Tkachuk4MVP
32 Years of Fail
Whoops, was lazy and missed that. Thanks for re-posting. I like my Cage in all forms, from subtle to off the reservation. Can’t wait to see this.
Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Mid-Spring Edition. Happy Beltane!
- Thread starter ProstheticConscience
- Start date
Whoops, was lazy and missed that. Thanks for re-posting. I like my Cage in all forms, from subtle to off the reservation. Can’t wait to see this.
The Wreck of the Mary Deare (1959) - 7/10 (Really liked it)
A salvage tug captain (Charlton Heston) comes upon a freighter (Mary Deare) drifting at sea with no one onboard but its First Officer (Gary Cooper), who is acting irrationally. The first half takes place at sea and in a storm, with the two leads constantly fighting, and is the best part of the film. It's dark, grimy, wet and suspenseful. Most of the very different second half is a courtroom drama, as the First Officer has to answer to the British Court of Inquiry for what happened (to the ship, its crew and its cargo), but he's not at all forthcoming about it. Overall, it's a mystery with elements of suspense. In fact, Alfred Hitchcock was set to direct it, but pulled out because he thought that the courtroom scenes would make it boring. I didn't find them boring, but they aren't as suspenseful as the rest of the film, so he may've been onto something. I never really thought of it before, but it's interesting that the director best known for making movies about murder had little interest in making movies about the criminal justice system. Anyways, a different British director, Michael Anderson (Dam Busters, Around the World in 80 Days), took over in his place. Richard Harris is in the film in one of his earliest roles (in fact, he's almost unrecognizable until he flashes his distinctive smile) and Michael Redgrave also has a supporting role. This was Cooper's second to last film. His ill health caused delays in filming and he was actually dying of cancer, but he didn't know it and you wouldn't know it because it's a relatively demanding role. He even did his own scuba diving scenes. Unfortunately, and perhaps partly because of the delays, the film was released only two weeks before Ben-Hur, another Heston film and the biggest film of 1959, which likely overshadowed it and contributed to it being kind of forgotten. It's a good sea mystery in Cinemascope with two of the biggest actors of the 1950s, though, so what more do you need?
Last edited:
Live in the Now
Registered User
I don't have the energy to write out anything long. But I second this review and Pig is quite a good film.
Runaway Jury - 2003
Courtroom thriller with John Cusack, Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz. Good film, well acted. I enjoyed it.
7/10
Courtroom thriller with John Cusack, Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz. Good film, well acted. I enjoyed it.
7/10
Hockeyfrilla
Swe prospect fanatic
Ozzy Fan: Prostitution can be a brutal system, no argument there. But, respectfully, I don't think it is "a whole different animal" and legalization and/or decriminalization would help eradicate many of the ills you list.
Probably need a movie recommendation to make this legit commentary, so Lilya 4-ever is a very hard hitting film well worth seeing.
Probably need a movie recommendation to make this legit commentary, so Lilya 4-ever is a very hard hitting film well worth seeing.
You are probably right, legalization and regulation (and enforcement) if followed could definitely solve most of those issues. I still feel it's somewhat of a "whole different animal" because just about any other job in the world you can think of that isn't as intimate or involving as sexual penetration or physical foreplay acts. That looks like a good film also, but as stated previously, I honestly have no interest in the subject and almost entirely watch movies based off my random/possibly-subconcious-even-at-times mood. That and I have an on again and off again laundry list of movies to watch. Thanks though.
Yeah, no problem. I was just playing defense with the recommendation on the off chance a moderator might raise an eyebrow about the entry.
Last edited:
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,745
- 2,389
Runaway Train (1985) - 7/10
Felt more like one of those crazy 70s films, extremely over the top in almost every way, particularly the acting. The beginning of the film feels like it could've been cut because the good stuff starts once the prison break is completed and on the train. A series of short almost simplistic challenges that are tied well together. I feel like a re-make of this would actually work well if it isn't a budget prediction but as it was, it feels like a bit of a novelty with just how over the top it all is.
Felt more like one of those crazy 70s films, extremely over the top in almost every way, particularly the acting. The beginning of the film feels like it could've been cut because the good stuff starts once the prison break is completed and on the train. A series of short almost simplistic challenges that are tied well together. I feel like a re-make of this would actually work well if it isn't a budget prediction but as it was, it feels like a bit of a novelty with just how over the top it all is.
