What's the latest movie you've seen?

[Leo656]

I watched both Gremlins movies for the first time in a long time. I guess I watched them "too much" growing up because while I always liked them I just haven't had any urgency to revisit them in a very long time.

I guess absence does make the heart grow fonder, because they're both a lot better than I remembered, and I remembered them both being really good.

Part II really blew me away with just how sharp it is. People who know me well could tell you that I typically don't go in for balls-out comedy, and I'm on-record that when a series resigns to satirizing itself it's usually an admission that they're bereft of ideas. But that movie was a freakin' trip. I honestly can't think of any "better" sequel that could ever have been made, and from top to bottom it's essentially a "perfect" movie. There's nothing at all "wrong" with the first one but the second one, admittedly, is a lot more fun to watch, and nowadays watching them back-to-back the entire first one mostly just feels like prologue to the sequel, which is where all the TRULY memorable scenes are.

Anyways, yeah, they're great.

And man, oh man... Phoebe Cates. Jesus, if I had a time machine and some Spanish Fly...

[Iroh]

The latest movies I've seen were "Venom: Let There Be Carnage" and "Cruella". Venom was hot garbage and Cruella was such a delight to watch. It was more action with Cruella than Venom. Sad but true.

[Leo656]

I forgot to mention that we watched the first "Scream" movie the other night.

I always liked that movie, and I do think it still holds up pretty well. Never cared as much for the sequels, to the point where the first movie is the only one I ever bothered to own. It's pretty sharp and clever, and every time I see it I fall completely in love with Neve Campbell all over again.

The one thing is, it's one of those movies where after you see it once it gets a bit harder to go back to and watch with a straight face. I hadn't seen it in a while, so I was really taken aback this time just how strongly the movie telegraphs the killers right from the very beginning. It TRIES to play hard with the "everyone is a suspect!" gimmick, but when you know going into it that Billy Loomis and whatsisname, the really coked-out guy, are the murderers, it's SUPER obvious right from the very first time you see them. Every scene they're in, they may as well have a flashing neon sign that says "THESE TWO SUPER-SKETCHY ASSHOLES ARE THE KILLERS."

To the film's credit, it's better than in the sequels where they pretty much just start cheating to hide the killer's identity, or pulling the reveal out of nowhere. Still, it's pretty laughable looking back at the movie now just how strongly they gave the game away within the first 20 minutes.

Still a really good movie, though. It's always a little better than I remember it being, and that's really all you can ask for.

[IMJ]

Watched the original "Halloween" last night.

[AquaParade]

I saw the new Dune. It was awesome. Very striking, moody, atmospheric. It’s a slow burn but there’s a lot to drink in. It does feel a bit like a more sophisticated Star Wars. I’m going to buy the physical release which I don’t do for a ton of movies.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I forgot to mention that we watched the first "Scream" movie the other night.

I always liked that movie, and I do think it still holds up pretty well. Never cared as much for the sequels, to the point where the first movie is the only one I ever bothered to own. It's pretty sharp and clever, and every time I see it I fall completely in love with Neve Campbell all over again.

The one thing is, it's one of those movies where after you see it once it gets a bit harder to go back to and watch with a straight face. I hadn't seen it in a while, so I was really taken aback this time just how strongly the movie telegraphs the killers right from the very beginning. It TRIES to play hard with the "everyone is a suspect!" gimmick, but when you know going into it that Billy Loomis and whatsisname, the really coked-out guy, are the murderers, it's SUPER obvious right from the very first time you see them. Every scene they're in, they may as well have a flashing neon sign that says "THESE TWO SUPER-SKETCHY ASSHOLES ARE THE KILLERS."

To the film's credit, it's better than in the sequels where they pretty much just start cheating to hide the killer's identity, or pulling the reveal out of nowhere. Still, it's pretty laughable looking back at the movie now just how strongly they gave the game away within the first 20 minutes.

Still a really good movie, though. It's always a little better than I remember it being, and that's really all you can ask for.

Yeah, I like those kind of movies to be where, if you DO follow all the clues however small... you can kind of figure out who the killer(s) is, or at least have it make complete sense on a second watching. The crap in 2 and 3 and I think even 4... totally out of left field.

[Leo656]

I don't even think I've seen 4.

Point of fact, one of the first dates me and my wife ever went on was to see Scream 3 in the theater when it came out. And while I don't remember hating it at all it didn't leave a huge impression on me at all.

