Movies you've just watched

[Sumez]

Definitely check out the VASTLY superior original ending, it's fucking tragic they replaced this.

This was the version I watched though.

[Air Master Burst]

Definitely check out the VASTLY superior original ending, it's fucking tragic they replaced this.

This was the version I watched though.

Really? How did you watch it? The happy-in-the-suburbs ending is the only one that's ever been officially released, the only place to see the original ending is youtube or the DVD extras.

ETA: unless they pulled the same trick for streaming as Clue did for the tv version and showed both of em back to back?

[Ixmucane2]

The Substance

Excellent photography and acting, and above average writing except for the unnecessary disregard for the laws of physics (particularly conservation of mass) and for many wasted dialogue opportunities between either version of the protagonist and the many interesting side characters. The "rules" don't seem well aligned with the needs of the story (metamorphosis, instead of alternation, would have been more subtle, less implausible and more horrifying).

[Sumez]

Definitely check out the VASTLY superior original ending, it's fucking tragic they replaced this.

This was the version I watched though.

Really? How did you watch it? The happy-in-the-suburbs ending is the only one that's ever been officially released, the only place to see the original ending is youtube or the DVD extras.

Not true. The Blu-Ray gave me the option between "director's cut" and "theatrical cut", with director's being the default choice. Did some 5-minute research on which was recommended with the conclusion that the only difference was the ending, and people pretty much unanimously recommending the director's. Which makes perfect sense in hindsight, I think half the movie's budget was probably spent on just that ending.

I have no idea where I'd find a version of the movie that only has the theatrical ending at this point. I've literally never seen the movie show up anywhere, and had to import a copy of it.

[GaijinPunch]

Before Midnight

Finished out the trilogy. Not as good as the second, but a nice way to finish it off - and not as clean and pretty as one might think. Again, I see a lot of parallels in my past and a bit in my present, so it hits pretty hard. Great performances and dialogue. There's a few things Ethan Hawke has done that I need to catch up on.

[ChurchOfSolipsism]

Before Midnight

Finished out the trilogy. Not as good as the second, but a nice way to finish it off - and not as clean and pretty as one might think. Again, I see a lot of parallels in my past and a bit in my present, so it hits pretty hard. Great performances and dialogue. There's a few things Ethan Hawke has done that I need to catch up on.

The whole trilogy feels very real: the magical beginnings, the shit life hits you over the head with, the cynicism... it's the best shit Linklater has done.

[Lord British]

Still on my Rohmer kick. My ranking so far:

https://boxd.it/AcDD6

[NYN]

April Fool's Day

First. 1986 one. Trust the title for all that follows. Set in context of release, it's fairly iconoclastic against the "popular" demands of slasher movies. Which it isn't, let's not be fooled here. Although there's a lot of content that leads to believe there could be, and would be called tropes now, but no. Does it subvert them prematurely? Well, fooled me! Though I would totally appreciate more of a neck-wrenching twist on the fool's gold, something twisted at the end. Got me thinking that I find a movie blood sacrifice more satisfactory than a trick one, or does that sound foolish? Contains moments that could work well enough, yet, as always, wait for the ending, it might disappoint. Plainly, it's much like pornography with the genital parts withheld a.k.a. what's-the-point-here? If some would find THAT offensive. Recommended for those who "wouldn't-want-to-watch-something-gross" , with smiles and giggles at the end. DANG F00LS! TRY TO SEQUEL THAT!

I have no idea where I'd find a version of the movie that only has the theatrical ending at this point.

Uh, a regular DVD, that has no special features would fit that bill. It's what I use as version. Long out of print I guess. While I can appreciate a D.C. of films near to my 'motions, the relevance here is a whole discussion on itself. Some creatives get plain stiffed by the monetary investors, thus some get sweet retaliation by being awarded a close-as-can-be version much later. Hooray for cinema. That Frank Oz got what he originally intended over 2 decades later is rich reward on a personal scale, I have no doubt. Yet what with that part of audiences who find no fault with the theatrical ending? Are they wrong? Personally, I find such dividing measures counter-productive. Imagine a struck-up conversation (who has those anymore?), and a certain title is dropped, immediately followed by "Which version?". Very contemporary, and not cool, huh.

