That's what Cronenberg's Crash does to me. Saw it again, and it even felt weirder...GaijinPunch wrote: ↑Sat May 31, 2025 3:38 pm Poor Things
I've never seen more consensual sex and nudity that was in no way erotic.
Movies you've just watched
sex on wheels
Tengu 
'tude
'tude
Re: sex on wheels
Have you read the Ballard novel? It's definitely not erotic in tone. I always felt that Ballard's writing is singularly detached from an emotional perspective; it's at the same time surreal and disembodied.
Re: Movies you've just watched
Ten Inch Hero (2007) 8/10
Recently I was watching the YT channel Good Bad Flicks, and he recommended this.
This a lost 1990s romance/drama/buddies film that was made in the mid-2000s. Notice I didn't call it a "romantic comedy," because that's not what this is; It's a romance comedy that leans heavily on a group of friends, centered around a sandwich shop and what they get up to.
It's silly as hell and remarkably low-budget, but the writing is better than decent and the acting is extremely competent. Don't let me fool you into believing that this is some kind of high-brow artistic masterpiece, it's just a fun movie with 20-somethings and a lot of small moments. It never sets out to be anything more than that, but it manages to deliver quite a lot of feeling and purpose, and to bring poignancy to some fairly common episodes of life.
I have a couple gripes about the script here and there, but there's nothing that really impacts it too much. With just a little more polish, I think this could have risen above what ends up feeling like a made for TV movie from time to time.
I think that if you are the kind of person who would like this sort of movie, then it's a no-brainer. Think something like Empire Records, but it's about a sandwich shop, and it's much lower budget so they can't afford any expensive songs or expensive actors, but the writing is about 50-75% better.
Recently I was watching the YT channel Good Bad Flicks, and he recommended this.
This a lost 1990s romance/drama/buddies film that was made in the mid-2000s. Notice I didn't call it a "romantic comedy," because that's not what this is; It's a romance comedy that leans heavily on a group of friends, centered around a sandwich shop and what they get up to.
It's silly as hell and remarkably low-budget, but the writing is better than decent and the acting is extremely competent. Don't let me fool you into believing that this is some kind of high-brow artistic masterpiece, it's just a fun movie with 20-somethings and a lot of small moments. It never sets out to be anything more than that, but it manages to deliver quite a lot of feeling and purpose, and to bring poignancy to some fairly common episodes of life.
I have a couple gripes about the script here and there, but there's nothing that really impacts it too much. With just a little more polish, I think this could have risen above what ends up feeling like a made for TV movie from time to time.
I think that if you are the kind of person who would like this sort of movie, then it's a no-brainer. Think something like Empire Records, but it's about a sandwich shop, and it's much lower budget so they can't afford any expensive songs or expensive actors, but the writing is about 50-75% better.
Re: Movies you've just watched
Meanwhile I watched Poor Things immediately after having finally seen The Lobster just hoping to get more of that same hilarious weirdness.GaijinPunch wrote: ↑Sat May 31, 2025 3:38 pm I had completely forgotten that it was the same guy that did The Lobster
Poor Things is possibly the least favorite of Lanthimos's films that I have seen, but that's still a really high standard, and it's honestly great. I'm so happy there are still movie creators like this out there.
what's inside?
The Box
First. The third film by Richard Kelly. One that starts with posing a question, and putting it to the audience: What would you do? Only to tip it out of the mundane into the S-F, metaphysical, or just the strange. That sounds much, yet we found it to be making its point fairly clear, it even gets spelled out for the lost and confused. Through high tension it swerves the tacky emotional climax, yet that could be a personal flavour. When people are presented with only two options out of convenience to simplify, they pick the worse. Never to pick up on Just: Say: N0! Get outta here, you bum! (secret third option) Instead it's so seductive to fantasize how to improve life as it is. Thus catastrophe ensues, and dominoes fall into the next. Cammy Diaz hot mom.
First. The third film by Richard Kelly. One that starts with posing a question, and putting it to the audience: What would you do? Only to tip it out of the mundane into the S-F, metaphysical, or just the strange. That sounds much, yet we found it to be making its point fairly clear, it even gets spelled out for the lost and confused. Through high tension it swerves the tacky emotional climax, yet that could be a personal flavour. When people are presented with only two options out of convenience to simplify, they pick the worse. Never to pick up on Just: Say: N0! Get outta here, you bum! (secret third option) Instead it's so seductive to fantasize how to improve life as it is. Thus catastrophe ensues, and dominoes fall into the next. Cammy Diaz hot mom.