12 (2007) directed by Nikita Mikhalkov
Following a trial about a young Chechen man accused of murdering his Russian step-father, 12 jurors from very different backgrounds must determine his fate. A Russian language remake of 12 Angry Men transported to contemporary Russia. It has big shoes to fill considering the status of the American film and Mikhalkov’s direction misses his mark. Where the original film is lively with crackling dialogue despite being confined to a single small room, Mikhalkov eschews dialogue between characters in favour for each juror having a long over the top monologue about their life, related or unrelated to the case. Some of the monologues are very good, others are very bad, but the results make for a very stodgy film. While I understand that Mikhalkov is trying to bring forward more of a statement regarding class and ethnic relations from the original film, I don’t think a lot of the monologues were that effective and by the third minute of some of them left me sitting there thinking “get to the point already” and “how is this necessary?”. Mikhalkov keeps the knife scene (not as effective as the original) and the re-enactment of the neighbouring looking to see the murder scene (more effective than the original) but most of the film consists of these long monologues which inflated the runtime to an unnecessary two and a half hours. Mikhalkov also decided to add scenes of backstory from the accused’s childhood, and an outrageous epilogue where one of the jurors, who is an ex-KGB officer (don’t ask me how he made it through the jury selection process, it’s unexplained), decided he’s going to help the boy hunt down the real murderers of his step-father. Sometimes you shouldn’t mess with the classics.
Following a trial about a young Chechen man accused of murdering his Russian step-father, 12 jurors from very different backgrounds must determine his fate. A Russian language remake of 12 Angry Men transported to contemporary Russia. It has big shoes to fill considering the status of the American film and Mikhalkov’s direction misses his mark. Where the original film is lively with crackling dialogue despite being confined to a single small room, Mikhalkov eschews dialogue between characters in favour for each juror having a long over the top monologue about their life, related or unrelated to the case. Some of the monologues are very good, others are very bad, but the results make for a very stodgy film. While I understand that Mikhalkov is trying to bring forward more of a statement regarding class and ethnic relations from the original film, I don’t think a lot of the monologues were that effective and by the third minute of some of them left me sitting there thinking “get to the point already” and “how is this necessary?”. Mikhalkov keeps the knife scene (not as effective as the original) and the re-enactment of the neighbouring looking to see the murder scene (more effective than the original) but most of the film consists of these long monologues which inflated the runtime to an unnecessary two and a half hours. Mikhalkov also decided to add scenes of backstory from the accused’s childhood, and an outrageous epilogue where one of the jurors, who is an ex-KGB officer (don’t ask me how he made it through the jury selection process, it’s unexplained), decided he’s going to help the boy hunt down the real murderers of his step-father. Sometimes you shouldn’t mess with the classics.
If you're going through 12 Angry Men adaptations, you need to check out the 1997 TV movie that Showtime made. It has an all-star cast and is very good. I like it a lot. It's an example of a remake done well. It's free on the Roku Channel and on YouTube with ads:
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
Falling Down
with Michael Douglas, Robert Duvall, and other, lesser actors.
Bill Foster (Douglas) is a man about to snap. For one thing, he's in 1992 Los Angeles, and therefore surrounded by gangs, crime, misery, bad fast food and the occasional Nazi army surplus store guy. His razor-aligned haircut, horn-rimmed glasses and severe 50's office worker garb clash oddly with the Hispanic ghetto he walks into after abandoning his crap car in a construction traffic jam. It's his daughter's birthday, and he's going to spend it with her, regardless of what his ex-wife, traffic jams, gangsters with bad aim, ill-tempered shopkeepers, or anyone else in big, bad LA have to say about it. On his trail is Prendergast (an oddly timid Duvall), a detective on his very last day before retirement. Nobody except his ex-partner respects him, his wife's a psycho shrew who's determined to drag him off to Arizona, and everyone would very much prefer if he just shut up, sit in the corner politely and then f*** off at 6. But he's the only one that notices that there's a certain white guy walking through gangland casually shooting up fast food restaurants, army surplus stores, making muddled social commentary, and moving inexorably through LA towards his daughter and terrified ex-wife like the Terminator. Both men may be considered obsolete by everyone in their circles...but they're both still lethally potent, and they're coming to a head. Climactic suspense ensues.