[Sumez]

I think it's completely justified in this scenario, and several others as well.

It's not so much creative differences as it's a massive budget, and insane amounts of creative work, put into a version of the movie that is now easily available. The Blu-Ray offers both versions, and to be honest I think they should have been labeled more transparently, but both are available equally.

It has always existed, but now it's been refined and cut into the actual flow of the movie. The fact that Air Master Burst immediately reacted to my thoughts on the movie by bringing up the alternate ending, even though he didn't know the director's cut exists really says it all. Consideration for the two versions has always existed.

[NYN]

I have to correct me where I'm wrong, only if others are indifferent.

Uh, a regular DVD, that has no special features would fit that bill. It's what I use as version.

No!1! It has the theatrical cut and a commentary by Oz (and some behind the scene stuffies), which I haven't listened to, as of yet. In my experience some directors actually can provide insight to a movie on their own. Others need assistance from cronies, and are wise to do so for dynamics. And some bore the glue out of the stuffing, it's like detention: nothing gained, only sat through it.

Long out of print I guess.

The printing number says 2009. That's a few years before the D.C. release. So.

[Sumez]

With "no special features would fit that bill" I'm assuming duh meant the director's cut specifically.
Again, I have no idea how I'd even find that DVD. If you see Little Shop of Horrors available anywhere today, it's probably gonna be the Director's Cut version. I have in fact never seen the movie avaialble in any way anywhere else, even prior to that release.

[NYN]

The Sentinel

First. The 70s horror flick. What stands out here on paper, are the names of players involved. It's mostly squandered, since the grounds the whole thing is based on is rather hollow then hallow. Though when it comes to it's spare horror scenes it goes all out and delivers, almost to an outstanding degree. It's just that in between that it is lost in silly incoherence, that becomes sort of frustrating. Pleasant shots of N.Y.C., complete with scenic sundown and the real Central Park, as if to compensate for the pieces that hardly fit. A more cynic opinion could call it very derivative of the shocking new horror mass phenomena of the decade, to the point of a rip-off feel to it. And strangely casting forward, anticipating The Shining, if not exactly the movie then the spooky idea. In need of an already unwanted remake, or even more fitting: a successor.

[Vexorg]

The Garfield Movie (2024): **

This is not a Garfield movie, it's a rather generic animated action movie with Garfield characters crudely pasted on top of it. To be fair most of the target audience isn't going to know that, but anyone who is old enough to remember the newspaper comics (and later on the Saturday Morning cartoon) is going to be rather confused by this version of Garfield. Unfortunately without bringing back Lorenzo Music from the dead there's really no way to do something like this properly, but even with that in mind this version of Garfield is just so far off the mark as to be unrecognizable.

Much as I said about the Sonic the Hedgehog movies, it feels like the writers for this saw a couple of Garfield comics in the papers some time around 1995 and decided they know enough about the characters to take the world's laziest cat and somehow decide that he would make a good action movie protagonist. I suspect Jim Davis's involvement in this film was little more than cashing royalty checks (then again he is almost 80 years old now, but still apparently publishing daily comics.) In particular the characters of Jon and Odie are just so completely wrong that it's clear that the parts were written for something different and shoehorned into an IP. If I had to guess, the script was probably written for a Secret Life of Pets movie and later picked up by Sony, but as much as I thought I'd never be saying this I suspect that Illumination would have done a much better job with this. Critics reviews seem to agree, having given this a 36% on Rotten Tomatoes.

In spite of all that it still made a decent amount of money for the studio so they'll probably keep milking this for all it's worth.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

It was quite something when Jim Davis had not one but two daily comic strips going on simultaneously, Garfield and U.S. Acres. You might recall the Saturday morning cartoon series of Garfield & U.S. Acres as well.

