|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 21, 2020 12:20:20 GMT
Well I have to wonder if that's the intent though, since each sequel is a meta riff of how films and their sequels are made today; Scream 2 going bigger, bloodier and "higher" body count, while Scream 3's formula trilogy always tying back to original and the killer related somehow to the protagonist. Scream 4 comes off and mocks the remake era of horror films. So now I wonder if Scream 5 will be a riff of "legacy" sequel, which follows the continuity of the original film and characters, but ignores any thing in between. If that is what the movie does then I will take back what I said. It is just that up until now the sequels all have a number afterwards. It seems out of place for it to just be called "Scream." It would have made more sense for Scream 4 to just be called Scream, because that is sequel that is commenting on remakes. I have never noticed the 3rd part of trilogies tying back to the original in the way you mean. It happens somethings, but not that much. I didn't even realize that Scream 3 was parodying that specific thing. There are third movies that tie directly back to the original, but Scream 2 already does that with the killer being related to the killer from the first movie. What 3rd movies have the killer being related to the protagonist? I can't think of any off hand. Well it's the way Randy described the rules in the third one, which I guess can be applied to not only horror films but film trilogies of any genre in general. Here's what he said 1. "You've got a killer who’s gonna be superhuman. Stabbing him won’t work, shooting him won’t work. Basically in the third one, you gotta cryogenically freeze his head, decapitate him, or blow him up." 2. "Anyone, including the main character, can die. This means you, Sid." 3. "The past will come back to bite you in the ass. Whatever you think you know about the past, forget it. The past is not at rest! Any sins you think were committed in the past are about to break out and destroy you."
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 21, 2020 5:39:41 GMT
Even though we've already had a movie with just "Scream" as the title - Scream (1996).
Clearly they're doing what Halloween (2018) did for Halloween (1978) by just having the 2018 version be called "Halloween".
Except the Halloween (2018) title makes some kind of sense, in that they wanted to tie it directly back to the original. Is Scream 5 going to be ignoring the other sequels? I doubt it. Well I have to wonder if that's the intent though, since each sequel is a meta riff of how films and their sequels are made today; Scream 2 going bigger, bloodier and "higher" body count, while Scream 3's formula trilogy always tying back to original and the killer related somehow to the protagonist. Scream 4 comes off and mocks the remake era of horror films. So now I wonder if Scream 5 will be a riff of "legacy" sequel, which follows the continuity of the original film and characters, but ignores anything in between.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 18, 2020 10:31:22 GMT
It's upsetting that JC's The Thing isn't even in the top 20.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 13, 2020 19:07:24 GMT
You're the troll you little creep. You've been polluting this forum with your demented threads for a long time. I enjoy Star Wars as entertainment but it's not important. Instigating disgusting abuse at the people associated with this is appalling. You might want to take a step into the real world and take a class in social skills and maybe you might finally leave the basement and form real human relationships. Piss off, SHIT STAIN. Guess someone struck a nerve.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 31, 2020 2:55:12 GMT
Clever narration/ending. Wasn't SHOCKER using the same idea-body transfer. Yeah, I actually felt like that twist was revealed too early into the film and made the second half a bit predictable.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 30, 2020 14:32:52 GMT
About to check this film out. Was looking for underrated horror/thriller/supernatural films to check out, and this one pops up on a lot of lists. Never seen it, but the cast alone is enough for me. Anyone else seen it?