2 was okay. I don't have any real problems with 2, it did okay with satirizing sequels the way the first one did with horror movies. I haven't seen it in a while, but it was on cable constantly at one point way back in the day so I saw it a lot back then.

The one part of Scream 2 I remember feeling like it was instantly going to be dated and stupid - and I think time's proven me right about that - is at the end when the chick from "Roseanne" is explaining her whole plot to Neve Campbell, and she mentions that she met the movie's other killer through a "Serial Killer Web Site" or chat room or some sh*t. And I was like "Jesus, that's just awful." It was clearly meant to be "timely" and topical since most people were only getting on the internet for the first time right at that exact moment in time, but things like that just date the hell out of everything, and it was corny, not funny, anyways. I guess nowadays they'd rework that same joke to be like, "I found him when he posted a video of him hacking up a corpse on his TikTok", or something, and it'd be just as stupid.

Other than that, though, I don't have a ton of issues with Scream 2. It's okay, just not as good as the first, which they rarely are anyway.

I should give it another look one of these days.

[AquaParade]

Scream 1 is probably my favorite "slasher". I tend to prefer horror movies that are bone-chilling, but this movie is just plain fun to me.

[Leo656]

Yeah, I'm not always even very big on "comedy" or "funny" horror movies but that's definitely one that leans more "clever" than "silly", and I appreciate that.

And I'm as vocally anti-Whedon as it generally gets, but I did really like "Cabin in the Woods". That one for sure I thought was gonna be a groaner but I ended up being really into it.

[Leo656]

Watched Evil Dead and Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn today.

Still really great, in spite of the budgetary issues. The first was a little better than I'd remembered, the second not quite as good as I remembered, but still really good. Too much Kool-Aid blood.

The first one's really, really good at using sound and suspense to maximize the horror of the experience, even when "nothing" is happening. And then when things are happening, everything is designed to be as off-putting as possible. Like the Deadites take absolutely forever to die, and they never shut up the whole time, and the shrieks and noises they make as they do are incredibly uncomfortable. It's a great example of making A Lot out of A Little.

That tree rape scene was a LOT longer and more drawn out than I remembered it being. Yikes. That chick would just have ALL the splinters.

Aside from the obvious lack of budget, the only thing I can say about it that's not glowing is that it feels a lot longer than it is, probably because of all those slow, lingering shots. But again, it creates a suspenseful atmosphere and then pays it off with something gruesome; that's really all you can ask for.

II is still really good, but I hadn't seen it for a while and it feels a bit jarring watching them back-to-back, now. II really amped up the goofy bits, which makes it a great companion piece to "Army of Darkness" but oddly enough, distances it a ton from the first movie, which was only ever "funny" when the lack of budget was onscreen with all the stop-motion Play-Doh effects. Ash, in particular, is almost a completely different character in Part II.

It's also rather regrettable how, for legal reasons, II is essentially a remake that overwrites the events of Part I. It ultimately makes watching them back-to-back pointless from a story perspective, and furthermore, it's honestly easier to just skip part I altogether if all you care about is the "canon" storyline of the Evil Dead/Army of Darkness universe. But that's unfortunate, because Evil Dead I is great on its own and, as far as "just" being a horror movie goes, the better choice.

Still, II is where the franchise "really" kicked off, for many people, and it's got all the iconic stuff in it so you really can't knock it. It's a bit of a step back from the first in many ways - less "true" suspense, less gore (or at least, less overtly grotesque gore; again, that Kool-Aid blood is laughable), just a bit less of everything that stood out in the first one. But it's still a great movie. It just plays a lot better if you DON'T watch the first one. And that's a shame, because the first one is a good movie even if Part II pretty much erases/supersedes it.

[frank_one]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's also rather regrettable how, for legal reasons, II is essentially a remake that overwrites the events of Part I.

I'm not sure there were legal reasons. Sam just got a bunch of fresh money and decided to redone the first movie so that it can look more professional and open-ended for sequels. That's what I've always read about it. And yeah, the first one is better.

[Leo656]

I'd always read that while they intended to do Part II as a direct sequel picking up at the exact moment the first left off, they didn't own the footage from the first movie and thus couldn't incorporate any footage from Part I to explain what had already happened; thus, they "had" to re-shoot scenes from Part I and pretend that the events of the first movie never happened, and that what we saw during the first five minutes of Part II was the version of events we were supposed to now accept as canon.

