Topic: The Movie Thread

@LN78 Never watched it, or the sequel. I really dislike Zombie's tasteless, mean-spirited white trash horror films.

I hear the Nightmare on Elm Street reboot was pretty bad as well. No surprise there.

Speaking of Scream, did you ever watch Wes Craven's New Nightmare? It kickstarted the meta-fictional fixation that the Scream films eventually became famous for, and it's still an interesting film in its own right.

@LN78 I've also got Gladiator on UHD too, so I've inadvertently become a Ridley Scott fan boy! Shame his recent output has only been so-so in my eyes.

@LN78 He is one of those actors I find that even in a bad film or one that you did not enjoy, manages to still deliver a good performance. It's rare that you hear him putting in a bad one.

Joaquin "don't leave him alone in a room with his sister or elderly father" Phoenix

Watched Terminator: Dark Fate. Wasn't expecting much but it was alright. Definitely better than the third, fourth and fifth movies, though. Wished the CGI for the Rev-9 had looked more interesting, at times the special effects reminded me of Venom.

@WanderingBullet

I was wondering if anyone would bother. The trailers have been pretty crap. Reheated themes for a film conceived for the sole purpose of making money.

The media reviewer talking points are very much pushing the 'best sequel since T2' line - which is next to meaningless.

I won't be paying to see it.

Just watched Life for the first time.

That was... Disappointing to say the least. I knew it wasn't original at all but I figured I'd get some enjoyment out of it.

Well... "Calvin" was nicely animated and the way it killed Ryan Reynolds made me wince. The face it got eventually made more ugly cute in my opinion rather then scary. But other then that.

The moment I really switched off though was when Rebecca Ferguson was making a statement to base control About how everyone did the best they could to stop Calvin and should be commended

I don't know what she was witnessing because they were without a doubt the most incompetent space crew I've ever seen in a film! There was at least 5 times they could've stopped it and they bloody messed it up every time! 😂

I understand there was a spooky alien and we wouldn't have much of a film otherwise but...

I couldn't tell you ANY of the characters names and the performances were ok but incredibly forgettable... I wouldn't recommend it at all

I wanted to watch a spooky movie today, and the 1990 version of It was on TV (both parts 1 and 2), so I gave it a go.

The movie involves a group of people encountering the evil clown Pennywise, who likes to scare people before feasting on them. Tim Curry's version of Pennywise may not look visually as scary as the more recent film adaptions, but his good acting means that it is still an intimidating adversary.

In terms of scariness, it wasn't that bad. Anything gruesome is generally implied instead of being shown in full detail. And there were places where the film had more of a Goonies vibe than of a horror vibe. Pennywise is still scary though. It uses people's fears against them, and creating mysterious situations where it's not known what will happen next. It's more of an unsettling kind of horror instead of a run for your lives kind.

The acting was good. The adults did a fine job in their parts, and the kids were really good at their roles. The main group of characters were likeable and quirky enough to remember who they were and to care about what happens to them.

Overall, it was rather enjoyable. I've not watched the 2017 version yet, so can't compare it to that. The 1990 version had a fairly low budget, so some people may find it a bit dated compared to more recent bigger budget super scary horror movies.

@KALofKRYPTON Just wait for it to be on TV. Personally, I give it just a 5 out of 10.

Halloween was movie night with the family. Watched Terminator 2 (we saw the first film again last night) and, of course, Halloween '78.

It was a good time, because both films are masterpieces of their respective genres.

Terminator 2, along with Die Hard, is the model that I judge other action films against. It's conceptually interesting, has a number of interesting character dynamics (John & Arnie, with a touching father/son dynamic; Arnie & Sarah, which grows from almost instinctive distrust on Sarah's part to a wary mutual respect between both parties; Sarah & John, who share a frayed but honest emotional connection; Arnie's developing sense of selfhood throughout the film, once he's switched out of "Read Only" mode), the action setpieces are dynamic, violent, and often desperate, the writing is intelligent, and, most importantly, the film emphasizes the vulnerability and mortality of its human characters. While the liquid metal special effects of the T-1000 are a little iffy today, almost everything in the film just looks fantastic, and the combination of CG and practical effects has led to the film aging like wine. Contrast this with the original and its ridiculous-looking animatronic Arnie and stop-motion Terminator skeleton near the end. Like any good sequel, it improves on the original by analyzing the emotional implications of its events and expanding on the worldbuilding in a way that makes the cinematic universe that much more engaging. Also notably present in this film is a sense of impending doom: The Terminator feels much more like a conventional thriller, whereas T2 feels downright apocalyptic throughout. The film means this to be the case, of course, which is why it opens on disturbing imagery like a playground that is engulfed in flames. Like the graphic novel Watchmen, the fear of nuclear war and the existential threat it poses is baked into every frame of this film.

