Topic: Movie thread.

The Belko Experiment: At the beginning, I had my hopes that would possess a strong satirical edge, but after the killing game begins any pretense at this being anything other than depressing nastiness is abandoned. I don't mind violence at all (I'm actually a huge fan of exploitation films and Italian splatter cinema), but this film isn't doing anything interesting with it: it's not fun or artful. Boundaries aren't really pushed in any way. There's no commentary or interesting insight about the causes or nature of violence. It's just a bunch of stressed out people being forced to kill each-other. The 'explanation' for the violence at the end of the film is pathetic: clearly the writers weren't interested in the script beyond the nastiness of the central premise.

@Ralizah My friend kind of ruined the ending for me by saying that the main guy Michael (?) survives.

It could have been a decent film if it wasn’t for the fact that it simply shows people killing people without an explanation, just like you said so yourself. At least it was a short film, and I have seen far, far worse too.

At least we got to see Dr. Cox play the role of a creepy bad guy!

@Peek-a-boo It was a competently produced film. I've seen so many films that are so much worse. I wouldn't even put it in my bottom five movies of the year. I just don't know what the script was going for. It's not scary (I mean, the situation would be scary to be in, but the act of watching it wasn't nerve-wracking or anything), it's not fun, and it's not insightful. It's not even sadistic enough to appeal to one's baser sensibilities in the way something like Hostel, The Human Centipede, or a Dario Argento film might. If someone just gets their jollies from watching people die, they can go online to a subreddit like r/watchpeopledie or find one of the seemingly countless ISIS-produced snuff videos (I tried watching one once: the quality of the cinematography was surprisingly good, although I had to turn it off before it finished because I don't feel right watching something like that).

Heh, he's from Scrubs, right? Never watched that show, but I'm not surprised the actor was good at playing a villain. Jim Carrey was surprisingly creepy in The Cable Guy. Certain types of comedic portrayals can very easily bleed over into being scary.

Batman vs Robin (2015)

Sequel to Son of Batman.
Damian Wayne (Robin) is now living with Bruce, his father, but they keep arguing constantly. Damien disagrees with Batman's methods (particularly the no-killing rule). He then ends up leaving Wayne Manor to join a secret society. Kids these days...

Not a lot to say about it. It's a solid movie.

Dark Tower is not very good. Not as bad people say it is, but i feel like it is missing at least 20 or 30 minutes. It is like a dumbed down verison of Logan. With how cartoonishly evil Matthew is, they should have gone full blown 80s action movie instead.

5/10

@DiscoDriver44 But i don't get how they could reduce down 7 brilliant books down to one film, where the Man in Black (I'm guessing is Matthew Mcgonahey) is only in two books (well he turns to bones at the end of the first book, and then re-appears in a different book) and Roland Deschain looks nothing like Edris Alba

Has anyone here seen Skull Island? The Cinemasins vs the director of Skull island thing makes me want to rewatch it. I remember liking it at the time, but it was pretty forgettable though.

@Ralizah This guy casually drops he watched an ISIS video, then goes on to talk about the cinematography lol like what o_0. Jk Ralizah I love your movie reviews keep doing you man.

@Bunkerneath The movie is mainly based on The Gunslinger. It borrows some things from some of the other books in the series though. The casting of Idris Elba was explained as the movies also working as a sequel to the books due to how the ending of the books is explained (I don't know how to do spoilers on here, but since you read the books you know the ending).

@DiscoDriver44 Yeah, I really enjoyed Kong: Skull Island. It's a legit American kaiju movie, and I thought the Jackson character and jabs at American militarism were good fun.

@Fooligan It really is surprising, though. You kind of expect middle eastern execution videos to be grimy and low-rent, like home movies, right? They're very slick, though, with good camera work and excellent editing. Kind of reminds me how I felt when I found out how active ISIS was on social media. For a band of death-worshipping extremists who want to send everyone back to the stone age, they're surprisingly tech savvy.

Also, do spoiler tags like this, but without the spaces: [ spoiler ] [ / spoiler]

Thanks Ralizah! Okay let me try this out.

@Fooligan You got it.

Does that even qualify as a spoiler anymore?

Best to be safe, though. You never know when that one person who has been living under a rock since the 70's will pop in the thread and screech: "I never watched Soylent Green before! Thanks for ruining it for me."

In case people don't realize it (which i suspect many don't), The Gunslinger movie is not an adaptation of the books — it's actually a sequel. For those who haven't read them, at the end of the final DT novel, Roland is looped back to the beginning to repeat the cycle. In the new cycle, he has the Horn of Eld, which he did not have originally, and in the film he starts out with it. I believe King & Co. have confirmed that the movie is part of the "new cycle".

Cloud Atlas (Netflix) - Really interesting movie that jumps between six very different stories happening at different points in time (the 1850's, 1930's, 1970's, modern day, and two future dates I won't spoil), and as you watch on you find out they're all connected in some way or another. It's a bit of a commitment at nearly 3 hours, but worth a watch. Most of the main cast (such as Tom Hanks) play a part in each story, and while they may be the main in one, they'll be a villian, or one off minor character in another (the costuming is brilliant as well, as I didn't even notice most of their multiple roles until they were revealed at the end).