Tengu 'tude
'tude
Re: Movies you've just watched
Captain America: Brave New World: **1/2
Another fairly average MCU movie, which is an improvement over some recent stinkers like Multiverse of Madness, Eternals and Quantumania. Nothing particularly bad about it (besides possibly a mediocre villain), but at the same time not as good as any of the Chris Evans Captain America movies. It felt like they borrowed the plot just a little too much from The Winter Soldier (which I consider to easily be one of the top 3 best MCU movies) while completely missing the point of what made that particular movie so memorable. The result is watchable, but at the same time you'd probably make better use of your time just watching Winter Soldier again instead of this one. Anthony Mackie actually does just fine acting in the role, but if you replace the Super Soldier with a fancy Vibranium suit the character on screen is basically another version of Iron Man.
Another fairly average MCU movie, which is an improvement over some recent stinkers like Multiverse of Madness, Eternals and Quantumania. Nothing particularly bad about it (besides possibly a mediocre villain), but at the same time not as good as any of the Chris Evans Captain America movies. It felt like they borrowed the plot just a little too much from The Winter Soldier (which I consider to easily be one of the top 3 best MCU movies) while completely missing the point of what made that particular movie so memorable. The result is watchable, but at the same time you'd probably make better use of your time just watching Winter Soldier again instead of this one. Anthony Mackie actually does just fine acting in the role, but if you replace the Super Soldier with a fancy Vibranium suit the character on screen is basically another version of Iron Man.
Last edited by Vexorg on Mon Jun 02, 2025 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Movies you've just watched
Dracula: Dead and Loving It: **
Ostensibly a parody of the Dracula mythos (and more specifically of Bram Stoker's Dracula from 1992), this one was a box office bomb. Leslie Nielsen plays Dracula in this one in his characteristic fashion, while Mel Brooks plays the role of Van Helsing (and also directs the film,) but neither of them is putting their best work into this film. The result is a mostly straight retelling of the original story with some occasional Leslie Nielsen antics and Mel Brooks throwaway gags here and there, which ultimately leaves this one feeling rather watered down. Its 11% rating on Rotten Tomatoes seems to reflect this.
Ostensibly a parody of the Dracula mythos (and more specifically of Bram Stoker's Dracula from 1992), this one was a box office bomb. Leslie Nielsen plays Dracula in this one in his characteristic fashion, while Mel Brooks plays the role of Van Helsing (and also directs the film,) but neither of them is putting their best work into this film. The result is a mostly straight retelling of the original story with some occasional Leslie Nielsen antics and Mel Brooks throwaway gags here and there, which ultimately leaves this one feeling rather watered down. Its 11% rating on Rotten Tomatoes seems to reflect this.
-
GaijinPunch
- Posts: 15845
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:22 pm
- Location: San Fransicso
Re: Movies you've just watched
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Ethan Hawke and Phillip Seymour Hoffman play fuck up brothers that don't use their best judgement when they decide to fix their problems with a victimless crime: ripping off a jewelry store. As you might guess, things don't get so well, and they get worse. Co-staring Marisa Tomei who was kind enough to get naked a couple of times. All around good performances and a solid watch, but also, not one I'd feel compelled to watch again.
Ethan Hawke and Phillip Seymour Hoffman play fuck up brothers that don't use their best judgement when they decide to fix their problems with a victimless crime: ripping off a jewelry store. As you might guess, things don't get so well, and they get worse. Co-staring Marisa Tomei who was kind enough to get naked a couple of times. All around good performances and a solid watch, but also, not one I'd feel compelled to watch again.
RegalSin wrote:New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.
anything for society
S0CIETY
First. As a budget horror flick, what could the title around '89/'90 possibly incur? That the privileged are inhuman creatures that require sacrifice, perchance? Right you are, old sport! If their is any satire with this, I found it to be mild or very common now. Although I was in a impaired state while watching, it made the pace hard to sustain. As the climax is a flood of bizarre pfx, the way to it often only trickles, and made me wish for a strict 90 min cut. 0h, how I wished for it! Easy achieved in deleting a side-character or two. The orgy at the end is quite remarkable for its excess, if one is inclined to such things. I have to watch it again with a more refreshed mind to come to a more neutral opinion. Soon enough...
First. As a budget horror flick, what could the title around '89/'90 possibly incur? That the privileged are inhuman creatures that require sacrifice, perchance? Right you are, old sport! If their is any satire with this, I found it to be mild or very common now. Although I was in a impaired state while watching, it made the pace hard to sustain. As the climax is a flood of bizarre pfx, the way to it often only trickles, and made me wish for a strict 90 min cut. 0h, how I wished for it! Easy achieved in deleting a side-character or two. The orgy at the end is quite remarkable for its excess, if one is inclined to such things. I have to watch it again with a more refreshed mind to come to a more neutral opinion. Soon enough...