Too bad Bill Watterson did not allow for a cartoon special or even a full-length animated movie of "Calvin and Hobbes" -- what would a big spoonful bite of Calvin's beloved Frosted Choco Sugar Bombs cereal do to him?

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[Vexorg]

The late 80s and early 90s on CBS was likely the peak of the Saturday Morning cartoon era, with stuff like Muppet Babies, Garfield and Friends and Pee-Wee's Playhouse in the lineup. I know Garfield is considered Boomer Humor now, but the 80s kids couldn't get enough of the stuff.

[Sima Tuna]

To be fair, the Garfield cartoon show is much, much less unfunny than the comic strip. It has actual jokes with setup and payoff.

[GaijinPunch]

A Quiet Place: Day One

Watched this on a plane. It felt pretty unnecessary. Some intense parts, but everyone knows what they signed up for. I don't feel like I learned very much about the aliens. And the whole cat subplot was unrealistic and ridiculous. A decent watch on a plane, but there's far better.

Civil War

Also watched on a plane. This one earned it's R rating far more than the previous. I like Alex Garland's stuff, for the most part. This one took me a minute but the final act paid off far more than I thought it would. Very intense fighting. Very graphic "horrors of war" type of stuff. The details about the younger photographer are quite inaccurate. B&W is developed at room temperature, not body temperature; very few films require leaving the tank sitting for 10 minutes; and finally she appears to be shooting medium format with 35mm tabs? Oh well, the photos that were shown were pretty good. Anyway, I quite enjoyed it.

[Lord British]

Whenever I start losing faith in humanity I remember that Lasagna Cat exists and I'm restored

[vol.2]

To be fair, the Garfield cartoon show is much, much less unfunny than the comic strip. It has actual jokes with setup and payoff.

I had a bone fide Garfield problem as a little kid, which was reinforced by the cartoon show as a pre-teen. I even liked US Acres. Still not over how much Orson loves Roy Orbison.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

A Quiet Place: Day One

Watched this on a plane. It felt pretty unnecessary. Some intense parts, but everyone knows what they signed up for. I don't feel like I learned very much about the aliens. And the whole cat subplot was unrealistic and ridiculous. A decent watch on a plane, but there's far better.

Civil War

Also watched on a plane. This one earned it's R rating far more than the previous. I like Alex Garland's stuff, for the most part. This one took me a minute but the final act paid off far more than I thought it would. Very intense fighting. Very graphic "horrors of war" type of stuff. The details about the younger photographer are quite inaccurate. B&W is developed at room temperature, not body temperature; very few films require leaving the tank sitting for 10 minutes; and finally she appears to be shooting medium format with 35mm tabs? Oh well, the photos that were shown were pretty good. Anyway, I quite enjoyed it.

A sequel to Alex Garland's Civil War would, definitely, answer the many still unanswered questions that arise in regards as to what happens next (or at the very least, a prequel to depict as to how events transpire leading up to the beginning of CW). If you notice the two big prominent white stars on the Western Front's redesigned flag, it's quite easy to see the underlining subtle reasoning that they represent the separation of California and Texas (and the Carolinas as well) from the Union (although the movie doesn't mention this significant fact of the two stars insignia depiction) -- it's up to the movie audience to make this subtle reference/distinction themselves (with a bit of background history in understanding of the current dire situation that the country is in).

The Vice President would, actually, be in charge of the remaining Union forces (assuming if he or she is still alive) but isn't shown/mentioned. I get the impression that the entire country is at war in this particular instance as depicted in the film -- "every man for himself" type of "post-apocalyptic" situation.