I saw this around when it came out, liked it, but hadn't really thought about it much since then. Saw it mentioned again and then it was on tv. And...it's a really, really good movie. Bill and Prendergast are both real people given genuine depth and sympathy. Bill's got a lot of things going on in his life that might make almost anyone irritable, and Prendergast is basically just a lonely nice guy adrift in the vast ocean of assholes that is the LAPD in the early 90's. Douglas and Duvall put on an acting clinic. Veteran stars at the top of their game. Joel Schumacher reminds us that he used to be able to make a hell of a good movie before giving the batsuit nipples.
"So kids, after I blow up that construction yard and kill X# of people, can you tell me why the cops think I'm a bad guy?"
with Michael Douglas, Robert Duvall, and other, lesser actors.
Bill Foster (Douglas) is a man about to snap. For one thing, he's in 1992 Los Angeles, and therefore surrounded by gangs, crime, misery, bad fast food and the occasional Nazi army surplus store guy. His razor-aligned haircut, horn-rimmed glasses and severe 50's office worker garb clash oddly with the Hispanic ghetto he walks into after abandoning his crap car in a construction traffic jam. It's his daughter's birthday, and he's going to spend it with her, regardless of what his ex-wife, traffic jams, gangsters with bad aim, ill-tempered shopkeepers, or anyone else in big, bad LA have to say about it. On his trail is Prendergast (an oddly timid Duvall), a detective on his very last day before retirement. Nobody except his ex-partner respects him, his wife's a psycho shrew who's determined to drag him off to Arizona, and everyone would very much prefer if he just shut up, sit in the corner politely and then f*** off at 6. But he's the only one that notices that there's a certain white guy walking through gangland casually shooting up fast food restaurants, army surplus stores, making muddled social commentary, and moving inexorably through LA towards his daughter and terrified ex-wife like the Terminator. Both men may be considered obsolete by everyone in their circles...but they're both still lethally potent, and they're coming to a head. Climactic suspense ensues.
I saw this around when it came out, liked it, but hadn't really thought about it much since then. Saw it mentioned again and then it was on tv. And...it's a really, really good movie. Bill and Prendergast are both real people given genuine depth and sympathy. Bill's got a lot of things going on in his life that might make almost anyone irritable, and Prendergast is basically just a lonely nice guy adrift in the vast ocean of assholes that is the LAPD in the early 90's. Douglas and Duvall put on an acting clinic. Veteran stars at the top of their game. Joel Schumacher reminds us that he used to be able to make a hell of a good movie before giving the batsuit nipples.
"So kids, after I blow up that construction yard and kill X# of people, can you tell me why the cops think I'm a bad guy?"
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
It is funny in that it portrayed the ostracized white male angry at his changing place in the world long before it was fashionable.
I remember seeing it in the theater and not being overly sympathetic. But I do remember a few moments of dark humour.
Last edited:
Galveston (2018) directed by Mélanie Laurent
Roy (Ben Foster), a hitman for a New Orleans mob, receives an apparently terminal diagnoses (though he doesn’t stick around to find out what it is from his doctor). Later he gets told by his boss to go intimidate someone, but to be sure not to bring a weapon along. To no surprise his boss was double crossing him and trying to execute him, but Roy manages to survive and is a dead man walking in two senses of the phrase. At the botched execution, he rescues a teenage escort, Rocky (Elle Fanning), and the two of them with a quick detour to Rocky’s home to pickup her sister (who may not be her sister) and to shoot her step-father, they hide out in a motel in Galveston, Texas. This film had some bad reviews when it came out, but I found it to be quite good. Sure, the film is slow. It is a slow-burn, and Laurent is most occupied with the mind of those on the run and with the grim reaper at their door, rather than thrills and action. The biggest action scene, in which Roy escapes from his execution is brief and doesn’t have too much of a fight, but instead tries to reflect Roy’s headspace with ears ringing from gunshots next to his head. Likewise, his big escape later in the film doesn’t involve much violence but instead is a single long shot of Roy desperately trying to sneak and find a way out of a warehouse. It’s a very stylish and moody thriller which shows a lot of confidence by Laurent, but I can see why viewers may not have liked it. Ben Foster is very good here, as is Elle Fanning who is trying to strip herself out of her childhood roles a bit as of late, though her role is a little underwritten and she has less to work with. Pleasantly surprised with this one due to the reviews, and I found it a very good character study by Laurent with a great performance by Foster.