Halloween isn't nearly as well-balanced a film, on the other hand, but it redeems itself by choosing to do one thing, and doing it EXTREMELY well. I could, of course, go on about the genius use of subjective viewpoint and the recently invented Steadicam at the start, or the brilliantly minimalistic score, but I wanted, instead, to focus on the centrality of The Shape throughout the film. Generally, in "slasher" films like this, or in most horror films, really, a status quo of safety and comfort is established before the monster or maniac or whatever arrives and upends it. This status quo never exists in this film, however, and is quite effectively deconstructed throughout. It really dawned on me, while I was watching it tonight, just how clever it is that The Shape is in virtually every single scene in this film. The first scene is the initial murder he commits as a child. IMMEDIATELY afterwards, it jumps to him fleeing the asylum and stealing the car Loomis was riding in. We then transition to a sunny Illinois town, which is when most horror films would busy themselves with establishing an atmosphere of normality. Not Halloween, though. In pretty much every daylight, scene-building part of this movie, The Shape is lurking somewhere in the background, stalking main character Laurie Strode after she drops off a pair of keys at the old Myers house. Oftentimes, the film announces this with a creepy score, indicating the presence of the shape as he lurks around the periphery of the screen. Just as often, though, he's barely noticeable, and receives no musical accompaniment: a distant figure staring at Laurie Strode outside of the school, who disappears the next time she glances out of the classroom window; a ghostly face haunting the edges of the screen as he prepares to kill his next victim; or even just a car that happens to be closely following behind one of Laurie's friends. A sense of unease and suspicion is cultivated throughout, so that, even in the brightest hours of ordinary daylight, things don't feel right, and, like Laurie herself, we never feel particularly safe. Things COULD happen at any time, and, even though violence only really happens at the very beginning and near the climax of the film, the viewer feels menaced throughout.

@crimsontadpoles See, the thing with horror movies is that lower budgets generally result in better films. At least, that's the case with competent directors. They can't throw everything on-screen as much as they might want, and they have to take a "less is more" approach. There's a reason a lot of the best horror films ever made were made a shoestring budget.

@Foxy-Goddess-Scotchy Yeah, Life was absolutely disappointing. Conceptually empty (anyone who has seen Alien or any other space horror film, really, has seen a better version of this plot), and without the skill needed to carry a film on execution alone. One of the worse Jake Gyllenhaal films I've seen.

@Foxy-Goddess-Scotchy Yeah life was a bit pants. Found it really predicable and like you said most of the crew were annoyingly incompetent.

@Ralizah Thanks for reminding me about Midsomer, I had totally forgotten about so I've just added to my rental list.

I've got Avengers Endgame to watch, but I've not seen Captain Marvel yet. How important is to watch CM before Endgame?

@JohnnyShoulder I watched Endgame before CM. It's really not necessary at all. She's hardly in this film anyway.

If I remember right this was specifically made for TV and was going to be a much larger mini series before it got cut down to a mini film in two parts @crimsontadpoles

Tim Curry is deviously hammy as Pennywise, though he does get in the horror too fairly well. The outfit certainly does make him look initially less intimdating... And I think that kinda helps when he does lay on the creep factor.

The 2017 version is quite enjoyable too. I wasn't too sure about the new Pennywise before seeing the film (Though I loved the 18th century looking Harlequin outfit) but he's quite good indeed!

There's not much more I can really say about life. I think you summed up what I hadn't already said perfectly @Ralizah ... I enjoyed the Prince Of Persia film more honestly. A bad adaptation of a game... but an enjoyable enough romp 😂

I should probably watch Halloween again. I've seen it twice and the first I think I was nine (sneakily staying up late) and the other was maybe six-seven years back and I don't think I enjoyed it either time.