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 29, 2020 23:15:58 GMT
Upon rewatch of the last one, these films do kinda miss the point of Michael and really just embrace the "slasher" of him, which is fine. I don't mind that he's particularly randomly killing his victims, since he is evil and would kill indiscriminately anyways, but when they announced these new reboots, I was really hoping for a smaller-scale, stalker film that builds on suspense and tension much like the first, with only a small handful of kills. Obviously in this age of horror, it would be hard sell for an R-rated horror film, particularly a slasher, without a body count and blood and gore to focus on to keep audience interested. And they're really trying to resell the Michael-Laurie dynamic and capture the rivalry and arch enemies arc like Michael and Loomis, but it doesn't work as well, especially how they had to contrive a reason for Michael to go after her in the last film. If they really wanted to make Laurie the new "Loomis", it should have focused entirely on a new group of characters not related to her, even outside of Haddonfield, and have her come in later into the film. I'll definitely see this as Michael Myers is my favorite slasher, but I really hope they can shake up the character and give us something new and refreshing.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 13, 2020 2:47:24 GMT
To be fair, I'd say film-going has been dying off long ago before COVID. Obviously people still go, but right now, superhero films, Star Wars and existing franchises are really the only ones dominating the box office. Any small budget or indie films, even with A-list actors, barely make their own budget back. Superhero films and Star Wars films are just easy to follow and the epitome of escapism. I always maintain that at least this generation of movie goers just don't like smart and clever films that make you think. You do pretentious really well. Not at all. Prove me wrong. Name some original films in the last five years or so that actually did good money. I get that smaller budget films aren't required to obviously make a billion, but still, name one that made it's budget back and then some.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 11, 2020 23:19:55 GMT
Watched this for the first time the other day and my God, would have never thought of Gerard Butler, of all people, as Dracula. I don't know, seems like a major miscasting right there. Overall, it's nothing special. It's not the worse vampire film. Got some good moments. Kinda expected better from Craven though. I did find the score to be beautiful though. And I like the different origin for Dracula, with him for being Judas and betraying Jesus. At least it explains why vampires don't like silver. Can't say I actually ever seen that origin before off all the different Dracula interpretations I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 11, 2020 10:28:34 GMT
To be fair, I'd say film-going has been dying off long ago before COVID. Obviously people still go, but right now, superhero films, Star Wars and existing franchises are really the only ones dominating the box office. Any small budget or indie films, even with A-list actors, barely make their own budget back. Superhero films and Star Wars films are just easy to follow and the epitome of escapism. I always maintain that at least this generation of movie goers just don't like smart and clever films that make you think.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 8, 2020 0:44:20 GMT
Being a nineties baby, this is one I grew up on and one of the many horror films my older brother showed me behind my parents back. I quite like it. Has some good scares, an interesting premise and story and actually some earnest acting, particularly from Tony Shalhoub. But I also love Matthew Lillard in it as well. Can't believe it actually got really bad reviews They really went out of their way of crafting intricate back stories for each ghosts. I understand it's a remake of a sixties film, but from my understanding, that film was particularly well favored anyways. I'm actually shocked this hasn't been remade again.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 5, 2020 19:41:48 GMT
Never knew he was a conscientious objector growing up, before changing his mind after the German bombing of London. And he enlisted as a RAF bomber, and flew over 60 raids against the Axis powers. On 31 August 1944 Lancaster NE112, in which he was a crew member, was shot down during an attack upon Agenville,and he was captured and imprisoned in the German prisoner-of-war camp Stalag Luft I, where he produced and acted in plays. He was discharged from the R.A.F. in 1946. The guy took on Nazis, real "evil". That's a badass in my book!
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 1, 2020 11:56:03 GMT
I was gonna start out with a Christopher Lee oldie, The Devil Rides Out.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 18, 2020 14:40:38 GMT
I don't think it's Nolan's best, but it's good. It's a plot-driven film for it's spectacle rather than really a character one. On a technical level, everything was great. Nolan always delivers when it comes to effects. Performative-wise, it was fine. I don't think Nolan has ever directed a bad performance. But there wasn't any huge standout either. As great as Nolan is, he isn't exactly a writer of emotion or really getting you emotionally invested in anyone during his films. Plot-wise, it makes sense to me now only because after watching, I've went thru Reddit, looking for explanations of stuff that confused me. But, I don't think that is really a sign of a good film if you have to look it up. The sound mixing though was a huge problem throughout that really drowns out the dialogue early on that would have really helped later on, so maybe that was part of the issue, that I missed a lot of information to help understand the film. But overall, I liked it. Nolan is always trying new and original things with filmmaking, which I can appreciate. It's definitely his take on the spy/Bond genre since he is definitely a fan favorite for directing a Bond film. The whole inverse/time travel was cool even if it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but at least it set out with it's own rules and followed them. What bugged me is the fight scenes. It just turned the whole inverse into a gimmick. Among other things Nolan isn't very good at are fight scenes. Overall, I'd give it a solid 6/10.
But if someone could please answer, the one thing that doesn't make a whole lot of sense and kinda got forgotten about half way thru, is what was the point of the painting??