A couple of weeks ago, someone mentioned (forget who and too lazy to look back in the thread) good actors who moonlight as good directors, and Mélanie Laurent (who most famously starred in Inglorious Basterds) makes a good case for being lumped into that group.
Roy (Ben Foster), a hitman for a New Orleans mob, receives an apparently terminal diagnoses (though he doesn’t stick around to find out what it is from his doctor). Later he gets told by his boss to go intimidate someone, but to be sure not to bring a weapon along. To no surprise his boss was double crossing him and trying to execute him, but Roy manages to survive and is a dead man walking in two senses of the phrase. At the botched execution, he rescues a teenage escort, Rocky (Elle Fanning), and the two of them with a quick detour to Rocky’s home to pickup her sister (who may not be her sister) and to shoot her step-father, they hide out in a motel in Galveston, Texas. This film had some bad reviews when it came out, but I found it to be quite good. Sure, the film is slow. It is a slow-burn, and Laurent is most occupied with the mind of those on the run and with the grim reaper at their door, rather than thrills and action. The biggest action scene, in which Roy escapes from his execution is brief and doesn’t have too much of a fight, but instead tries to reflect Roy’s headspace with ears ringing from gunshots next to his head. Likewise, his big escape later in the film doesn’t involve much violence but instead is a single long shot of Roy desperately trying to sneak and find a way out of a warehouse. It’s a very stylish and moody thriller which shows a lot of confidence by Laurent, but I can see why viewers may not have liked it. Ben Foster is very good here, as is Elle Fanning who is trying to strip herself out of her childhood roles a bit as of late, though her role is a little underwritten and she has less to work with. Pleasantly surprised with this one due to the reviews, and I found it a very good character study by Laurent with a great performance by Foster.
A couple of weeks ago, someone mentioned (forget who and too lazy to look back in the thread) good actors who moonlight as good directors, and Mélanie Laurent (who most famously starred in Inglorious Basterds) makes a good case for being lumped into that group.
The Red Shoes (1948) directed by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger
A young ballerina (Moira Shearer) who is set to star in the famed ballet director Boris Lermontov’s (Anton Walbrook) ballet production of The Red Shoes, is torn between her art and her love of the production’s composer Julian Craster (Marius Goring). Shot in technicolour by Jack Cardiff, this film is strikingly beautiful. Its cinematography and use of colour are phenomenal. For the first hour or so I thought it was a very good but not very exceptional ballet drama, not unlike something I had seen from other ballet dramas like Black Swan, which looks at the creative process and the obsession over one’s art But then the film drops everything at that hour mark to have an extended ballet sequences which explores the mindset of the ballerina while she dances like a dream or fantasy sequence is so ahead of its time. Not really a dance fan, but Powell and Pressburger made me a ballet fanatic for two hours. Also Anton Walbrook would have made an excellent Bond villain, he captures the sophistication with a touch of evil so well.
A young ballerina (Moira Shearer) who is set to star in the famed ballet director Boris Lermontov’s (Anton Walbrook) ballet production of The Red Shoes, is torn between her art and her love of the production’s composer Julian Craster (Marius Goring). Shot in technicolour by Jack Cardiff, this film is strikingly beautiful. Its cinematography and use of colour are phenomenal. For the first hour or so I thought it was a very good but not very exceptional ballet drama, not unlike something I had seen from other ballet dramas like Black Swan, which looks at the creative process and the obsession over one’s art But then the film drops everything at that hour mark to have an extended ballet sequences which explores the mindset of the ballerina while she dances like a dream or fantasy sequence is so ahead of its time. Not really a dance fan, but Powell and Pressburger made me a ballet fanatic for two hours. Also Anton Walbrook would have made an excellent Bond villain, he captures the sophistication with a touch of evil so well.
Old (2021)
2.20 out of 4stars
"A thriller about a family on a tropical holiday who discover that the secluded beach where they are relaxing for a few hours is somehow causing them to age rapidly reducing their entire lives into a single day."