Tengu 'tude
'tude-
ChurchOfSolipsism
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:12 am
Re: Movies you've just watched
Also rewatched this not too long ago; it's one of the comedies that weren't even that much fun when we were kids in the 90s, and it was still rather lame although I was watching it with a bunch of pals who were hooting at practically any infantile/ shitty gag in the movie, like Dracula hilariously tripping and falling down the stairs.Vexorg wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 7:46 pm Dracula: Dead and Loving It: **
Ostensibly a parody of the Dracula mythos (and more specifically of Bram Stoker's Dracula from 1992), this one was a box office bomb. Leslie Nielsen plays Dracula in this one in his characteristic fashion, while Mel Brooks plays the role of Van Helsing (and also directs the film,) but neither of them is putting their best work into this film. The result is a mostly straight retelling of the original story with some occasional Leslie Nielsen antics and Mel Brooks throwaway gags here and there, which ultimately leaves this one feeling rather watered down. Its 11% rating on Rotten Tomatoes seems to reflect this.
-
ChurchOfSolipsism
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:12 am
Re: Movies you've just watched
Flesh Eating Mothers - 7.5/10
One for the lovers of low budget amateur but still inexplicably fun horror trash. Shitty actors, shitty dialogue, a couple of acceptable practical effects, and a very entertaining 80s dub (watched it in German). If I had to choose between this and Samurai Cop, I'd say it's a much better watch.
One for the lovers of low budget amateur but still inexplicably fun horror trash. Shitty actors, shitty dialogue, a couple of acceptable practical effects, and a very entertaining 80s dub (watched it in German). If I had to choose between this and Samurai Cop, I'd say it's a much better watch.
Re: Movies you've just watched
Mutiny on the Bounty (1962) Dir. Lewis Milestone, Carol Reed & George Seaton
Spoiler
I've been dealing with some personal crises of late (double whammy of a parent passing plus getting laid off 
), so I needed the comfort of a nostalgic, blankety epic. This one delivers, and holds up well, though apparently wasn't well received by the professional movie-fanciers of its day (who compared it to an older version I've not experienced). It has some very cool effects, especially for its day, a great story, and a bastard of a villain. Very easy to lose yourself in for its lengthy runtime.
It's a story inspired by true events surrounding the overthrowing of Captain Bligh (Trevor Howard), a brutal leader who knows only the way of the rod, by his First Lieutenant Christian (Marlon Brando), during a mission to Tahiti. The year is 1787 and their objective is to return with a cargo of the exotic “breadfruit” (which I learned is a thing).
One of the reasons this film didn't go down well was due to Brando’s excessively affected plummy accent. Personally, I have no issue with it whatsoever. If anything it makes Bligh's class prejudice toward the aristocratic sounding Christian a little more believable. There's a (very) long build up to the eponymous mutiny itself, and up to that point it's entirely a test of how much cruelty Christian is prepared to accept being inflicted on the crew before he'll put his own neck on the block instead. He exhausts every other method in trying to soften Bligh, even a touch, and is finally pushed to the brink himself directly by his superior.
His deterrent: An uprising guarantees a court martial (assuming he's apprehended), which in turn will more or less guarantee his execution. Captain Bligh is an odious stain, reminiscent of General George Broulard in Kubrick's Paths of Glory (1957), and likewise tolerates nothing but immediate, unquestioned obedience. Even to express concern, to pause, or offer alternative solutions Bligh regards as heinous insubordination. That Christian doesn't adopt the same manner of cold austerity as himself, Bligh sees as weak, lazy and typical of those born with a silver spoon.
The Captain getting egg-faced is worth the wait, though of course it's not commensurate with the suffering he’s dealt the crew up to that point. But it's what happens to Christian afterwards that makes it a film of two halves. If he remains a fugitive in his own land, and with all that he has worked for and values (including a deep commitment to military code), his life will be rendered meaningless. He has made the right moral choice, but sacrificed himself absolutely in the process. Little time passes before he decides taking his chances at a court martial would actually be preferable to his current state of non-being.
There's a similar commentary on military leadership going on to that of Kubrick’s Paths…, whereby the most egregious, even murderous acts committed by those holding senior rank will seldom result in more than a mild dressing down; that such leaders can show as much compassion for those sworn to serve them (even during peacetime) as they do their enemies during times of war; that the death or severe maltreatment of innocent personnel in the process of fulfilling orders can be reduced to mere numbers. Both films offer a stark reminder of the systems that allow these elements to emerge.
