do not really care all that much for The Changeling. Also, let's not forget Brad Dourif's spectacular acting in EIII. He did a great job. It is kind of sad that he is such an underrated actor, because everyone thinks of him as the voice actor for Chucky. In reality, he can be as creepy, sympathetic, etc as anyone. I love Robert Englund, but I think that Brad could bury him in an "act off," as I feel Brad is top notch. Not that Robert isn't, but Robert has some weaknesses, and does his best to cover them up. As for Brad, I'm not sure he has any, other than the fact that his acting will always get overshadowed by his voice work for Child's Play.
Robert Englund's main weakness is he needs a character with a sense of humor or he kind of gets lost in the role. He was the right dude to play Freddy, absolutely. His bit in Zombie Strippers was a perfect casting for him. Granted, that movie speaks to me on nearly every level. Comedy horror that somehow manages to shoe-horn in classical literary references and NOT feel forced and stupid while doing it with campy, over-the-top bit characters? Perfection.
If it just could have skipped the timely Bush references it'd be an everyday classic.
Except Freddy always had a creepiness factor to him, even when cracking jokes at the expense of his victims.
"Wrath of man", remake of Le convoyeur from France. Well , the original is a dry,tense hard boiled edgy polar, (that shows we can still make good movies....) the Guy ritchie version is just a basic B movie. Still Statham has always some charisma. But Guy Ritchie can do way better (I digged UNCLE and his take on King Arthur)
"Monsters of man" Not bad. Show that you can do pretty good with a very low budget compared to Hollywood movie.
"No remorse"on amazon prime. Useless and deja vu
"Raya and the last dragon". Still amazed at the fluidity and textures, My kid loved it. It's ok. Not the best Disney but watchable.
"Hidden figures". wanted to see it for a while. loved it.
The Entity doesn't get enough credit for its practical fx.
So last night I saw:
Snowtown. That was a grim watch, the story behind it is very bleak too.
Then The night comes for us, an Indonesian crime/martial arts film. Ott violent. Pretty good.
Young Guns. If not for the music, this movie could be pretty timeless. Unfortunately, the eighties cheese oozing from every musical interlude stomps that timelessness right out of existence. Still a fun watch, but mostly because I grew up in that era. I can't imagine younger folks watching it with anything but disdain.
I'm super late on this one 'cause I don't watch a ton of movies/tv - but I watched Soul last night and it was both pretty decent and not what I expected.
You see the size of that chicken!
I just watched Bo Burnham's "Inside" a couple nights back. Worth watching for his incredibly creative use of real-time lighting effects alone, though it's pretty solid anyway.
After years of stopping and starting the final season, I finally just finished Mr. Robot. And, uhh, all of the questions. ALL of the questions.
So I've come to the conclusion that the reason most modern horror movies or any modern movies in general for that matter don't hold up to older movies because I feel like special effects and CGI has made the plots and stories of modern movies quite ass lazy compared to movies in the 70s and 80s when they lacked the effects but had stronger writing, stories, plots and acting too in most cases.
Or I just find that sifting through modern movies to find good ones harder than sifting through older movies where it's easier to find good films because they just had captivating stories and plots to them. Maybe because availability is more prominent today so we just have more films in general which makes it harder to find ones we enjoy.
Either way it's all a matter in taste, just noticed something since diving into older movies a month ago.
Agreed on older horror movies.
In the past they were limited on how much they could show so they had to use suspense as a tool to create the mood.
Like jaws you never saw the shark until pretty much the end due to technical issues with the shark prop.
There are a TON of reaaally bad B horror movies these days with horrible CG thanks I think to Sharknado lol I'm guilty of getting bored and watching way too many of those over the last year.
Movies in general in the past had more leeway to be more creative too since the directors actually had more say over their films. (usually). Ever since the disney/marvel takeover of the industry though everything has shifted to being done by committee. Unless a director falls under the legends list, they have to answer to a dozen people above them who make creative calls on their film. Plus they have all the vfx sups under them giving their opinions on things too etc..
Sometimes it's good quality control, but other times it makes everything very formulaic, and watered down.
The writer's side is the same. No one or two people write a script. Scripts go through a dozen people too.
Also today they aren't just making movies for the American or western audience anymore. They make everything so they can market it in China which is an additional layer of creative control to get things through their censorship.
I actually just read the book by Thomas Lennon and Robert Benjamin Garant of Reno 911! where they talk about script writing, formulas, the Hollywood process side of it and it's shocking how many people a script actually goes through; to the point where you wonder how much of an impact it actually makes on the film when you have THAT many people work on one thing, all fighting to get credit for changing some little thing.
It was a little sickening to hear about how you need to play the game to keep in the industry