You know, I can see this working better as a book, which it is based off of. Even accepting a few major plot holes, I think it tries to do too much or stuff the wrong way and Shyamalan is the wrong director for this movie. I applaud the attempt though and the storyline and events are interesting, albeit they don't hit nearly as they should on paper because of numerous poor decisions and dialogue. Even the underwhelming twist should have been manipulated into something much more sinister to give the audience a better payoff to the manic panic chaos it unevenly put them through. Never boring, but mediocrely satisfying and could have been something great.
So I binged the Child's Play/Chucky movie franchise, all 8 of them with a couple friends over the last week. I won't give them all ratings like I usually do, it's easier to just rate them on a chart from most enjoyed to least enjoyed and give the good and the bad on each. And surprisingly or not, their ongoing storyline has more changes and "angles/goals" than one would think from a horror franchise.
So, Most enjoyable to least enjoyable list as follows:
Child's Play (1988)
Child's Play 2 (1990)
Bride of Chucky (1998)
Curse of Chucky (2013)
Cult of Chucky (2017)
Child's Play Remake (2019)
Seed of Chucky (2004)
Child's Play 3 (1991)
Child's Play (1988)
"A single mother gives her son a much sought-after doll for his birthday, only to discover that it is possessed by the soul of a serial killer."
Definitely the freshest and best, not just because it's origin story depth. Great horror comedy. It's definitely got a lot of laughs, the most scares, most shock value, best lines, best attempts of killing Chucky, and best use of Chucky.
Child's Play 2 (1990)
"While Andy's mother is admitted to a psychiatric hospital, the young boy is placed in foster care, and Chucky, determined to claim Andy's soul, is not far behind."
Near spot on evolution of the story and plays it's comedy angle more so in the first sequel. Everything feels so perfectly touched upon and executed that if there was never any more movies in the franchise, this would have been a perfect ending. Lucky for me, there was more.
Child's Play 3 (1991)
"Chucky returns for revenge against Andy, the young boy who defeated him, and now a teenager living in a military academy."
Easily the worst chucky film. Has maybe a handful of the worst murders in the entire franchise, a forced Andy romantic side story, and cardboard cut out side characters.
Bride of Chucky (1998)
"Chucky, the doll possessed by a serial killer, discovers the perfect mate to kill and revive into the body of another doll."
Probably the most purely comedic and satiric movie in the whole franchise, and it works. Mancini's idea of giving chucky a girlfriend backstory/wife future and tying it to and alongside a forbidden "Endless Love" story was genius. Tilly is a welcome addition and brings a nice complimenting evil doll element to Chucky himself. And it includes my favorite wedding chapel motel murder in the entire franchise.
Seed of Chucky (2004)
"Chucky and Tiffany are resurrected by their innocent gender-confused daughter, Glenda, and hit Hollywood, where a movie depicting the killer dolls' murder spree is underway."
Feels like the most oddest entry in the franchise. A bit out of place, the 3rd wheel feels literally like a 3rd wheel at times. It works here and there, but altogether a failure. And WAYYYYY too much Tilly playing Tilly sidestory going on.
Curse of Chucky (2014)
"After her mother's mysterious death, Nica begins to suspect that the talking, red-haired doll her visiting niece has been playing with may be the key to recent bloodshed and chaos."
Almost feels like a changing up of the origin/Andy storyline, but not because it's in the same universe. Going back to it's roots of turning Chucky into a haunted house murdering nightmare with dabbles of humor, a powerful solid lead character "to replace Andy finally", and family character drama issues aplenty. It works very well and is a nice middle ground for what the franchise tries to do for it's audience.
Cult of Chucky (2017)
"Chucky returns to terrorize his human victim, Nica. Meanwhile, the killer doll has some scores to settle with his old enemies, with the help of his former wife."
Tries to do too much while bringing closure to the saga. Some great choices and angles, but the over the top graphicness, "cult choice", underwhelming Andy closure, amongst other things don't make it as satisfying as it's previous franchise film's quality make it's expectations to be. But applause for trying and it wasn't too far off.
Child's Play Remake (2019)
"A mother gives her 13-year-old son a toy doll for his birthday, unaware of its more sinister nature."
Chucky for the modern age with Wifi, no Charles Lee Ray background, and less funny one liners. Some nice touches, some underwhelming choices, and doesn't really mesh with the soul of the rest of the franchise. But solid.
