Rate the last movie you've seen

[MinionZombie]

The Beguiled (2017) Sofia Coppola's remake of the Clint Eastwood movie. It's a brief 90 minutes running time, and for two thirds of it it is really well controlled and teased out, but the third act gets a bit jumpy like it's in a bit of a rush and certain things don't make enough sense, or feel a bit sudden. However, the ending is pretty haunting. Overall it was rather good, but some tweaks to the third act would have smoothed out a few things. The three maid leads (Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst) are all excellent, and the supporting players (the school girls attending the school - Elle Fanning as the eldest of the bunch) have all been very well-picked and directed. Definitely worth seeing. Deep Red At the cinema. A showing in town. Man, it's good on the big screen. Also appreciated the humour more in a group setting. Schoolgirl Killer Really enjoyable early giallo set at an all-girl school (what else?). Naked Girl Killed in a Park Another great giallo with genre superstar Jean Sorel. Really dug this one... Title is fairly misleading tho, it's more like "Naked Girl found dead in the front yard". Seven blood-stained orchids So ok, another giallo. Enjoyed this one up to a point but it is extremely formulaic and sort of loses itself at the end. There's no big flourish to it, like shooting encroaching snakes off of party guests ankles with handguns for example. The Bird with the Crystal Plumage Revisiting this classic. The Arrow release from last year sure looks good. Weapons of Death Mad Dog Killer A Special Cop in Action Had friends over to a trio of eurocrime action films. We play drinking games to them. Every time a new character with a moustasche shows up. Everytime a car screeches to a halt or takes off speeding. Everytime a slap is thrown (cap at 3 per scene!). Every instance of police brutality. Every bottle of J&B whiskey. I was really hung over yesterday. A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 A Nightmare on Elm Street 4 2 - OK, 3 - Good, 4 - Crap. 1) Am I remembering correctly that you weren't keen on the longer director's cut of Deep Red, the version with the humour between the two leads, when you first saw it? Anyway, must have been a treat seeing in on the big screen. 2) I'll have to keep an eye out for those two. Always nice to get a tip off on good gialli vs bad gialli. 3) Yeah, Orchids is a bit meh, isn't it? Like you say, it's okay, but lacking any real vim or vigour. 4) The recent Arrow restoration of Plumage is lovely, isn't it? Likewise for Deep Red as well as The Thing. 5) I saw Mad Dog Killer recently - pretty decent Eurocrime flick (which was glimpsed on the TV in "Jackie Brown", I realised afterwards). Some really cool music in it, too, with those enigmatic slow-mo walking scenes. I'd be under the table watching any Italian flick as part of a drinking game. Blimey! Speaking of J&B - have you seen Burial Ground? Perhaps the most conspicuous appearance of J&B ever committed to film. 6) Yeah, ANOES #2 is pretty decent, although kinda scrappy, while #3 is great (certainly the best of the sequels), but after that it was all downhill into ever sillier flights of fancy (aside from a brief uptick in quality that came with New Nightmare).

[JDP]

I'd be under the table watching any Italian flick as part of a drinking game. Blimey! Speaking of J&B - have you seen Burial Ground? Perhaps the most conspicuous appearance of J&B ever committed to film. It seems like J&B is a monster magnet: 6) Yeah, ANOES #2 is pretty decent, although kinda scrappy, while #3 is great (certainly the best of the sequels), but after that it was all downhill into ever sillier flights of fancy (aside from a brief uptick in quality that came with New Nightmare). The first one will always be the best.

[MinionZombie]

The first one will always be the best. 1) Oh yeah, I forgot about it being in The Thing! 2) Yup, the original is the best. The remake, meanwhile, is the worst (look no further than the thousands of dollars spent on CGI to create a crappy fake-looking version of the 'Freddy in the wall' effect that cost a handful of bucks in the original, achieved to superb effect with a stretch of spandex on-set ).

