Surprisingly The Last Movie You Saw Didn't Suck Pt. 2

browsing imdb i came across Taxi driver. I have heard of it but never seen it. Movie was made in 76 and I was born in 77. Is this movie worth seeing or will it be like watching and episode of the monkies where i am scratching my head with jokes i just don't usually get...
 
[quote name='floormat']browsing imdb i came across Taxi driver. I have heard of it but never seen it. Movie was made in 76 and I was born in 77. Is this movie worth seeing or will it be like watching and episode of the monkies where i am scratching my head with jokes i just don't usually get...[/QUOTE]

It's still good. The jokes where he shoots people in the fucking face are still funny today.
 
Another funny movie, the first Rambo. What the hell was Slyvester licking?

Finally saw the original Grudge. I didn't really understand exactly why the ghosts were pulling those chicks, even though in the end, they turned out to be something of a warning about the real killer. So did the ghosts kill Hitomi and the rest just for the sake of having ghost kill people, or were they dragging them to their intended killer because it is a freakin' horror movie? And WTF did nobody in this movie do anything about the freakin' ghosts, or Takeo? They just sat there, letting Kayako freaking scare the crap out of them, submitting to their now eminent doom. At least in the Ring, they did something to ward off the curse.

Are Japanese horror movies all about submission, telling us that it is futile to fight?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fright Night(2011 version w/ Colin Farrell) - Did suck and didn't suck at the same time, but in a good way. Loose retelling of the original that starts out slow but really delivers a fresh take for vampire fans and ups the creep factor. Recommended but not for the sqeamish. 8.5/10
 
I still need to see that. I like when it's a loose retelling as you put it when it comes to remakes. Like how the Karate Kid did it.
 
I liked both Fright Nights, and I can understand a fraction of the hate for the new one, but who the hell was really expecting a shot for shot remake? You gotta give props to a movie that can make Marcy D'arcy hot, and props for the other as you got Tennant in leather gear.
 
[quote name='floormat']browsing imdb i came across Taxi driver. I have heard of it but never seen it. Movie was made in 76 and I was born in 77. Is this movie worth seeing or will it be like watching and episode of the monkies where i am scratching my head with jokes i just don't usually get...[/QUOTE]

Oh yes, it's worth seeing. Seriously one of the best movie ever made. Watch it. Another one worth checking out is Mean Streets.
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']I liked both Fright Nights, and I can understand a fraction of the hate for the new one, but who the hell was really expecting a shot for shot remake? You gotta give props to a movie that can make Marcy D'arcy hot, and props for the other as you got Tennant in leather gear.[/QUOTE]

I don't know why anyone would want a shot for shot remake.

People that hate on remakes usually just have it in their mind that "omg remake = crap always original=gold" and never give the remake a fair chance.
 
[quote name='whoknows']I don't know why anyone would want a shot for shot remake.

People that hate on remakes usually just have it in their mind that "omg remake = crap always original=gold" and never give the remake a fair chance.[/QUOTE]
A lot of people also forget that there have been quite a few good remakes.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']It's still good. The jokes where he shoots people in the fucking face are still funny today.[/QUOTE]

This comment is gold. Made me seriously laugh out loud. :lol:
 
The Siege - Really interesting post-911. Creepy the things they got right. However ultimately it was too much to cram into one movie.

Religuous - Not bad. Kind of by-the-numbers with a few unexpected laughs.
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']Finally saw the original Grudge. I didn't really understand exactly why the ghosts were pulling those chicks, even though in the end, they turned out to be something of a warning about the real killer. So did the ghosts kill Hitomi and the rest just for the sake of having ghost kill people, or were they dragging them to their intended killer because it is a freakin' horror movie? And WTF did nobody in this movie do anything about the freakin' ghosts, or Takeo? They just sat there, letting Kayako freaking scare the crap out of them, submitting to their now eminent doom. At least in the Ring, they did something to ward off the curse.

Are Japanese horror movies all about submission, telling us that it is futile to fight?[/QUOTE]

This is my main problem with most supernatural horror. Once you find out ghosts are real and after you, wouldn't you goto the bookstore or internet and get info on every protection ritual ever?

One of the reasons I love "Drag Me to Hell" is that even though the girl is stupid she is at least smart enough to get a spiritual advisor
(although still stupid enough not to realize that he's not a good one...)
 
drag me to hell was awesome didnt care for some of the evil dead shtick but it had alot of great moments especially the ending and that chick was smokin hott.

as far as the supernatural stuff goes i feel like a little ignorance in the beginning is ok because hey with anything we kinda live in the whole if i cant see it it doesnt exist reality. even with all the so called "evidence" out there we ignore it until one day we see it for ourselves then your comfort bubble is shattered.

but as it escalates yeah it would make more sense that they find out more about it instead of arguing with each other and ignoring whats before them.that was my major gripe with those paranormal activity films all the damn film evidence they have and they never bother to do more than run away or argue.
 