), so I needed the comfort of a nostalgic, blankety epic. This one delivers, and holds up well, though apparently wasn't well received by the professional movie-fanciers of its day (who compared it to an older version I've not experienced). It has some very cool effects, especially for its day, a great story, and a bastard of a villain. Very easy to lose yourself in for its lengthy runtime.It's a story inspired by true events surrounding the overthrowing of Captain Bligh (Trevor Howard), a brutal leader who knows only the way of the rod, by his First Lieutenant Christian (Marlon Brando), during a mission to Tahiti. The year is 1787 and their objective is to return with a cargo of the exotic “breadfruit” (which I learned is a thing).
One of the reasons this film didn't go down well was due to Brando’s excessively affected plummy accent. Personally, I have no issue with it whatsoever. If anything it makes Bligh's class prejudice toward the aristocratic sounding Christian a little more believable. There's a (very) long build up to the eponymous mutiny itself, and up to that point it's entirely a test of how much cruelty Christian is prepared to accept being inflicted on the crew before he'll put his own neck on the block instead. He exhausts every other method in trying to soften Bligh, even a touch, and is finally pushed to the brink himself directly by his superior.
His deterrent: An uprising guarantees a court martial (assuming he's apprehended), which in turn will more or less guarantee his execution. Captain Bligh is an odious stain, reminiscent of General George Broulard in Kubrick's Paths of Glory (1957), and likewise tolerates nothing but immediate, unquestioned obedience. Even to express concern, to pause, or offer alternative solutions Bligh regards as heinous insubordination. That Christian doesn't adopt the same manner of cold austerity as himself, Bligh sees as weak, lazy and typical of those born with a silver spoon.
The Captain getting egg-faced is worth the wait, though of course it's not commensurate with the suffering he’s dealt the crew up to that point. But it's what happens to Christian afterwards that makes it a film of two halves. If he remains a fugitive in his own land, and with all that he has worked for and values (including a deep commitment to military code), his life will be rendered meaningless. He has made the right moral choice, but sacrificed himself absolutely in the process. Little time passes before he decides taking his chances at a court martial would actually be preferable to his current state of non-being.
There's a similar commentary on military leadership going on to that of Kubrick’s Paths…, whereby the most egregious, even murderous acts committed by those holding senior rank will seldom result in more than a mild dressing down; that such leaders can show as much compassion for those sworn to serve them (even during peacetime) as they do their enemies during times of war; that the death or severe maltreatment of innocent personnel in the process of fulfilling orders can be reduced to mere numbers. Both films offer a stark reminder of the systems that allow these elements to emerge.
Re: Movies you've just watched
Also watched Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991).
I thought the corny elements might bother me less if enough time elapsed between viewings. But nope, they still bring the film down considerably for me (plus those catchphrase callbacks - "I love you John, I always have.", "Come with me if you wanna live." etc.). Not saying Cameron needed to go as dark as the first one, and making the sequel more accessible and tonally lighter is all fine. It's just that some of the jokey lines and actions don't fit with the concept of killer robots from the future (e.g. "I need a vacation"). That said, Jim made a fan-fuckin-tastic action movie here, that I find impossible not to love despite the missteps.
I thought the corny elements might bother me less if enough time elapsed between viewings. But nope, they still bring the film down considerably for me (plus those catchphrase callbacks - "I love you John, I always have.", "Come with me if you wanna live." etc.). Not saying Cameron needed to go as dark as the first one, and making the sequel more accessible and tonally lighter is all fine. It's just that some of the jokey lines and actions don't fit with the concept of killer robots from the future (e.g. "I need a vacation"). That said, Jim made a fan-fuckin-tastic action movie here, that I find impossible not to love despite the missteps.
-
PC Engine Fan X!
- Posts: 9066
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:32 pm
Re: Movies you've just watched
RGC wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 10:27 am Also watched Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991).
I thought the corny elements might bother me less if enough time elapsed between viewings. But nope, they still bring the film down considerably for me (plus those catchphrase callbacks - "I love you John, I always have.", "Come with me if you wanna live." etc.). Not saying Cameron needed to go as dark as the first one, and making the sequel more accessible and tonally lighter is all fine. It's just that some of the jokey lines and actions don't fit with the concept of killer robots from the future (e.g. "I need a vacation"). That said, Jim made a fan-fuckin-tastic action movie here, that I find impossible not to love despite the missteps.
Not to mention that T2 had a whopping & unheard of $100 million dollar film production budget plus a one year's "time frame goal" to get it all finished in time for it's July 4th, 1991 opening weekend extravaganza debut. Carolco did the impossible with "all stops" let loose and Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) showcasing their latest CG special EFX wizardry at the time with it's "real-time" morphing EFX with the "mimetic poly alloy" functionality of the T-1000 nemesis/villain character. Considering that T2 takes place a mere ten years after the events of T1 in 1984, it'd be "smack dab" in 1994 alrighty. Stan Winston was the head honcho with his talented team to pull off the practical effects along a bit of stop-motion magic as well in depicting the famous T-800 series of Terminators in the huge battle of the Resistance (and Resistance leader of John Connor) against the Terminator army as depicted in the infamous "Future War" scene complete with aerial-based HK (Hunter Killers) Hunters & ground-based HK Tanks picking off what's left of the Resistance.