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 12, 2020 17:23:42 GMT
A legend and a national treasure to grace our screens as Q.
The outbreak of World War II in September 1939, halted his acting career, and Llewelyn was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the British army. He was assigned to the Royal Welsh Fusiliers and was sent to France in early 1940.
In a short time, his regiment was fighting the Germans, and Llewelyn's company was holding off a division of German tanks. Llewelyn explained that "eventually, the tanks broke through and many of us jumped into this canal and started swimming down it to the other side, figuring that our chaps were still over there. But the Germans were the only ones there," and Llewelyn was captured, and held as a prisoner of war for five years.
At one prison camp, the prisoners had dug a tunnel and were planning to escape the next morning. Llewelyn was down in the tunnel doing some maintenance work in preparation of the escape when the Germans found out about the tunnel and caught him down in it, a crime that earned Llewelyn 10 days in solitary, which Llewelyn called "a blessing of sorts. After spending every day of several years sleeping in a room with 50 other people, the quiet and privacy was rather nice."
After the war, Llewelyn returned to London and revived his career, eventually being cast as his trademark Q in From Russia with Love (1963). Since 1963, Llewelyn has appeared as Q in every Eon Productions Bond film, except Live and Let Die (1973).
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 10, 2020 12:10:07 GMT
It's very much a grounded version of Adam West's Batman. Didn't notice until I rewatched it a few times. But Batman clearly already has a some kind of rapport with Gordon and the police. The way they filmed Batman walking into the crime scene with Gordon, walking between the cops and FBI and forensic teams obviously gives it this cool and badass entrance. But if it were just a regular wide shot, it'd feel more Adam West Batman and look goofy with a man in a Batsuit surrounded by professionals.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 10, 2020 11:17:18 GMT
I see stuff like this and it's just hard to sympathize with the Left and BLM and ANTIFA in America right now. I mean, regardless of your class, your income, gender or race, just being born in America alone, you've won the jackpot and have far more opportunities. Not saying it excuses racism, but it pales in comparison to oppression of the likes blasphemy laws.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 10, 2020 0:18:42 GMT
Never seen this interpretation before. I never gave it a second thought that Resurrection made it clear that it was only not Michael at the very end when he was in the ambulance. Only Resurrection made that clear at the start. Myers was long dead to my mind considering the context of what happens at the end of 2. H20 was a direct sequel to part 2. Laurie was so obsessed, I saw the manifestation of a killer resembling Myers as psychosomatic in a sense. It couldn’t possibly be him. The new one disregarded 2 and makes 2’s event redundant now. Ridiculous! Well hold up. It's an interesting theory, but in the beginning of H20, the cops mentioned that Michael's body was never found after the fire, so their intent was that Michael indeed survived. And because he's this force of evil, they didn't really need a backhand explanation of why he has his eyes back or no burn scars all over.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 9, 2020 12:29:47 GMT
After the opening, it went downhill from there. It was also not shot in the scope ratio, which was part of the reason why Carpenter’s were so successful and his use of framing and lurking shadows. Part 4 insults ones intelligence and part 5 was even worse. 6 was sort of interesting, but so darn convoluted by then and looked like an MTV music video, it had lost all the essence of what made the first 2 so memorable. H20 I really like, Resurrection was crud. The last JLC outing was nothing like it promised and Zombie’s reboot tried but failed. I loved his sequel though. I mean, I pretty much agree with each assessment except for 4. I don't think it really sets out to be this clever movie. It clearly knows what it is and that the audience knows Michael was supposed to be dead after 2, since Season of the Witch was it's own film. So it's not like they set out with an intricate and elaborate exposition of how Michael could have survived or grew his eyeballs back other than he's just a force of nature that can't be killed. And clearly there is a bit of Terminator inspiration in his characterization rather than replicating Nick Castle's movements again. It was a simple sequel, even if uninspired.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 9, 2020 9:52:02 GMT
It’s a brilliant opening; if only the rest of the movie lived up to it! Actually, 4 is actually my second-favorite Halloween after the original… It’s goofy as anything, but it’s fun-goofy. I wish they’d gone with Dennis Etchison’s script, though. Oh I'm gonna have to check that out. Did you read it?
|
|