Movie Last Movie You Watched Part 2

LiddyRules

I Think I'll Eat An Apple
Deadpool 2 - it was a disjointed mess with some interesting bits here and there. I had to fast forward through the girlfriend scenes and the fat kid emotional crap.

A lot of check listing here too. Chinese people for china. Useless gay character for the LGBQRS people. Fat kid calling himself "plus-size". Fat kid having swishy emo hair for hipster fags. Domino surviving over Peter. Peter and the rest of the X-Force were the best part of the movie though. Deadpool just fucking with people with zero emotional investment is the key to the goodness, and they stepped on that with girlfriends and fat kids.
But his use of the term plus size was making fun of the use of the term plus size...
 

LiddyRules

I Think I'll Eat An Apple
I'd rewatched John Carpenter's In The Mouth of Madness and Prince Of Darkness over the weekend. While I will always love POD despite the flaws., Lisa Blount was easy on the eyes (RIP), ITMOM was already too late in Carpenter's career to be good. It's even worse than I remembered.

How someone like him could fuck up Lovecraft still doesn't make sense. Plus, the Quatermass homages in both films seemed so out of place.
What happened to him? His 70s/80s output is on par with some of the best of that era.
 

DR. Jimcy M.E.

I bring love and cheer.
Wasn't that most of the movie?
It was, unfortunately.

When they focused on being stupid it was an amazing film, but someone told them they had to have a heart. We needed more of Wade riding around in Professor X's wheel chair. Not invisible mind girlfriends.

But his use of the term plus size was making fun of the use of the term plus size...
I don't remember that being a joke line. It was "Have you ever seen a plus-size super hero?". Is that a reference I'm not getting or..?
 

Radioguy

Having it my way since '98
What happened to him? His 70s/80s output is on par with some of the best of that era.
He started to lose his touch in the 90s. Most of his films were forgettable (Vampires was fun, though), but by the 2000s, like with the awful Ghosts Of Mars, it was on par with straight to video fare.

Age.
 
I'd rewatched John Carpenter's In The Mouth of Madness and Prince Of Darkness over the weekend. While I will always love POD despite the flaws., Lisa Blount was easy on the eyes (RIP), ITMOM was already too late in Carpenter's career to be good. It's even worse than I remembered.

How someone like him could fuck up Lovecraft still doesn't make sense. Plus, the Quatermass homages in both films seemed so out of place.
I watched INTMOM a couple of weeks ago and I thought it was good. One of the things that I liked about it was you could tell how much fun Sam Neil was having being in the movie.

I plan to watch Prince of Darkness in the near future.


What happened to him? His 70s/80s output is on par with some of the best of that era.
Supposedly he became disillusioned with the Hollywood system. Although I think its fair to question whether his string of failures in the 1990s' had something to do with that.
 

LiddyRules

I Think I'll Eat An Apple
Pet Semetary AND Pet Semetary

Yes, I saw the Pet Semetary remake before I saw Us or Shazam! What up?

I probably would have liked the remake more if I hadn't seen the original immediately before it. I liked the original - it's not great by any stretch, but it reminded me how much I liked the mid-tier 1980s King movies. Not going full on cinematic like The Shining or Carrie; just a basic, solid horror story with that 1980s paranoia that everyone is a dick who is out to punch you. I think that's why I like 1922 so much - it's a throwback to that. Basic, solid horror story.

The remake follows a lot of the same beats but they leave out some relatively important stuff. But they end with a cover of the Ramone's Pet Semetary song from the original.

They leave out the Tommy Braverman story, though we see his name in a news article.

They kind of have Judd give an explanation about why he thought it was a good idea, which it totally isn't and never is.

They give less importance to the spectre that haunts the family, which means it makes even less sense and has less relevance than in the original.

Judd's death is not as gory. And they give the wife's sister a "more" horrific death, which makes it less horrific. And the ending is lamer.

Oh and

 
These Three (1936). The first time William Wyler shot a movie adaptation of The Children's Hour was this version with Merle Oberon and Miriam Hopkins as owners of a girls' school who get caught up in an accusation of infidelity. Bonita Granville, before she grew up to be the sexy original Nancy Drew, is the nasty little girl whose gossip gets everything started. She was nominated for an Oscar, as was The Bad Seed's Patty McCormack, who probably picked up a pointer or two from Granville. It was definitely a good movie, but knowing there were concessions made to the stupid Motion Picture Code just made me more eager to see:


I finally got a chance to watch this. You were right about Bonita Granville. I have seen actresses in women's prison movies who weren't as nasty as she was. I also liked Joel Mcrea's performance as well. While I thought this was good, its amazing how two movies could basically tell the same story, but be completely different as night and day. Especially when it comes to their respective endings. I'm going to have re-watch The Children's Hour now that I know Miriam Hopkins plays the aunt in that version.
 