Unfortunately, there wasn't enough time to film the proposed but ultimately axed "Time Field Generator" scene that shows the T-800 being sent back to the year 1994 by the Resistance army -- that scene alone would've further delayed T2's film debut for sure -- at the very least, the T2 arcade game does show what the Time Field Generator looks like in one particular stage (giving the T2 fans a brief glimpse of what could've been an awesome & pivotal scene shown within the T2 movie itself -- it just wasn't meant to be in the end though).
----------
Powerhouse & juggernaut Williams released it's dedicated upright cab "light-gun" based T2 arcade game along with the classic T2 pinball game -- they were both available to play in the American arcades released concurrently in time for the T2's film debut (which I've never seen replicated for a major Hollywood film release since then).
----------
The proper third sequel of "Terminator: Dark Fate" follows after the events that unfold in T2 (and all the other Terminator sequels take place in an "alternate timeline/universe" and aren't even regarded as officially canon anyways).
PC Engine Fan X! ^_~
Re: Movies you've just watched
Yeah, my expectations were below the floorboards somewhere when I watched Terminator: Dark Fate (as a result of the others post T2), and consequently found myself reasonably enjoying it purely from an action point of view. I think it helped being way past caring what the story was about. Not that it was a memorable experience.
-
PC Engine Fan X!
- Posts: 9066
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:32 pm
Re: Movies you've just watched
Checked the new CG animated full-length movie of "Predator" Killer of Killers" from Disney's "20th Century Studio" movie studio company. It's an entirely brand new Predator film set within the Predator universe/mythos and is 90 minutes in duration. The action scenes and elaborate fight scenes are "over-the-top" making the audience wonder what's going to happen next and keeping them at the edge of their seats. It's streaming exclusively on Disney's Hulu Plus and debuted today, 6/06/2025.
PC Engine Fan X! ^_~
PC Engine Fan X! ^_~
Re: Movies you've just watched
So thumbs up then, huh? I was looking at it today and wondering if I should bother.PC Engine Fan X! wrote: ↑Sat Jun 07, 2025 8:08 pm Checked the new CG animated full-length movie of "Predator" Killer of Killers" from Disney's "20th Century Studio" movie studio company.
I just watched Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol (2011) 6/10
It had some okay action sequences, and it was edited well enough. The writing was meh to bad and the acting was silly. I suppose it's in-keeping with the genre, but felt generic at times even when viewed from that perspective. No twists or unexpected plot developments whatsoever; they didn't even try for some reason. The most character development they did was with Jeremy Renner's character, but it had no payoff at all, and it wasn't that deep to begin with.
All in all, it was an okay diversion for a Saturday afternoon as I had not watched it yet. The new one is out now, and this is the only one I missed, so I just figured why not.
In conclusion, it's a bland action film with no real intrigue or mystery like other films in the series have. Want to watch Tom Cruise jump out of stuff and people whip guns around for a couple hours with no story to distract you from something else? This is your film.
wheelchair racer
THE CHANGELING
First. The 1980 Canadian production with Great George C. Scott as the main character. Interesting how the situation of a ghost story calls for something different from the big guy in acting. He's big, he's lost, he's haunted, and he's a sensitive composer. You will see him cry, confronted with the supernatural. Mild scares, it's all about atmosphere and ambience. The phenomena are spooky, though not with a cry for help that he is able to pick up on, instead of battling them to the death. He invites a medium, since he acknowledges the need for communication. I wonder if this is the template for many more Tv later where the dead are in need of the living and not harassing them, well, only a little. How it is resolved is naturally now easy to anticipate. A little long in length, yet not that much. If there had been more greed on the filmmakers this could've been more films. Surprising, really, to leave it at that. Different now, huh.
First. The 1980 Canadian production with Great George C. Scott as the main character. Interesting how the situation of a ghost story calls for something different from the big guy in acting. He's big, he's lost, he's haunted, and he's a sensitive composer. You will see him cry, confronted with the supernatural. Mild scares, it's all about atmosphere and ambience. The phenomena are spooky, though not with a cry for help that he is able to pick up on, instead of battling them to the death. He invites a medium, since he acknowledges the need for communication. I wonder if this is the template for many more Tv later where the dead are in need of the living and not harassing them, well, only a little. How it is resolved is naturally now easy to anticipate. A little long in length, yet not that much. If there had been more greed on the filmmakers this could've been more films. Surprising, really, to leave it at that. Different now, huh.