Altogether it was certainly a more fun than troublesome journey through the child's play franchise. The horror comedy angle paid off and Dourif is money if you're into the shock/over the top/crude humor it brings alongside some more fun horror events.
2.20 out of 4stars
"A thriller about a family on a tropical holiday who discover that the secluded beach where they are relaxing for a few hours is somehow causing them to age rapidly reducing their entire lives into a single day."
You know, I can see this working better as a book, which it is based off of. Even accepting a few major plot holes, I think it tries to do too much or stuff the wrong way and Shyamalan is the wrong director for this movie. I applaud the attempt though and the storyline and events are interesting, albeit they don't hit nearly as they should on paper because of numerous poor decisions and dialogue. Even the underwhelming twist should have been manipulated into something much more sinister to give the audience a better payoff to the manic panic chaos it unevenly put them through. Never boring, but mediocrely satisfying and could have been something great.
So I binged the Child's Play/Chucky movie franchise, all 8 of them with a couple friends over the last week. I won't give them all ratings like I usually do, it's easier to just rate them on a chart from most enjoyed to least enjoyed and give the good and the bad on each. And surprisingly or not, their ongoing storyline has more changes and "angles/goals" than one would think from a horror franchise.
So, Most enjoyable to least enjoyable list as follows:
Child's Play (1988)
Child's Play 2 (1990)
Bride of Chucky (1998)
Curse of Chucky (2013)
Cult of Chucky (2017)
Child's Play Remake (2019)
Seed of Chucky (2004)
Child's Play 3 (1991)
Child's Play (1988)
"A single mother gives her son a much sought-after doll for his birthday, only to discover that it is possessed by the soul of a serial killer."
Definitely the freshest and best, not just because it's origin story depth. Great horror comedy. It's definitely got a lot of laughs, the most scares, most shock value, best lines, best attempts of killing Chucky, and best use of Chucky.
Child's Play 2 (1990)
"While Andy's mother is admitted to a psychiatric hospital, the young boy is placed in foster care, and Chucky, determined to claim Andy's soul, is not far behind."
Near spot on evolution of the story and plays it's comedy angle more so in the first sequel. Everything feels so perfectly touched upon and executed that if there was never any more movies in the franchise, this would have been a perfect ending. Lucky for me, there was more.
Child's Play 3 (1991)
"Chucky returns for revenge against Andy, the young boy who defeated him, and now a teenager living in a military academy."
Easily the worst chucky film. Has maybe a handful of the worst murders in the entire franchise, a forced Andy romantic side story, and cardboard cut out side characters.
Bride of Chucky (1998)
"Chucky, the doll possessed by a serial killer, discovers the perfect mate to kill and revive into the body of another doll."
Probably the most purely comedic and satiric movie in the whole franchise, and it works. Mancini's idea of giving chucky a girlfriend backstory/wife future and tying it to and alongside a forbidden "Endless Love" story was genius. Tilly is a welcome addition and brings a nice complimenting evil doll element to Chucky himself. And it includes my favorite wedding chapel motel murder in the entire franchise.
Seed of Chucky (2004)
"Chucky and Tiffany are resurrected by their innocent gender-confused daughter, Glenda, and hit Hollywood, where a movie depicting the killer dolls' murder spree is underway."
Feels like the most oddest entry in the franchise. A bit out of place, the 3rd wheel feels literally like a 3rd wheel at times. It works here and there, but altogether a failure. And WAYYYYY too much Tilly playing Tilly sidestory going on.
Curse of Chucky (2014)
"After her mother's mysterious death, Nica begins to suspect that the talking, red-haired doll her visiting niece has been playing with may be the key to recent bloodshed and chaos."
Almost feels like a changing up of the origin/Andy storyline, but not because it's in the same universe. Going back to it's roots of turning Chucky into a haunted house murdering nightmare with dabbles of humor, a powerful solid lead character "to replace Andy finally", and family character drama issues aplenty. It works very well and is a nice middle ground for what the franchise tries to do for it's audience.
Cult of Chucky (2017)
"Chucky returns to terrorize his human victim, Nica. Meanwhile, the killer doll has some scores to settle with his old enemies, with the help of his former wife."
