Amph What was the last movie you saw? (Ver. 2)

High Noon Never seen this before. Although I've seen the Sean Connery version plenty of times (Outland). This is a great film that ratchets the tension from the beginning. I knew it was about a gang coming to exact revenge on a marshall who sent their leader to prison, but I didn't expect the villains to turn up at the start and be waiting for their leader to arrive at the train station. I expected them to ride in to town later. This seems more about the fear of the people in the town with virtually no one willing to help the marshall and stand by him in his our of need and what makes it really good is that its virtually playing out in real time. If this was made nowadays the final showdown would be less rushed, but I think this film is more about the tension preceeding it.

 

Gremlins 2 is better than the original? In what way?

 

Now you should watch "Rio Bravo", John Wayne & Howard Hawks' answer to "High Noon", which they didn't like. Both good movies with differing perspectives.

 

The Happytime Murders .

this is the one with muppets and Melissa MCarthy .
it's adult stuff , certainly better than Meet the feebles , but still - the gags could land better , I can't help feeling that a good score could've perked this up a bit , as it is its ok but never LOL much.

 

How does it compare with Sausage Party? I figured it's the same type of humor.

 

Sausage Party was pretty funny. If Happytime is similar in humor I might watch it when it comes on Sky Movies.

 

its not as filthy as Sausage Party , ( well actually there is one bit!) , its more of a pastiche on 80s buddy-cop movies .

 

Hereditary

 

can't wait to see what that director does next

 

It was a good movie. Not great, but good. Steve Carell's performance as Bobby Riggs was absolutely fantastic.

 

i started watching that on the plane to china and...it just wasn't as compelling as i'd hoped. i ended up bailing and watching my cousin vinny for the 984298429842698th time instead.

 

Mandy


My review: towards the end of the movie I looked at my buddy and said, “This dude(Cosmatos) should make a Star Wars movie.”

My friend: “Yeah, no ****.”


This ends my review of Mandy.

 

He will be making the next SW movie .

until he's fired and replaced with . . . ?

 

i don't think he would do it. maybe an alien movie? i dunno, probably a mistake as well.

 

With Nick Cage as a vengeful Jedi on a tear against the first order.

While I thought the villain angle was awful, I enjoyed Nick, the actress playing Mandy and the visuals. If Cosmatos continues to make genre movies, I’ll continue to watch.

 

you talking about the villain's motivation?

 

The Favourite



Interesting that the director decided to shoot much of the opening film in a low angle; about knee high. Additionally, the use of filming through a fish-eye lens quite often throughout the film.

 

Just because the Gremlins themselves were more interesting doesn't necessarily mean the story was better.

 

I totally forgot there was a Gremlins 2. Probably because I didn't like the original film, as a kid, I recall it being marketed as the next E.T. as Spielberg's name was attached to it. I found Gremlins scary and disturbing as a kid; especially when Phoebe Cates' character told that story about Santa Claus. I watched it only one other time after seeing in theaters and that was more than enough. I may have seen Gremlins 2.

 

i still remember sitting in the theater at 13 years watching gremlins 2: new badge and thinking "wtf IS this?"

 

@duende

I was 12 when I saw Gremlins 2 in the summer of 1990. I thought the same thing but for some reason I kinda enjoyed it and still to this day feel that way. I also think it cannot hold a candle to the original.

 

i think i was puzzled because it was such a left-turn. i enjoyed it in the end but at the time i didn't grasp what it was up to.

 

A Good Day to Die Hard (extended edition). I left off on the question whether this would be worse than the last one. The answer is, it’s an even worse Die Hard movie. The character doesn’t have any perceptible connection to the John McClane of Die Hard anymore; it’s just Bruce Willis grouching at his jerk son in the middle of a generic Bruce Willis action flick driven by a bunch of stupid geopolitics. It’s super bland and doesn’t feel anything like a Die Hard movie. The only character dynamic that even shows up is the terribly-written father-son conflict, which could be from any movie. There’s none of the wit of the series’ dialogue or characterization at its best. McClane is again a bland badass figure with no sense of why the hell McClane should be running around a foreign country with his CIA son trying to find files on Russian defense ministers. The plot, by the way, is completely incoherent. I’m still not sure what the hell happened or why. This whole thing is just a laundry list of ways not to make a Die Hard film.

But, the thing is, it is a better bad action film than Live Free. Both movies are garbage, but this has a short running time, no tonally jarring Justin Long antics or cyberblather, a commitment to being a crappy B-movie instead of actually trying to be good and just being inept at it, and an actual level of competence in the execution. It actually looks really good, with great lighting, good shot choices, and a crisp look. The action is also decently staged, with some impressive vehicular mayhem in a highlight car chase scene near the opening of the film. The movie steadily degrades in quality as it slides toward a muddy-looking, crappily-conceived-but-still-occasionally-visually-interesting nighttime finale, but there’s the sense that given an even halfway decent script this director could have given us a fair, really slick-looking action flick.

And it’s not like Live Free was so much better as a Die Hard movie, so frankly I’d much rather watch this again than that, and not just because it’s significantly shorter. It’s quick-moving and more watchable despite the truly terrible writing. They’re both garbage, but this is less embarrassing garbage.