LiddyRules

I Think I'll Eat An Apple
These Three (1936). The first time William Wyler shot a movie adaptation of The Children's Hour was this version with Merle Oberon and Miriam Hopkins as owners of a girls' school who get caught up in an accusation of infidelity. Bonita Granville, before she grew up to be the sexy original Nancy Drew, is the nasty little girl whose gossip gets everything started. She was nominated for an Oscar, as was The Bad Seed's Patty McCormack, who probably picked up a pointer or two from Granville. It was definitely a good movie, but knowing there were concessions made to the stupid Motion Picture Code just made me more eager to see:


The Children's Hour (1961). Got damn, Shirley MacLaine :eek: For most of the movie, she outshines Audrey Hepburn, but Audrey gets to hit it out of the park in the penultimate scene. If that had been the "fade to black roll credits" moment, I would probably still be sitting glassy-eyed in front of my TV. This version does away with the infidelity and brings back the original play's lesbianism, which gives MacLaine a killer scene and adds considerable gravitas to the ending. The gossip girl here is good, but she's no Bonita Granville. Miriam Hopkins is back as the aunt of the character she played in the original. Hepburn and MacLaine already had six Oscar nominated performances between them by this point, so it was a treat watching the two of them shine together.
The new sexy movie Nancy Drew is the Bev chick from It. She joins the new not even barely legal trio of Dora The Explorer and Cokey McStrangerThings
 

Radioguy

Having it my way since '98
...you could tell how much fun Sam Neil was having being in the movie.
Oh, that was apparent, but it was offputting with the material. Not that it was the main flaw, but the material required deathly seriousness, and he looked too held together. Even when he killed the guy outside the bookstore, he looked too pretty boy. Almost more than Jurassic Park.

I blame Carpenter for a lot of that, though. You don't do Lovecraft like They Live and retain the terror from the source material. Carpenter did with Who Goes There? to the The Thing but gave up on an accurate Lovecraft film by that point. Not that it's camp like Jeffrey Coombs Lovecraft, which ruined the genre like kids with Godzilla, but the derangement wasn't pulled off, and that opens to door to laughs.

I plan to watch Prince of Darkness in the near future.
It has its flaws, but takes itself more seriously. I still love it. A great premise that's only hindered by a small budget.

Supposedly he became disillusioned with the Hollywood system. Although I think its fair to question whether his string of failures in the 1990s' had something to do with that.
Vampires is camp, was meant to be from the beginning, and is a fun watch going in. That might be the last decent film he did.
 

LiddyRules

I Think I'll Eat An Apple
Oh, that was apparent, but it was offputting with the material. Not that it was the main flaw, but the material required deathly seriousness, and he looked too held together. Even when he killed the guy outside the bookstore, he looked too pretty boy. Almost more than Jurassic Park.

I blame Carpenter for a lot of that, though. You don't do Lovecraft like They Live and retain the terror from the source material. Carpenter did with Who Goes There? to the The Thing but gave up on an accurate Lovecraft film by that point. Not that it's camp like Jeffrey Coombs Lovecraft, which ruined the genre like kids with Godzilla, but the derangement wasn't pulled off, and that opens to door to laughs.



It has its flaws, but takes itself more seriously. I still love it. A great premise that's only hindered by a small budget.



Vampires is camp, was meant to be from the beginning, and is a fun watch going in. That might be the last decent film he did.
I agree. Sam Neill is sexy. Still is. But to hate on Re-Animator is bollocks.
 

Radioguy

Having it my way since '98
I agree. Sam Neill is sexy. Still is. But to hate on Re-Animator is bollocks.
That's its own genre; not true Lovecraft on film, which has not yet been pulled off.

That said, I love Coombs in everything. DS9 especially.
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Marvel’s Phase 2 is known for a lot of things, but in retrospect it’s biggest flaw overall was they felt compelled to keep raising the stakes and the spectacle. What happens here is a really interesting and compelling Espionage movie devolves into an absurd story about bullets being fired around the world from three helicarriers hovering a couple miles over Washington DC.

Like all of the Phase 2 films, the spectacle and the story that drives it is mostly unnecessary. There are virtually no ramifications to the events of this film - Fury has a fully staffed helicarrier in the very next film.