Tries to do too much while bringing closure to the saga. Some great choices and angles, but the over the top graphicness, "cult choice", underwhelming Andy closure, amongst other things don't make it as satisfying as it's previous franchise film's quality make it's expectations to be. But applause for trying and it wasn't too far off.
Child's Play Remake (2019)
"A mother gives her 13-year-old son a toy doll for his birthday, unaware of its more sinister nature."
Chucky for the modern age with Wifi, no Charles Lee Ray background, and less funny one liners. Some nice touches, some underwhelming choices, and doesn't really mesh with the soul of the rest of the franchise. But solid.
Altogether it was certainly a more fun than troublesome journey through the child's play franchise. The horror comedy angle paid off and Dourif is money if you're into the shock/over the top/crude humor it brings alongside some more fun horror events.
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,745
- 2,389
Odd Man Out (1947) - 6.5/10
Bit of a disappointing Carol Reed film set in Belfast (but filmed in London disappointingly as they always seemed to be). Surprisingly won best editing, it couldn't have been for the poor pacing. It starts well and has some good acting but I feel it telegraphs the fact that it's a tragedy far too long and it feels like you're walking like a zombie to the inevitable conclusion, kinda similar to one of the central character's who gets shot in the arm early and does walk deliriously around for half the film.
Disappointing summer though unless you're into horror films or documentaries so might as well catch up on these old British classics.
Bit of a disappointing Carol Reed film set in Belfast (but filmed in London disappointingly as they always seemed to be). Surprisingly won best editing, it couldn't have been for the poor pacing. It starts well and has some good acting but I feel it telegraphs the fact that it's a tragedy far too long and it feels like you're walking like a zombie to the inevitable conclusion, kinda similar to one of the central character's who gets shot in the arm early and does walk deliriously around for half the film.
Disappointing summer though unless you're into horror films or documentaries so might as well catch up on these old British classics.
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
Once upon a time in Hollywood
with everybody
Hollywood, 1969. Leonardo DiCaprio is Rick Dalton, former star of a 50's cowboy show now doing guest spots to keep working. Brad Pitt is Cliff Booth, his longtime stuntman, chauffeur, gofer, drinking buddy, wingman, and all-around best friend. Rick is insecure, wracked with anxiety over his career, but lives in a mansion in the Hollywood hills. Cliff is confident, rugged, a tower of strength...and lives in a busted trailer beside an oil derrick somewhere near a drive-in movie theatre. If you put them together, you could make one pretty awesome guy. There are complications, though. Cliff's out of work due to nasty personal rumours dogging him, Rick is a pretty advanced alcoholic teetering on the brink of a nervous breakdown...and his next door neighbors are Roman Polanski and his lovely wife Sharon Tate. Who have these weird hippies nosing around their driveway. Cliff randomly picks up one of the girls hitchhiking and finds out that she and a bunch of her friends have been hanging out at an old movie set Cliff used to work back in the day. Led by a guy named Charlie something? Anyway, Rick's off to Italy to film some more Westerns as per Al Pacino's advice...but upon his return, there are strange goings-on in the Hollywood hills in August 1969.
Okay. So, I generally have a pretty big problem with historical revisionism. Inglourious Basterds really pissed me off for that. I get that it's just a Tarantino movie and obviously tells its own fictional story...but after spending 2 and a half hours creating this beautiful portrait of 1969 LA, it annoyed the hell out of me when the ending veers completely off the map. It's almost as bad as an M Night Shyamalamadingdong movie ending. I'd have probably been a lot happier if I'd just turned it off with about fifteen minutes to go.
But they had some great parties in 1969 LA.
"Don't cry in front of the Mexicans!" <--actual line.
with everybody
Hollywood, 1969. Leonardo DiCaprio is Rick Dalton, former star of a 50's cowboy show now doing guest spots to keep working. Brad Pitt is Cliff Booth, his longtime stuntman, chauffeur, gofer, drinking buddy, wingman, and all-around best friend. Rick is insecure, wracked with anxiety over his career, but lives in a mansion in the Hollywood hills. Cliff is confident, rugged, a tower of strength...and lives in a busted trailer beside an oil derrick somewhere near a drive-in movie theatre. If you put them together, you could make one pretty awesome guy. There are complications, though. Cliff's out of work due to nasty personal rumours dogging him, Rick is a pretty advanced alcoholic teetering on the brink of a nervous breakdown...and his next door neighbors are Roman Polanski and his lovely wife Sharon Tate. Who have these weird hippies nosing around their driveway. Cliff randomly picks up one of the girls hitchhiking and finds out that she and a bunch of her friends have been hanging out at an old movie set Cliff used to work back in the day. Led by a guy named Charlie something? Anyway, Rick's off to Italy to film some more Westerns as per Al Pacino's advice...but upon his return, there are strange goings-on in the Hollywood hills in August 1969.