Civil War movie Factoid: Actor Jessie Plemmons and actress Kirsten Dunst shown in the CW film, are married in real life.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[Vexorg]

Twisters (2024): **1/2

If you liked the original Twister this is basically more of the same with slightly less 90s special effects. A vaguely attractive female lead with a tragic backstory chases around tornadoes while looking for a way to punch one in the face, all while trying to thwart the efforts of some generically evil storm chasers (you know they're bad because they have private funding!) but the end result is that the only real winner in all this is whatever studio got the contract to do the CG. Not much star power in the cast, but this is pretty much a "I'm just here for Godzilla" movie anyway so it's not like anyone really cares about the characters anyway.

[GaijinPunch]

Manhunter

Quite interesting to see early Michael Mann, I dare say before he mastered his craft. While I love some of his signature night shots, there's a few hokey lines that seem out of place for such a "cool" director. Weird seeing a bit of cheese where I recall none from Thief. Anyway, that's pretty easy to get around considering this was from 1986. Interesting to see a different, more subdued take on Hannibal Lector. And shout out to the quintessential 80's cop Dennis Farina!

[Lord British]

Manhunter

Quite interesting to see early Michael Mann, I dare say before he mastered his craft. While I love some of his signature night shots, there's a few hokey lines that seem out of place for such a "cool" director. Weird seeing a bit of cheese where I recall none from Thief. Anyway, that's pretty easy to get around considering this was from 1986. Interesting to see a different, more subdued take on Hannibal Lector. And shout out to the quintessential 80's cop Dennis Farina!

If there's any "cheese" in this movie I fully embrace it (the soundtrack especially- tied with "The Wraith", also from '86). One of my all-time faves.

[NYN]

Manhunter

Quite interesting to see early Michael Mann, I dare say before he mastered his craft. While I love some of his signature night shots, there's a few hokey lines that seem out of place for such a "cool" director. Weird seeing a bit of cheese where I recall none from Thief. Anyway, that's pretty easy to get around considering this was from 1986. Interesting to see a different, more subdued take on Hannibal Lector. And shout out to the quintessential 80's cop Dennis Farina!

We are in agreement, then.

MANHUNTER

First watch. Directed by Michael Mannhunter, I was inclined to close this gab. Cautiously expecting a slightly cheesy 80s just-don't-call-it-horror thriller. Blown away by the highly stylized cinematography. DO YOU SEE? (yes). Experimental score meshed very smoothly with it. Brian Cox as the very first personification of Dr Lecktor (sic) with menace and more subtlety then the later Dracula version of Sir Tony. Insane? Me? Huh. Where I smell cheese is with the final showdown. Knowing the novel and the remake it's very plain that they were at budgets end, so they jumped the glass pane to get to it. Hypnotic shoot-out marks it, yet I don't think it doesn't fit. Very fun film, indeed. Will see again.

We re-watched The Silence of the Lamb Chops, Clarice, and we enjoyed it ever so much. Hey Mom, it really toughened my nips. Maybe the only horror piece that deceives its audience that they are watching something less.

[Lord British]

Manhunter

Quite interesting to see early Michael Mann, I dare say before he mastered his craft. While I love some of his signature night shots, there's a few hokey lines that seem out of place for such a "cool" director. Weird seeing a bit of cheese where I recall none from Thief. Anyway, that's pretty easy to get around considering this was from 1986. Interesting to see a different, more subdued take on Hannibal Lector. And shout out to the quintessential 80's cop Dennis Farina!

We are in agreement, then.

MANHUNTER

First watch. Directed by Michael Mannhunter, I was inclined to close this gab. Cautiously expecting a slightly cheesy 80s just-don't-call-it-horror thriller. Blown away by the highly stylized cinematography. DO YOU SEE? (yes). Experimental score meshed very smoothly with it. Brian Cox as the very first personification of Dr Lecktor (sic) with menace and more subtlety then the later Dracula version of Sir Tony. Insane? Me? Huh. Where I smell cheese is with the final showdown. Knowing the novel and the remake it's very plain that they were at budgets end, so they jumped the glass pane to get to it. Hypnotic shoot-out marks it, yet I don't think it doesn't fit. Very fun film, indeed. Will see again.