I can however wholeheartedly agree about Terminator 2. I think the stop motion T-101 was fine in the original, especially with the smaller budget... but T2 is a visual treat even now.

Granted everyone probably knows the twist even if they're going in the film for the first time but the hallway scene was wonderfully shot and a great reveal of the allegiances of our two mysterious time travellers

I also love the bit where the T-1000 starts breaking from the liquid nitrogen. Very cool indeed

Well the worst sin really is that the film actually gives the crew legitimate outs a number of times @JohnnyShoulder

Compared to something like Alien which if I recall doesn't give them anything really til the end on how to fight/stop the Xenomorph

So all the characters have to act incredibly stupid thanks to the poor writing and it only ends up making it worse

@Foxy-Goddess-Scotchy With that Terminator 2 twist, the trailers completely spoiled it. So even those watching when it first released in cinema knew about that.

I actually got surprised by the reverse of the twist. The first I'd heard of the Terminator movies was when one of my school teachers showed us that motorbike chase from Terminator 2. We were learning the whole speed = distance / time thing, so our teacher gave us sheets listing the distances travelled at different parts of the scene, and we had to use stopclocks to measure the time taken and then calculate the speeds. So when I finally got around to watching the movies, I was surprised to see that he was the bad guy in Terminator 1.

@Ralizah nice read. I've not seen Halloween, but do love Terminator 2. It's in amongst my favourite movies list. And your lower budget argument makes a lot of sense.

@LN78 Yeah, same. Saw an article on the BBC News.

Reminds me of when, as a nine year old kid back in 1996, I was temporarily confused as to why the Eugenics Wars weren't making headlines.

@LN78 That we did.

I think it speaks to the lack of broad progress in humanity's recent history. Back in the 60s, 70s and 80s these kinds of "in twenty years, we'll have flying cars" leaps of fantasy were plausible because of the rush of post-war advancement in technology and society in general. The idea of a global war led by genetically-engineered supermen in 1996 was just as valid as Blade Runner thinking we'd have replicants by now or, to reference the other recent posts in this topic, the idea of sentient machines trying to wipe out humanity on August 29, 1997 (a.k.a. Judgement Day).

Nowadays, a lot of our "in the not-too-distant future" films and television shows look a lot more grounded; there's maybe a sleeker, more self-aware version of Alexa built into a kitchen island, and maybe a car has glowing wheels and hums, but that's about it. We've kinda given up on progress.

Apologies for the ramble!

Blade Runner's only big mistake, I think, was assigning a specific date to the film, especially considering the film is a sort of surrealist nightmare about a future in which corporate power has overwhelmed, exploited, and/or destroyed human subjectivity (the fact that replicants have mass-produced memories designed to give them an identity and keep them in line is terrifying, as it strikes at the heart of what makes us persons as opposed to mere beasts), human rights, the environment, etc. While the details are obviously dated, its thematic concerns in a time of abusive immigrant detention camps (for us Americans, at least), corporate megapowers run amok, an impending environmental crisis that could destabilize ecosystems across the globe, etc. are arguably more relevant than ever.

@LN78 True, that's a fair point. It's also telling that the kinds of predictable technological leaps, like transportation and mechanical labour, started to slow or become less feasible around the dawn of the online age. Even as late as 1987, with a legacy of predicting the future with handheld communicators and PADDs and whatnot, the computer aboard the Enterprise-D was a single data core requiring manual updates. Star Trek never had an internet, as such.

Best use of a CD in film? Bruce Wayne scratching one like a record in Batman Returns.

Fast Times at Ridgemont High (Blu-Ray) -80's movie that follows the happenings of various high school students throughout a year.

The characters' exploits in love & sex, mall culture, the workforce & more are explored & it's pretty interesting seeing how youth culture was seen at the time. While it mostly strikes a more lighthearted situational comedy tone (the exchanges between stoner student Spicoli & rigid teacher Mr Hand never fail to raise a chuckle), it can delve into some heavier material (such as an abortion subplot, which was probably pretty heavy for the time), making it a pretty well rounded watch.

I watched the 2018 Halloween last night. As a big fan of the original, I've turned increasingly cold on it over the years with each subsequent instalment. This was my favourite since the first one and although it wasn't without its faults (some bits were plain stupid) it reminded me why I liked the first one so much. So it must have been all right.