[JDP]

Lost Boys Joel Schumacher is really gay and you can tell by this film. Great film. Not sure what the "is really gay and you can tell by this film" is supposed to mean, but the movie is indeed great. One of the coolest vampire movies ever made. Heck, it's even got a Twisted Sister reference, for crying out loud!

[EvilNed]

Not sure what the "is really gay and you can tell by this film" is supposed to mean, but the movie is indeed great. One of the coolest vampire movies ever made. Heck, it's even got a Twisted Sister reference, for crying out loud! I just happen to know that Schumacher is a very flamboyant fellow. It rubs off on his films...

[MinionZombie]

I just happen to know that Schumacher is a very flamboyant fellow. It rubs off on his films... When you made your comment about the film I was thinking of that very scene - the topless, buff-as-hell saxophone player. I suppose there's a bit of a gay subtext to be found in the film anyway, if you look hard enough and have the 'film school' mindset going into a viewing of it: the seduction of Jason Patrick's character, for example. Vampires are generally seen as seductive and sexual, and all the main vampires (aside from the female love interest) are buff, handsome males with fantastic hair. Fair play, really. It can be fun sometimes to see a director's yearnings come through in their films, or at the very least a little bit fascinating. I was watching a bit of From Dusk Till Dawn the other night and it was the 'Satanico Pandemonium' scene. Now, you tend to think of Robert Rodriguez with the film (being the director), but then I remembered that the screenplay was written by Tarantino - who we all know has a thing for feet (fair enough, each to their own) - and that scene ends up with his character drinking beer off the tip of Salma Hayek's foot, which she jabs into his gob and swirls around.

[bassman]

Schumacher later put nipples on the bat suit and specifically set up shots to show Batman’s ass, so yeah....

[shootemindehead]

'Annihilation' Alex Garland's sci-fi thought provoker that was somehow denied a cinema release by Paramount - where it would have looked great - and hocked off to Netflix. A strange veil, dubbed "The Shimmer", has descended in some part of the US and is changing the cellular structures of eveything within in a mindless, random fashion. Squads of soldiers who have been sent into the Shimmer fail to return, but for one man - Kane (Oscar Isaac). He's the husband of biologist Lena (Natalie Portman) who later chooses to enter the Shimmer, along with four other scientists. Their mission is to reach the "centre" of the Shimmer. 'Annihilation' is one of the best sci-fi films I've seen in a long, long time. It's smart, doesn't treat its audience like idiots and a lot of its questions remain open, prompting the viewer to think about the story long after it finishes. I found it very hard to find any flaws in it, other than I could have done with more. I honestly cannot think of anything that I didn't like, so I have to give it top marks. 10/10

[MinionZombie]

Psycho II and Psycho III: The Horror Channel have been showing the Psycho sequels on Sunday nights (tomorrow it's Psycho IV). Anyway, I'd seen #2 before many moons ago, but was glad to see that it's still a solid flick. I dig the continuity that it offers in terms of the characters and settings, and the plot has some neat twists along the way and keeps a good amount of mystery going, plus it's just inherently interesting to see 'what happens when Norman Bates is released from a mental institution after 22 years'. #3, on the other hand, I'd never seen before - but again I was impressed by the focus on keeping the continuity going from Psycho II. The supporting characters aren't as good this time, however, the film looks really good (some excellent use of lighting, for instance) and there's some surprisingly entertaining moments of black humour strewn throughout (e.g. the ice box scene). Some interesting developments story wise, too (e.g. Norman getting closer to a woman - even if he does seem to be curiously cursed with bad luck!) Certain bits in the story are a bit iffy, but over-the-piece it was pretty darn decent. Naturally, neither film is a patch on the original - but nobody could've managed that. I'll be checking out Psycho IV soon.

[shootemindehead]

I wouldn't bother with the fourth one Mini. Psycho works really well as a trilogy. It's, surprisngly, a good one. The first film, obviously is the best one and an absolute bolted on classic. But, II is bloody great as well. I especially liked the ending. III I remember being one of those videos I rented in the 80's when we used to rent films and video players from the local video shop and I remember liking it as a kid. Don't think I've seen it since. A special night in around 1986 or so was 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' and 'Psycho III'. I remember it well. Both 18's certificates and I got away with renting them! Score.