But again - like most of Phase 2, while the story itself turns stupid, the movie does a great job with all the characters. Black Widow is fleshed out (Scar Jo has never looked better than she does in this film.) Fury is given an actual character arc, Anthony Mackie kills it in his intro as Falcon, and of course Steve and Bucky totally aren’t friends at all.

When I made my master list of comic movies, I second guessed putting this in Tier 2 instead of Tier 1. I shouldn’t have. It’s a great film, and the second best film of Phase 2, but the world traveling bullets definitely knock it down a notch or two.
 

LiddyRules

I Think I'll Eat An Apple
Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Marvel’s Phase 2 is known for a lot of things, but in retrospect it’s biggest flaw overall was they felt compelled to keep raising the stakes and the spectacle. What happens here is a really interesting and compelling Espionage movie devolves into an absurd story about bullets being fired around the world from three helicarriers hovering a couple miles over Washington DC.

Like all of the Phase 2 films, the spectacle and the story that drives it is mostly unnecessary. There are virtually no ramifications to the events of this film - Fury has a fully staffed helicarrier in the very next film.

But again - like most of Phase 2, while the story itself turns stupid, the movie does a great job with all the characters. Black Widow is fleshed out (Scar Jo has never looked better than she does in this film.) Fury is given an actual character arc, Anthony Mackie kills it in his intro as Falcon, and of course Steve and Bucky totally aren’t friends at all.

When I made my master list of comic movies, I second guessed putting this in Tier 2 instead of Tier 1. I shouldn’t have. It’s a great film, and the second best film of Phase 2, but the world traveling bullets definitely knock it down a notch or two.
Not to mention how part of Hydra's grand plan involves killing surgeons for having bad bedside manner.

I agree about the little long term effect - but I guess that's true for a lot of these movies. And comic books as a whole to be fair. But what else can you do? In the span of three years, aliens invade Earth, we learn the secret organization behind the secret organization is lead by an even more secret organization that's evil, then an army of robots make a city fly in an attempt to megabomb the globe. And people still go to work? You kind of have to gloss over the people who went insane.
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Not to mention how part of Hydra's grand plan involves killing surgeons for having bad bedside manner.

I agree about the little long term effect - but I guess that's true for a lot of these movies. And comic books as a whole to be fair. But what else can you do? In the span of three years, aliens invade Earth, we learn the secret organization behind the secret organization is lead by an even more secret organization that's evil, then an army of robots make a city fly in an attempt to megabomb the globe. And people still go to work? You kind of have to gloss over the people who went insane.
I guess I never put a ton of thought into Marvel's phases before, but if you move a movie or two around, some patterns kind of come into focus:

Phase 1 is mostly about heroes fighting someone with their identical power set, with relatively small stakes. The First Avenger had larger stakes because WW2, but in the end Cap was simply fighting against a plane full of bombs. Not much spectacle there. When you remember that Ant Man was really supposed to be in Phase 1, this really work.

Iron Man 3 kicked off Phase 2 and each movie (aside from Ant Man) has world threatening stakes and a third act filled with spectacle intended to rival Avengers' Battle of New York. I think this was a pretty big mistake. The spectacle arguably worked best in Iron Man 3 because the stakes were still relatively small, so it didn't really matter if there was any "carryover" into future films. For all it's flaws, it's a self contained, fun movie that doesn't leave you asking where the rest of the Avengers were. As much as I hated Ultron's evil plan in Age of Ultron, there was at least a great deal of plot and character beats that continued on into Phase 3. Guardians probably handled the stakes and spectacle the best.

And again, I'm probably coming off harder on Winter Soldier than I mean to - it's still a really great movie. I think I would have just preferred it if they had focused more on Cap and Bucky - perhaps the movie simply centers on Cap trying to track down the man who murdered Nick Fury. (Like why was he even brought back to life? He's been fairly useless since TWS. Anyone could have commandeered that helicarrier in AoU.) You could add some s'plosions and such - maybe Bucky is going to blow something up and Cap has to stop him? I don't know. Something like that would have helped in Civil War. Cap could examine the bomb that blew up the UN meeting and say "This isn't Bucky's work."

Aside from Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 and Black Panther, Phase Three was a much needed course correction from the patterns of the first two phases. The stakes are smaller - and even when they aren't, such as in Doctor Strange, they are made to feel smaller by the way the conflict was resolved. Black Panther actually fell into both patterns - Panther fought a guy with his identical power set AND there was spectacle that sort of came out of nowhere and stakes that really made no sense. Vol 2 would have been much better served if they had simply left out the subplot of Ego's nefarious CGI ooze. If you consider that Vol 2 takes place immediately after Vol 1, it makes sense to consider it more a part of Phase 2, and then it makes more sense.
 