Drag Me To Hell didn't really do anything for me.

Without the Raimi name attached I bet it would have been slammed in reviews. Take a look at the top reviews for it on Metacritic, almost all of them mention Sam Raimi.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Drag Me To Hell didn't really do anything for me.

Without the Raimi name attached I bet it would have been slammed in reviews. Take a look at the top reviews for it on Metacritic, almost all of them mention Sam Raimi.[/QUOTE]


thats not surprising even if his name wasnt attached to it you could easily tell he was involved. hes like tarrantino in that way that they reuse alot of the same stuff in all their films. kinda how sandler loves to use his friends in his movies an how he loves to pair himself with female leads that youd never think hed have a chance with.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Drag Me To Hell didn't really do anything for me.

Without the Raimi name attached I bet it would have been slammed in reviews. Take a look at the top reviews for it on Metacritic, almost all of them mention Sam Raimi.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's fair.

From a superficial standpoint DMTH is just a better-then-average comedy horror. But go a little deeper and it's actually a clever little movie, there are three ways to interpret it and they are all valid.

Also reviewers mentioning Sam Raimi's name - not sure what that's supposed to prove. He's one of the pioneers of comedy horror who was returning to the genre after the blockbuster Spiderman movies. A reviewer would be remiss not to mention that.

Also for comparison sakes - "The Phantom Menace" ranks at 57% on RottenTomatoes. If your coasting theory were true, then Lucas should have been able to score big on the first SW blockbuster in decades based on name recognition alone.
 
[quote name='lokizz']kinda how sandler loves to use his friends in his movies an how he loves to pair himself with female leads that youd never think hed have a chance with.[/QUOTE]

Not just Sandler - you could say that about almost every comedy movie ever.
 
The reviews I've read just felt like they were giving the movie free points because of Sam Raimi.

I can sort of see why people like the movie, but it was really average and unmemorable to me. It wasn't the least bit scary and I don't recall ever laughing. I was honestly really excited to see the movie and wanted to love it, but it just didn't deliver in the slightest IMO. The 83 it has on Metacritic seems way way too high. But again, IMO.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't think that's fair.

From a superficial standpoint DMTH is just a better-then-average comedy horror. But go a little deeper and it's actually a clever little movie, there are three ways to interpret it and they are all valid.

Also reviewers mentioning Sam Raimi's name - not sure what that's supposed to prove. He's one of the pioneers of comedy horror who was returning to the genre after the blockbuster Spiderman movies. A reviewer would be remiss not to mention that.

Also for comparison sakes - "The Phantom Menace" ranks at 57% on RottenTomatoes. If your coasting theory were true, then Lucas should have been able to score big on the first SW blockbuster in decades based on name recognition alone.[/QUOTE]


phantom menace is a diff animal in that the hype for it was out of the galaxy there was no way in hell those films would live up to the expectations we all had for them. and after seeing them you just felt robbed an kicked in the nuts because aside from a few bits and bobbles those films were a total dissappointment.

shit to be real outside of maybe speilberg i dont think anyone could some up with something that would have compared/surpassed the original star wars films.

the hype for dmth was minimal at best mostly being drummed up by rami fanboys and general horror fans.
 
Beauty and the Beast - Saw it in 3d the first weekend it rereleased. It was actually my first ever 3d movie. It's a Disney movie from what I consider their golden age so yeah, it's pretty good. It was neat to check out the state of the art CG they had going on back then. It didn't hold up too well but it wasn't distracting either (if that makes any sense).

The Lorax - If I ever read the Lorax, it was ages ago so I didn't really know much going into the movie beyond the premise of what you would call environmental destruction. Not many laughs but that was to be expected. I enjoyed it but not enough to see it again anytime soon.
 
I didn't like Drag Me To Hell either, but it was because Raimi relied too much on CGI that just dropped the ball hard when he could have used tangible special effects. People hyped it up and said "It's a perfect movie watching experience, especially in theaters." but they were probably a different type of viewer than me. I grew up on stuff like Aliens where the creature was something "real" and coming close to pissing myself during scenes like where Hicks checks above the ceiling tiles, while not being scared whatsoever by something like the creatures in Pitch Black, for example, where it's all so visibly fake.
 