Okay. So, I generally have a pretty big problem with historical revisionism. Inglourious Basterds really pissed me off for that. I get that it's just a Tarantino movie and obviously tells its own fictional story...but after spending 2 and a half hours creating this beautiful portrait of 1969 LA, it annoyed the hell out of me when the ending veers completely off the map. It's almost as bad as an M Night Shyamalamadingdong movie ending. I'd have probably been a lot happier if I'd just turned it off with about fifteen minutes to go.
But they had some great parties in 1969 LA.
"Don't cry in front of the Mexicans!" <--actual line.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,772
- 3,808
This is my big initial hang up with the movie as well. It didn't bother me in Inglorious Basterds but at this point it's become part of QT's schitck. Though Django Unchained isn't actual historic figures it too clearly has righting a historic wrong on its mind. Once it dawned on me that he was going to pull the same trick yet again, I got annoyed. For a writer-director whose calling card was his creativity, he really seems to be in a run of doing the same shit over and over.
Now I still tend to like his movies for sure ... but I think his first four movies up to and including Kill Bill is light years better and more interesting than the five movies he's done since.
The Battle of Algiers [La battaglia di Algeri] (1966) directed by Gillo Pontecorvo
“The question is: should France stay in Algeria. If your answer is yes, you have to accept the consequences”
The Battle of Algiers is Pontecorvo’s Italian Neorealist masterpiece concerning the colonial violence of France and Algeria and the Algerian revolutionaries who fought it. Shot in a news reel documentary style, it would be easy to mistake the film for a documentary about the political violence at the time – especially since Pontecorvo used primarily non-actors included many actors who were involved with the FLN (National Liberation Front) at the time, most notably Saadi Yacef who was one of the leaders and plays himself here. An excellent examination of colonial/imperial violence and guerrilla resistance, and its no shock that it has been equally an important film for revolutionary fighters and imperialist states alike (the Pentagon famously screened it in 2003 during the Iraq war, though I’m not sure what lesson they learned from the film). A brilliantly constructed film and a great thriller that feels authentic because well, it is authentic as you can get without it being the real thing; it is an incredible film that deserves its reputation.
“The question is: should France stay in Algeria. If your answer is yes, you have to accept the consequences”
The Battle of Algiers is Pontecorvo’s Italian Neorealist masterpiece concerning the colonial violence of France and Algeria and the Algerian revolutionaries who fought it. Shot in a news reel documentary style, it would be easy to mistake the film for a documentary about the political violence at the time – especially since Pontecorvo used primarily non-actors included many actors who were involved with the FLN (National Liberation Front) at the time, most notably Saadi Yacef who was one of the leaders and plays himself here. An excellent examination of colonial/imperial violence and guerrilla resistance, and its no shock that it has been equally an important film for revolutionary fighters and imperialist states alike (the Pentagon famously screened it in 2003 during the Iraq war, though I’m not sure what lesson they learned from the film). A brilliantly constructed film and a great thriller that feels authentic because well, it is authentic as you can get without it being the real thing; it is an incredible film that deserves its reputation.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,772
- 3,808
Suture. If David Lynch and early low-budget Christopher Nolan had a baby, there's a good chance it would be this movie. Was going to ramble a little more on this, but instead just going to let that description say it all.
Chili
Time passes when you're not looking
- Jun 10, 2004
- 8,787
- 4,922
Before they became stars Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman shared a place for awhile (early 1960's?) . This was the first film they had done together. There is a great scene in a court washroom between them, was specifically added so that they could finally have a scene together. Good film.
cupcrazyman
Stupid Sexy Flanders
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
Wrath of Man (Ritchie, 2021) - Haven't seen the original French film, but switching Dupontel for Statham is one hell of a downgrade. It's violent and fun enough to be worth a watch. 4/10