Tengu 'tude
'tude-
PC Engine Fan X!
- Posts: 9066
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:32 pm
Re: Movies you've just watched
vol.2 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 08, 2025 12:42 amSo thumbs up then, huh? I was looking at it today and wondering if I should bother.PC Engine Fan X! wrote: ↑Sat Jun 07, 2025 8:08 pm Checked the new CG animated full-length movie of "Predator" Killer of Killers" from Disney's "20th Century Studio" movie studio company.
I just watched Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol (2011) 6/10
It had some okay action sequences, and it was edited well enough. The writing was meh to bad and the acting was silly. I suppose it's in-keeping with the genre, but felt generic at times even when viewed from that perspective. No twists or unexpected plot developments whatsoever; they didn't even try for some reason. The most character development they did was with Jeremy Renner's character, but it had no payoff at all, and it wasn't that deep to begin with.
All in all, it was an okay diversion for a Saturday afternoon as I had not watched it yet. The new one is out now, and this is the only one I missed, so I just figured why not.
In conclusion, it's a bland action film with no real intrigue or mystery like other films in the series have. Want to watch Tom Cruise jump out of stuff and people whip guns around for a couple hours with no story to distract you from something else? This is your film.
For vol.2,
Yes, the new Disney backed "Predator: Killer of Killers" gets two-thumbs up from me -- it's that good! I wouldn't be surprised if a sequel gets "greenlit" down the road as there are plenty of more stories to tell within the Predator universe/mythos indeed.
PC Engine Fan X! ^_~
-
GaijinPunch
- Posts: 15845
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:22 pm
- Location: San Fransicso
Re: Movies you've just watched
Monster
2003 telling of real piece of work, Aileen Wuornos, a street hooker that murdered 7 of her Johns. Charlize Theron, uglified, won the best actress Oscar for her performance. Wherever you stand on capital punishment and all of that, it is obvious that society simply failed this woman. Nothing but garbage in her life as role models make a lot of pieces fall in place. It doesn't excuse her actions but very much explains them. She was the 10th woman to be executed in the US after reinstatement of the death penalty.
2003 telling of real piece of work, Aileen Wuornos, a street hooker that murdered 7 of her Johns. Charlize Theron, uglified, won the best actress Oscar for her performance. Wherever you stand on capital punishment and all of that, it is obvious that society simply failed this woman. Nothing but garbage in her life as role models make a lot of pieces fall in place. It doesn't excuse her actions but very much explains them. She was the 10th woman to be executed in the US after reinstatement of the death penalty.
RegalSin wrote:New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.
Re: Movies you've just watched
Monster Hunter 2020 7/10
It was an incredibly mindless action film with some big monsters and some decently sympathetic characters. Not a lot of drama, but enough for me to kind of care what was going on. It's biggest failing is the general lack of world building. They spent a lot of time following around Jovovich and practically none of it showing the world of Monster Hunter. You see precious little of it even throughout the course of the film. You do get to interact with some of it's inhabitants, but they should have spent some time showing them or more of them. And they should have showed a wider variety of monsters.
Ultimately, I think the world building was being purposefully withheld for a sequel that will probably never come because the film bombed so hard. I don't think it deserved to, it was clearly a victim of Covid timing as dumb action films like this usually do okay unless they really, really suck, and I honestly don't think this one did.
I gave it a higher rating than I think a critic would because I personally just had a lot of fun watching it.
It was an incredibly mindless action film with some big monsters and some decently sympathetic characters. Not a lot of drama, but enough for me to kind of care what was going on. It's biggest failing is the general lack of world building. They spent a lot of time following around Jovovich and practically none of it showing the world of Monster Hunter. You see precious little of it even throughout the course of the film. You do get to interact with some of it's inhabitants, but they should have spent some time showing them or more of them. And they should have showed a wider variety of monsters.
Ultimately, I think the world building was being purposefully withheld for a sequel that will probably never come because the film bombed so hard. I don't think it deserved to, it was clearly a victim of Covid timing as dumb action films like this usually do okay unless they really, really suck, and I honestly don't think this one did.
I gave it a higher rating than I think a critic would because I personally just had a lot of fun watching it.