[MinionZombie]

I wouldn't bother with the fourth one Mini. Psycho IV: The Beginning Actually not as bad as I was expecting. Does that mean there's any real point in it? No, it's a pretty pointless tale. You summed it up well, shoot, when you said the first three make a solid trilogy. IV is definitely superfluous. However, even still I found things to enjoy. Much of the stuff with Noman in the random kitchen on the phone was kinda crap, but I did enjoy a lot of the flashback scenes with Norman as a young boy/man (played by the guy who was Elliot in E.T.) - and Olivia Hussey (Black Christmas) as his mother was good fun (plus she was fit as ... albeit quite scary/creepy at times). Now, while these scenes were interesting to watch, they too were also essentially pointless. We don't really need to see a lot of this prequel stuff. Prequels are so often kinda pointless, albeit sometimes fun, but there's no real drama in them as you know what's gonna happen. Mick Garris did a pretty good job directing it, especially considering the material he was given - but after the first three there's not really many places left to go, and the fairly happy ending seems a bit weird, too. The least of the films by far and quite easily, but there were still things that I enjoyed along the way. A very patchy flick in terms of story, but parts of it were quite enjoyable, even it it was all-in-all not in the slightest bit necessary. One too many bites at the apple, you know?

[bassman]

Come to think of it....I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen any of the psycho sequels?? Strange considering I’ve seen the original, remake, and Bates Motel...

[EvilNed]

I remember Psycho II being really good.

[blind2d]

Well, it might not be the latest film I've seen, but recently I saw the sequel to Pacific Rim in the cinema and... Eh? It had cool moments, I really like John Boyega, the monster and mech designs were cool, but... I just felt the writing was weaker, the soundtrack could have definitely been seriously improved, the plot itself had some ups and downs, and maybe too much emphasis on the teenage characters? Overall not as good as the first, but still worth a watch if you just want some jaeger on kaiju action. And they really sequel-baited the hell out of the ending. In conclusion, 6/10 for me, with the first being a solid 8/10. Yeah that sounds about right. Also apologies if someone else has already reviewed this one, but I just thought I'd give my take.

[MinionZombie]

The House - Will Ferrel, Amy Pohler, and a bunch of "oh, it's them" familiar faces from the comedy world. Two parents can't afford to send their kid to college so they start an illegal underground casino in a friend's house. There's funny parts in the movie, including some bits that actually made me laugh out loud, but there's also some parts where the 'jokes' crash land like anvils (or there are moments where a joke was waiting to be inserted, but nobody ever bothered). So it's a really mixed bag, with the inevitable 'improv sessions' rearing their heads every now and then (but at least they're not as obvious as they were in, for instance, earlier Apatow flicks). The film's only 85 minutes long, and even then it's struggling to get over 80 minutes before the credits roll (hence the cobbled together mish mash of out-takes, b-roll, and deleted shots that pad out the slow moving credits). A quick watch never to be re-watched, kind thing. Wilson - Woody Harrelson, Laura Dern, Judy Greer. A social misfit and misanthrope tries to gain a family and social connection with other people. It's a quirky comedy drama with a great central performance by Harrelson, whose character is initially quite off-putting until you start to see things his way and warm up to him. One of those 'under the radar' little gems, well worth checking out. ... blind2d - I've not seen PR2 yet, but will give it a squizz when it rolls around on the telly. When I first saw they were doing a sequel it was like "Really? Did we need a sequel?" What were the fight scenes like in terms of their physical impact? I ask because in the trailers it appeared as if physics and weight didn't mean an awful lot (jaegers and kaiju getting swung through entire buildings as it they were knives through butter). Quite enjoyed the original Pacific Rim, but I think I was sated with just that one film, personally.