This makes sense to me, because in theory, having the sequel open with a few shots from Part I to establish the story thus far would have been a lot easier - and cheaper - than re-shooting entire scenes with new actors and story. But again - based on what I'd read - they didn't own that footage and couldn't use it. Thus the vague status Part II has as being part sequel, part remake.

I'm sure I'm missing a few of the details, but that was the version of events I'd always heard.

It's unfortunate, too, because it makes the series very confusing for neophytes. You watch the first one, then the second one, and a lot of people assume Ash goes BACK to the cabin from the first one, and is such a dumbass that he plays the tape and starts everything over again; my wife had even forgotten about the way I and II were made, for a second, and was like "What, did he just forget what happened last time?" And I had to re-explain to her that, as far as Part II is concerned, there was no "last time"; Ash never left and came back, it's the same cabin and the same day and the same events as Part I, except they now happened completely differently. Then once I explained it, she remembered, but a LOT of people get similarly confused because of how the events are presented.

Although it really should be obvious to anyone who pays attention; everything up until the unseen evil force "hits" Ash (a'la the final shot of Part I) was a Remake, and everything from that moment on is the Sequel. it SHOULD be that simple, but people still get confused. Unfortunate.

I have a friend who ONLY watches the first movie and can't stand anything after. He really hates Army of Darkness. I don't know how such a thing happens.

[Jester]

Watching a new movie with Kevin Nash called either Covid 19: Invasion or Lockdown depending on where you look. It's....kinda...bad. I'm only about 11 minutes in, but so far, yeah, it's a very heavy handed, stupid movie.

Nash leads a group of rednecks to take out homeless camps they think are responsible for the spread of the virus, and one man must step up to stop them (I'm assuming because his estranged sister who was mentioned a bit ago is one of the people in the homeless camp.)

EDIT: The fight scenes are so slowly choreographed I have it at 1.4x speed just for they look somewhat realistic.

[sdp]

I'm feeling Retro. Anyone wanna recommend 2000s movies?

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

I saw the new Dune. It was awesome. Very striking, moody, atmospheric. It’s a slow burn but there’s a lot to drink in. It does feel a bit like a more sophisticated Star Wars. I’m going to buy the physical release which I don’t do for a ton of movies.

Yeahhhh boy! That movie was terrific! DV knocks it out of the park again. Between this, Blade Runner 2049 and Arrival that guy has some serious artsy director-brain.

[Jester]

On this day, 11/11/21, I am watching one of my favorite films, This is Spinal Tap.

[Jester]

While looking around for something to watch I was lead to the terrible movie called Noah's Shark (Yes, this is a thing that exists).

It adds deep new "lore" to the Noah's Ark story like a 4th son of Noah and some how throwing in the Witch of Endor (who lived hundreds of years later during the reign of King Saul) and her supposed book that was removed from the Bible.

It's not even so bad it's good. It's just bad.

[Jester]

At the prompting of a poorly sourced We've Got This Covered article from my news feed, I'm watching a "forgotten Harrison Ford movie has come out of nowhere to conquer Netflix (but not American Netflix so don't look there...)" It's a bizarre movie but pretty enjoyable for what it is, an almost extended Twilight Zone. Though for a "Harrison Ford movie" he doesn't show up until almost an hour in...and even then he's probably in it for 15 to 20 minutes.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Jester

At the prompting of a poorly sourced We've Got This Covered article from my news feed, I'm watching a "forgotten Harrison Ford movie has come out of nowhere to conquer Netflix (but not American Netflix so don't look there...)" It's a bizarre movie but pretty enjoyable for what it is, an almost extended Twilight Zone. Though for a "Harrison Ford movie" he doesn't show up until almost an hour in...and even then he's probably in it for 15 to 20 minutes.

Well wtf is it?

[Jester]

Not sure if i should spoil it....oh wait, there's tools for that:
The film is called The Age of Adaline.

Spoiler:

Blake Lively stars as a woman, born on New Years Day 1908 who after an accident when she's in her late 20's doesn't age anymore. She must live her life in secret so as not to arouse suspicion, depicted in one scene set during the Red Scare. On New Years 2015 she meets and starts a relationship with a young man. After some time together and some ups and downs she is invited along on a family celebration of his father (Ford) and mother's 40th wedding anniversary. BUT upon meeting the father it is revealed that he is a man she once loved but abandoned once things got serious to keep her secret.