-
cj iwakura
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:28 am
- Location: Coral Springs, FL
Re: Movies you've just watched
Conversely, I hated Dark Fate, especially for how it treated a certain character in the first five minutes, which inevitably left a bad taste in my mouth. The new characters were fine, and Linda Hamilton was great as always, but I vastly prefer T3 as a sequel, and a more appropriate follow-up to 2.RGC wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 5:25 pm Yeah, my expectations were below the floorboards somewhere when I watched Terminator: Dark Fate (as a result of the others post T2), and consequently found myself reasonably enjoying it purely from an action point of view. I think it helped being way past caring what the story was about. Not that it was a memorable experience.
heli wrote:Why is milestone director in prison ?, are his game to difficult ?
Re: Movies you've just watched
Robin Hood: Men in Tights: ***
Apparently I've never reviewed this one on the thread because I watch it often enough that I always assume I had reviewed it previously. This one reviewed pretty poorly back in its day (Gene Siskel gave it half a star) but it seems to have done much better with the audience than the critics (with a 42% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and an 81% audience rating (Mel Brooks has also reportedly stated that this and Spaceballs are his two best selling films on home video on an ongoing basis.) One of the things you learn when you watch enough of these parody movies is that the need to fill the screen time with hundreds of throwaway gags means you can pretty accurately place them to when they were made because they tend to include a lot of "current" references. If you watched this film without knowing when it was made you could probably place it in the early 90s pretty much right away (the fact that there's a rap song right after the opening credits will do that) and there's plenty of other references that place it firmly in that era but which are probably lost on younger viewers.
As for the film itself, it's basically a comic retelling of the Robin Hood story (but borrowing plot points from and throwing copious amounts of shade at 1991's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) with Mel Brooks' usual doses of fourth-wall breaking, random Jewish stuff (Mel Brooks makes his appearance as Rabbi Tuckman, replacing the more traditional Friar Tuck character) and reusing a lot of the same actors from his previous films. Probably one of Mel Brooks' better films, but not quite up to the level of stuff like Spaceballs and Blazing Saddles. It still makes a place on my list of films that deserve an occasional rewatch though.
Currently available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tcI8nZ_M0Y
Apparently I've never reviewed this one on the thread because I watch it often enough that I always assume I had reviewed it previously. This one reviewed pretty poorly back in its day (Gene Siskel gave it half a star) but it seems to have done much better with the audience than the critics (with a 42% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and an 81% audience rating (Mel Brooks has also reportedly stated that this and Spaceballs are his two best selling films on home video on an ongoing basis.) One of the things you learn when you watch enough of these parody movies is that the need to fill the screen time with hundreds of throwaway gags means you can pretty accurately place them to when they were made because they tend to include a lot of "current" references. If you watched this film without knowing when it was made you could probably place it in the early 90s pretty much right away (the fact that there's a rap song right after the opening credits will do that) and there's plenty of other references that place it firmly in that era but which are probably lost on younger viewers.
As for the film itself, it's basically a comic retelling of the Robin Hood story (but borrowing plot points from and throwing copious amounts of shade at 1991's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) with Mel Brooks' usual doses of fourth-wall breaking, random Jewish stuff (Mel Brooks makes his appearance as Rabbi Tuckman, replacing the more traditional Friar Tuck character) and reusing a lot of the same actors from his previous films. Probably one of Mel Brooks' better films, but not quite up to the level of stuff like Spaceballs and Blazing Saddles. It still makes a place on my list of films that deserve an occasional rewatch though.
Currently available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tcI8nZ_M0Y
-
cj iwakura
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:28 am
- Location: Coral Springs, FL
Re: Movies you've just watched
It's held up better than the film it's parodying, so there's that.Vexorg wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 7:46 pm Robin Hood: Men in Tights: ***
Apparently I've never reviewed this one on the thread because I watch it often enough that I always assume I had reviewed it previously. This one reviewed pretty poorly back in its day (Gene Siskel gave it half a star) but it seems to have done much better with the audience than the critics (with a 42% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and an 81% audience rating (Mel Brooks has also reportedly stated that this and Spaceballs are his two best selling films on home video on an ongoing basis.) One of the things you learn when you watch enough of these parody movies is that the need to fill the screen time with hundreds of throwaway gags means you can pretty accurately place them to when they were made because they tend to include a lot of "current" references. If you watched this film without knowing when it was made you could probably place it in the early 90s pretty much right away (the fact that there's a rap song right after the opening credits will do that) and there's plenty of other references that place it firmly in that era but which are probably lost on younger viewers.
As for the film itself, it's basically a comic retelling of the Robin Hood story (but borrowing plot points from and throwing copious amounts of shade at 1991's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) with Mel Brooks' usual doses of fourth-wall breaking, random Jewish stuff (Mel Brooks makes his appearance as Rabbi Tuckman, replacing the more traditional Friar Tuck character) and reusing a lot of the same actors from his previous films. Probably one of Mel Brooks' better films, but not quite up to the level of stuff like Spaceballs and Blazing Saddles. It still makes a place on my list of films that deserve an occasional rewatch though.