We re-watched The Silence of the Lamb Chops, Clarice, and we enjoyed it ever so much. Hey Mom, it really toughened my nips. Maybe the only horror piece that deceives its audience that they are watching something less.

LOL, I love the "DO YOU SEE" line. C'mon. Brilliant. I think I probably have all of Lecktor's line memorized at this point. Cox killed it.

[NYN]

He chewed it, too.

Spoiler

How they build up the cell, just with odd angles. That type of negative zone, before the animal inside is presented. The stuff. Now I want to see it again. One of these. "Dream much, Will?"

[emphatic]

Manhunter

Quite interesting to see early Michael Mann, I dare say before he mastered his craft. While I love some of his signature night shots, there's a few hokey lines that seem out of place for such a "cool" director. Weird seeing a bit of cheese where I recall none from Thief. Anyway, that's pretty easy to get around considering this was from 1986. Interesting to see a different, more subdued take on Hannibal Lector. And shout out to the quintessential 80's cop Dennis Farina!

I remember the thinking out loud from the Will character to be cheesy indeed. The remake, Red Dragon feel much closer to the novel. I highly recommend the Hannibal series, starring Mads Mikkelsen as Hannibal Lecter, it's quite inspired.

[NYN]

The remake, Red Dragon feel much closer to the novel.

And it's also most anemic. All those A actors, and even with the same dp from Manhunter, it feels to me as such a waste that I gladly take all the presumed '80s gaudiness once again. And it's not even nostalgia, as I watched it first not 2 years ago. It's just the style in which the tale is presented. Red Dragon reeks also of studio greed for a trilogy (you got another visitor, Dr L, it's a giiiirlllll) . Very unfortunate. Will not see again.

And nobody seems to speak of Hannibal - The Movie anymore. Little wonder.

[GaijinPunch]

If there's any "cheese" in this movie I fully embrace it (the soundtrack especially- tied with "The Wraith", also from '86). One of my all-time faves.

Credit roll track legit made me run to the store and buy a tank of hair spray.

Manhunter

Quite interesting to see early Michael Mann, I dare say before he mastered his craft. While I love some of his signature night shots, there's a few hokey lines that seem out of place for such a "cool" director. Weird seeing a bit of cheese where I recall none from Thief. Anyway, that's pretty easy to get around considering this was from 1986. Interesting to see a different, more subdued take on Hannibal Lector. And shout out to the quintessential 80's cop Dennis Farina!

We are in agreement, then.

Yes, a much more elegant take than mine. Definitely in agreement. Flawless? No. Definitely enjoyable and worth a watch though.

. I highly recommend the Hannibal series, starring Mads Mikkelsen as Hannibal Lecter, it's quite inspired.

I watched a season of this back in the day, and agree, it was great. Did not get around to finishing it though.

[Vexorg]

Wicked - Part 1: **1/2

Obligatory film of the popular Broadway musical, split into two parts with additional elements from the original book added. Part 1 (which covers act 1 of the play) clocks in at a whopping 2 hours and 40 minutes, which is only five minutes shorter than the entire stage show with an intermission included. It's, as expected, a big-budget spectacle of a film ($150 million was spent on this) and it has its moments, but you really need to have seen the play to truly appreciate it. One of the longstanding problems with Hollywood doing remakes or adaptations of popular stories is that they often assume the entire audience already knows the plot, so they just do the laziest rehash of the story possible and cover it in layers upon layers of lavish effects. My wife has seen the stage show and quite enjoyed this, but I haven't seen it before, and was mostly bored and eating way too much popcorn (not a great idea on Thanksgiving day, although our dinner isn't until tomorrow.) Ariana Grande was perfectly cast as a narcissistic airhead (something Grande seems to be quite experienced with) playing Galinda.

The choice to turn this into two parts seems mostly to be a cash grab, but then again even if you're paying twice to see the whole thing in the theater it's still far cheaper than the stage show. Tickets for the Broadway show start at $200 and only go up from there, and the touring show seems to have even pricier tickets.