[quote name='crunchb3rry']I didn't like Drag Me To Hell either, but it was because Raimi relied too much on CGI that just dropped the ball hard when he could have used tangible special effects. People hyped it up and said "It's a perfect movie watching experience, especially in theaters." but they were probably a different type of viewer than me. I grew up on stuff like Aliens where the creature was something "real" and coming close to pissing myself during scenes like where Hicks checks above the ceiling tiles, while not being scared whatsoever by something like the creatures in Pitch Black, for example, where it's all so visibly fake.[/QUOTE]

Reading stuff like this makes me realize that I'm very forgiving of CGI.

I grew up in the days of really shitty CGI, so seeing the stuff they have today is amazing. To me a puppet is a puppet.

To me it's kind of silly to come down on a moderate budget film solely on the quality of the CGI.
 
Well, if it feels like I'm watching a cartoon, I can't help but point that out. I Am Legend would be my penultimate example. That movie was terrible, because the CGI was unnecessary and distracting. They could have used real people, but greenscreaned the entire movie's non-human characters. And...it felt like I was watching a cartoon.
 
I caught a bit of the new Arthur remake starring Russel Brand. Mediocre and sanitized, but it looks like Nick Nolte will tear things up playing the drunk father of the rich bride to be!
 
arthur was better than i expected not sure if id ever watch it again but for a low expectation move it exceeded those low expectations and helen mirren looked good. i wouldnt mind polishing that antique.
 
John Carter.

Good. Not great.

Star Wars > Everything on Mars > Star Wars Prequels
Star Wars > Everything on Earth > Star Wars Prequels

But the stuff on Earth is hard to follow as it moves between dual time lines and is handled very poorly. Really liked the stuff on Mars though. Really what the new Star Wars films should have been. Fantastic for the kids though.
 
Worth seeing?

Well that depends. Are you in the mood for something in vein of the original Star Wars films? It's not exactly the same mind you. But it's cut from the same cloth.

The earliest portions of the film are the worst. It does a terrible job of setting up what's going on. But once Carter ends up on Mars, it's as close to a Pixar adventure film as we're going to get.

That said, I enjoyed it. Quite a bit. This review about sums it up: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/54139
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='whoknows']Silent House - It was mostly good, but the reveal of who was doing it/why kind of killed it for me.[/QUOTE]


let me guess it was either
the dad or the daughter?
.
 
It's hilarious that the review of the movie I saw this morning, the reporter said he enjoyed the Civil War parts better than the Mars parts. I still plan on watching this movie, but it's definitely a borrow. I actually imagined this movie with at least a red tint, and
really milk of Barsoom? I'd stick with the Marvel Universal Translator.
 
Immortals

Pretty bad, a couple of nice scenes with acceleration/deceleration choreography like 300 had (movies these days are leaning towards this method over slow mo, now, and I love it), but overall the action was quite dull. And I swear, if you're aren't going to put effort into characters and a story, don't give the audience pause and try to develop them. More action, all the time. Please.

5/10
 
Saw John Carter. It was sweet. Too bad its going to bomb. Not even ten million Friday. Ouch.

The Battleship trailer they showed before was also sweet. How they got all that from the game is impressive.
 
Just wrapping up The Thing (2011), completely and utterly terrible. The first thing that struck me right off the bat is that this is supposed to be a re-boot/prequel of the original, right? It even says as much that it takes place in 1982 at the very beginning. The thing that bothers me right away though is that it doesn't look even close to taking place in 1982. It's those little things that start to take you out of a movie. Clothes, hairstyles, props, nothing looks like early-80s.

Now, on to the plot itself. It might as well just be a straight re-make of The Thing. It gives a little bit more backstory, as hamfisted as that might be handled, but there's some scenes that they just seemingly straight up remade for this one. No creativity involved here.

Now, on to the biggest failing of this movie. As a serious horror movie it falls into the sad category of being absolutely hilarious in certain parts. For one, during a giant melee toward the end
as the "human monster" comes at one of the guys it jumps on top of him and then starts moving its mutant/human head next to the other human's head which really just comes across as the alien/mutant trying to snuggle with the human. Really, really laughable
. Now secondly, and this comes across as a little more technical execution, but the mutant/aliens themselves are just plain laughable. The effect of seeing this huge tenticle-y monster with a CGIed human head on it just doesn't work. It just comes across as laughable rather than serious, let alone scary.
 
i thought the new thing was supposed to be a prequel. damn shame the alien stuff sucks that was the best part of the carpenter one.
 