LiddyRules

I Think I'll Eat An Apple
I guess I never put a ton of thought into Marvel's phases before, but if you move a movie or two around, some patterns kind of come into focus:

Phase 1 is mostly about heroes fighting someone with their identical power set, with relatively small stakes. The First Avenger had larger stakes because WW2, but in the end Cap was simply fighting against a plane full of bombs. Not much spectacle there. When you remember that Ant Man was really supposed to be in Phase 1, this really work.

Iron Man 3 kicked off Phase 2 and each movie (aside from Ant Man) has world threatening stakes and a third act filled with spectacle intended to rival Avengers' Battle of New York. I think this was a pretty big mistake. The spectacle arguably worked best in Iron Man 3 because the stakes were still relatively small, so it didn't really matter if there was any "carryover" into future films. For all it's flaws, it's a self contained, fun movie that doesn't leave you asking where the rest of the Avengers were. As much as I hated Ultron's evil plan in Age of Ultron, there was at least a great deal of plot and character beats that continued on into Phase 3. Guardians probably handled the stakes and spectacle the best.

And again, I'm probably coming off harder on Winter Soldier than I mean to - it's still a really great movie. I think I would have just preferred it if they had focused more on Cap and Bucky - perhaps the movie simply centers on Cap trying to track down the man who murdered Nick Fury. (Like why was he even brought back to life? He's been fairly useless since TWS. Anyone could have commandeered that helicarrier in AoU.) You could add some s'plosions and such - maybe Bucky is going to blow something up and Cap has to stop him? I don't know. Something like that would have helped in Civil War. Cap could examine the bomb that blew up the UN meeting and say "This isn't Bucky's work."

Aside from Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 and Black Panther, Phase Three was a much needed course correction from the patterns of the first two phases. The stakes are smaller - and even when they aren't, such as in Doctor Strange, they are made to feel smaller by the way the conflict was resolved. Black Panther actually fell into both patterns - Panther fought a guy with his identical power set AND there was spectacle that sort of came out of nowhere and stakes that really made no sense. Vol 2 would have been much better served if they had simply left out the subplot of Ego's nefarious CGI ooze. If you consider that Vol 2 takes place immediately after Vol 1, it makes sense to consider it more a part of Phase 2, and then it makes more sense.
If there's one thing that elevated Captain Marvel it was reminding me how much I liked SLJ as Nick Fury.
 

DiggerNick

Well-Known Member
Donator
DRAGGED ACROSS CONCRETE

While some of the dialogue is very writer-y, S. Craig Zahler is getting better as a film-maker with each movie. He makes films that want to scar the viewer and make them think, and how many of those are there these days? Most directors just seem to be waiting for a phone call from Marvel or Netflix.

Anyway, I was most excited about this after reading reviews calling it "a vile, nasty, Right-wing film'. So I sat back expecting (hoping?) for some Leftist idea of what constitutes 'Right-wing'; namely N-bombs and gleeful wasting of minorities.

But there's none of that. I was perplexed. First off, the villains are white. The only thing I can think of that could have triggered the snowflakes is that it skirts the very real epidemic of white people assaulted and oppressed by blacks in increasingly ghetto-ized neighbourhoods, and cops finding themselves put into an impossible position by media scrutiny and lies.

Any Leftist propaganda against this movie is 100% bullshit. It's infinitely more even-handed than every Leftist movie that is drenched in exaggeration and virtue-signalling to make cheap political points.

And, Jesus Christ, that Latina bitch at the beginning!!

Liannet Borrego (as if it matters)



 
Last edited:

Radioguy

Having it my way since '98
I posted about that in the thread I created for it here. I was really stunned by the ending at first, but then not, and then was again in a different way. The reaction I received was also surprising...or not.
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Bad Times at the El Royale - Poor Chris Hemsworth. I’m not going to feel that bad for him here though. Unlike some of his other unthortunate choices, this one falls partly on him. He and his terrible accent suck any semblance of life and tension out of the film.

I’m sure many people called this a throwback to 90’s Tarantino films, but it more squarely lands as a throwback to 90’s Tarantino rip offs like 2 Days in the Valley and Very Bad Things. Those movies aren’t terrible and neither is this. It was a fun retro movie even if the execution wasn’t perfect.

Dakota Johnson’s hiney did look perfect in those jeans though.
 
Top