Currently available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tcI8nZ_M0Y
The best version is, arguably, the 70s Disney one. Ooh-de-lally.
heli wrote:Why is milestone director in prison ?, are his game to difficult ?
Re: Movies you've just watched
My buddy and I were at a record bazaar last weekend and he purchased the 7" singles from that movie for a quarter a piece. Roger Miller.cj iwakura wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 5:08 am The best version is, arguably, the 70s Disney one. Ooh-de-lally.
Re: Movies you've just watched
I love Chinese and Japanese ghost/exorcism stories. Kuroneko and Legend of the Mountain are two of my favorite films. Kwaidan is excellent as well. I'm rewatching Legend of the Mountain right now and I don't get the criticism at all. I think a lot of people didn't understand what genre of movie it was. They wrote it off as an art film or a series of pretty pictures. The film does a lot of its storytelling with visual metaphor. Yes, it has a very slow start. But you can just fast forward if you really don't care. Do take note of the extended scenes of animals mating and killing. Those scenes are extremely relevant to the story.
I think what works the best about Legend of the Mountain is how King Hu incorporated musical instruments into the display of supernatural powers. Many "supernatural" movies from the pre-CGI era look pretty horrible today. Of course, that's also true for a great many post-CGI films. Supernatural effects are difficult to pull off. I tend to prefer practical effects, but they can definitely look cheap when viewed on HD televisions. The same is true for makeup and costumes from the '60s Hong Kong film era, when viewed in 1080p and higher definition. King Hu's solution is to not really show supernatural abilities so much as suggest them. He uses fireworks, explosives, dust clouds, wind, drums and other musical instruments to show us both the method of the magic and the effects of it. Legend of the Mountain's magical battles have a level of enduring drama to them which reminds one of a theater play, and holds up far better than many supernatural films of the time period.
As far as other notable supernatural films, A Chinese Ghost Story and Zu: Warriors from Magic Mountain are well worth seeing. Ugetsu Monogatari hardly needs a recommendation from me: the film has been lauded by critics the world over, and justly so.
I think what works the best about Legend of the Mountain is how King Hu incorporated musical instruments into the display of supernatural powers. Many "supernatural" movies from the pre-CGI era look pretty horrible today. Of course, that's also true for a great many post-CGI films. Supernatural effects are difficult to pull off. I tend to prefer practical effects, but they can definitely look cheap when viewed on HD televisions. The same is true for makeup and costumes from the '60s Hong Kong film era, when viewed in 1080p and higher definition. King Hu's solution is to not really show supernatural abilities so much as suggest them. He uses fireworks, explosives, dust clouds, wind, drums and other musical instruments to show us both the method of the magic and the effects of it. Legend of the Mountain's magical battles have a level of enduring drama to them which reminds one of a theater play, and holds up far better than many supernatural films of the time period.
As far as other notable supernatural films, A Chinese Ghost Story and Zu: Warriors from Magic Mountain are well worth seeing. Ugetsu Monogatari hardly needs a recommendation from me: the film has been lauded by critics the world over, and justly so.
lynch pin pulled
Uh, we went to the big screen the first time since what feels around 6 years, maybe? It was for Isle of Dogs, then. The thing we did it for now was David Lynch: The Art Life, you know. We are fairly versed in the Lynch cinematic experience, as far as one can claim that. What we haven't really any idea of is the artistic artist part of the man. Paintings, mixed media. Duh, you can look at net pics with the name tag, doesn't mean it gives one any in. No, the doc does it right: with the exception of his youngest Lula, and family home video material, DL is the only one on screen, and the sole narrator. No acolytes fanning the myth or such nonsense. It spans his way from youth to the completion of Eraserhead. It shows the guy at stages of creating, smoking, and just musing. That was my fave bit, him just sitting in silence, feeling out what to get to the great outside with all the calm one can have. The shown art produced...is not what speaks to me. I'm into weird, surreal, whatevs, I get that from his various film flavours. That's just enough. The doc was convenient to arrive at that conclusion.
Tengu 'tude
'tudesecret art to dream
Oh, you're welcome! Gal found it in the local paper, and asked me about it. Decided to not get informed before, just off we went. 6 viewers in attendance total, what the hey. The title was familiar to me: the book The Art Spirit is named an influence on the young artist in his own auto bio that I relished (Room to Dream). The doc presents Lynch memories that are not accounted there, so that was an extra. 
Tengu 'tude
'tudeRe: Movies you've just watched
Thanks @NYN, and likewise re. Room to Dream. I savoured the audiobook when it came out. So inspiring!