[quote name='lokizz']i thought the new thing was supposed to be a prequel. damn shame the alien stuff sucks that was the best part of the carpenter one.[/QUOTE]

I seem to remember prior to box office release that it was mentioned as both a prequel and reboot/remake. At any rate, after watching the movie, it ambiguously fits into both categories but technically from a story-standpoint it seems likely to be a prequel. Like I said though, they almost outright recreate certain scenes from the original it seems. To be fair though, the last time I saw the original was at least a few years ago.
 
shit now i guess i have to see it now just to see whats what.gonna go in with low expectations lol. same thing for the fright night remake.
 
It is a prequel. In fact the end leads into the Carpenter one.

I thought the alien stuff was fine, I mean it is an alien.

It's a good movie.
 
Caught a movie on tv called "Rich in Love" and watched most of it since it starred Eames from Law and Order: CI, and two Twin Peaks actors, Kyle McLachlan and Piper Laurie. It at least wasn't terrible...

The Cheap Detective was on this morning, and I prefer Murder by Death better.
 
[quote name='Nifty_Shark']Whoever recommended Fay Grim to me. I hated it. I found it very hard to finish.[/QUOTE]

did you watch Henry Foole 1st? If you didn't, no wonder you hated Faye Grim as it would have no context at all.

But good lord that overcoat she was wearing in France... so yum.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Just wrapping up The Thing (2011), completely and utterly terrible. The first thing that struck me right off the bat is that this is supposed to be a re-boot/prequel of the original, right? It even says as much that it takes place in 1982 at the very beginning. The thing that bothers me right away though is that it doesn't look even close to taking place in 1982. It's those little things that start to take you out of a movie. Clothes, hairstyles, props, nothing looks like early-80s.

Now, on to the plot itself. It might as well just be a straight re-make of The Thing. It gives a little bit more backstory, as hamfisted as that might be handled, but there's some scenes that they just seemingly straight up remade for this one. No creativity involved here.

Now, on to the biggest failing of this movie. As a serious horror movie it falls into the sad category of being absolutely hilarious in certain parts. For one, during a giant melee toward the end
as the "human monster" comes at one of the guys it jumps on top of him and then starts moving its mutant/human head next to the other human's head which really just comes across as the alien/mutant trying to snuggle with the human. Really, really laughable
. Now secondly, and this comes across as a little more technical execution, but the mutant/aliens themselves are just plain laughable. The effect of seeing this huge tenticle-y monster with a CGIed human head on it just doesn't work. It just comes across as laughable rather than serious, let alone scary.[/QUOTE]


I had quite a few problems with that movie too. First and foremost, I didn't feel any attachment at all to any of the characters. One thing that killed it was that Halvorson was some tacked on "villain" that didn't work at all. His character was too predictable and unnecessary.

The other HUGE problem I had was that they tried to throw it back to Carpenter's by putting in some reimagined scenes that happened in Carpenter's version. I can suspend my disbelief so much, but you're trying to tell me the same exact things happened twice on a continent that has a couple hundred[?] people on it over the course of a few days? It was cheap.

I won't go more in depth because then I'm getting into the spoiler zone, but that movie was horribly mediocre.
 
[quote name='Vulgarism']I had quite a few problems with that movie too. First and foremost, I didn't feel any attachment at all to any of the characters.[/QUOTE]

I didn't have any for the original's characters either though. Kurt Russell was kinda cool, of course. And other than that I just thought of oatmeal, diabeetus, and chasing Tom Cruise whenever Wilfred Brimley was onscreen.
 
[quote name='crunchb3rry']I didn't have any for the original's characters either though. Kurt Russell was kinda cool, of course. And other than that I just thought of oatmeal, diabeetus, and chasing Tom Cruise whenever Wilfred Brimley was onscreen.[/QUOTE]


damn you now im going to have that in my head anytime i watch that movie lol. i love that movie though and the game on ps2 was amazing shit. makes me want to watch some horror movies or something ive seen some interesting titles on netflix but man alot of those zombie movies on there never fail to disappoint.
 
[quote name='Vulgarism']

The other HUGE problem I had was that they tried to throw it back to Carpenter's by putting in some reimagined scenes that happened in Carpenter's version. I can suspend my disbelief so much, but you're trying to tell me the same exact things happened twice on a continent that has a couple hundred[?] people on it over the course of a few days? It was cheap. [/QUOTE]

See, that's what I was getting at about the movie blurring the lines between prequel and re-make/reboot. They more or less just recreated a bunch of scenes of the original with a slightly different overall story, pretty unoriginal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top