The Hitman's Bodyguard: A FANTASTIC action movie. It's almost like a throwback to the star-studded buddy cop action-comedies that were so common in the 80's and early 90's. Like those films, it's a wonderful mix of brutal, visceral, and very stylish violence (so much more satisfying than the bloodless firefights that predominate in most modern PG-13 action movies), heart-warming, if very formulaic, male bonding scenes (Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson have such a lovely chemistry in this movie, and, as usual, a desperate fight for survival also becomes a kind of spiritual odyssey where the men can share lessons about life and love), and witty character banter that allows the characters to develop a sense of rapport through the act of continuously annoying one-another for the audience's amusement. Of course, there's no real substance of gravity to the events in this film, but there's not meant to be: it's like eating a bowl of Lucky Charms where you pick out all of the actual cereal and are left with a bowl full of stiff marshmallows and sweetened milk. It's not nutritious, but you'll eat it anyway, because it's delicious and sometimes it's OK to eat something just because it's tasty.

Watched some movies on TV this weekend.

Enough: Jennifer Lopez stars as a battered wife trying desperately to herself and her daughter away from her abusive husband. A classic of the feminist revenge fantasy genre. Like other forms of exploitative cinema, it's designed around building up anger and violence throughout the film until the climax is reached and the woman, finally having enough, brutally kills the man that has been tormenting her throughout. This piling up of humilitations and transgressions is used to narratively justify an act of extreme violence such as murder on the part of the protagonist. Granted, the revenge here is less extreme than Lifetime channel classic "The Burning Bed" where the movie tries to convince us that the wife is morally justified in burning her abusive husband alive in his bed at the end, but it still follows the same format.

Now, certainly, in the context of this particular film, Lopez murdering the father of her child is justified because, like any competent piece of revenge porn, it goes out of its way to make the husband as hideously evil as possible to justify her actions. Lopez's character attempts to escape her husband by going on the run, changing her identity, etc. etc. The husband, a classic movie monster who apparently has the forces of the entire patriarchy at his beck and call, never stops hunting her down, beating her and threatening violence on her friends.

Anyway, it's OK if you can stomach this sort of film.

~ * ~

National Security: A buddy cop movie where a cop with a hair-trigger temper (Steven Zahn) has to team up with the security guard (Martin Lawrence) who had him sent to prison for police brutality to take down a smuggling operation.

I didn't like it, primarily because Lawrence's character is the central focus of the film, and I HATED him with a passion. Hated how incompetent he was. Hated how sexist he was. Hated the miserable, constant racist humor (I know Lawrence was known for this sort of comedy, but he really took it up to 11 here). The writing was also pretty terrible, with no convincing character development and improbable scenarios popping up throughout.

~ * ~

Bug: A William Friedkin-directed film about a mentally unstable gulf war vet and a vulnerable, lonely woman he's introduced to who are both dragged into deep, psychotic madness. It's an interesting film. Its stage origins are fairy evident, as the film is highly dependent on manic, stylized dialogue and intense performances. Moreover, Friedkin's skill at creating a menancing and evocative atmosphere is on full display here (in this sense, it reminds me a lot of his 1973 classic "The Exorcist"), and a sense of paranoia and doom builds up throughout. The pacing is very strange, though: the majority of the movie is a slow-burn and driven by extensive dialogues between characters, but things very rapidly go to hell in its final thirty minutes.

A flawed but unique film that I feel was unfairly panned upon release.

~ * ~

Defending Your Life: A 90's rom-com starring Albert Brooks and Meryl Streep with a twist... the romance starts after both people have died and been sent to a version of purgatory to await judgment! I wanted to like this film, but it was just bad: the leads had no romantic chemistry; the romance in general was poorly written; the judgment scenes were unsatisfactory (we're told the person will go through to heaven if they conquered their "fear," but during much of the film, they just seemed to be judging Brooks' character for honest mistakes he made, so the messaging was VERY confused); the attempts at humor were obnoxious; finally, I felt like the romance aspects and judgment scenes weren't well-integrated... it felt like they had two entirely different film premises and were trying desperately to mash them together.

@Karma-Moment That deadpan reply was a lot funnier than it had any right to be!

@Ralizah Although we spoke of The Belko Experience a few weeks ago, I just wanted to say OMG! at you watching those films you mentioned in your reply!

I think the worse films in terms of body horror I have seen are the likes of Haute Tension (‘Switchblade Romance’) and À l’intérieur (French film called ‘Inside’), and that was only because I was seeing a French woman a couple of years ago. They both made me feel really queasy, to the point where I just closed my eyes from time to time, and yet apparently they are the slightly more tamer films of the sort...

Brrr.

There're not for me!

I saw Annabelle Creation yesterday evening and it is a vast improvement over the original film, which was instantly forgettable. The director who wrote, produced and directed ‘Lights Out’ last year is behind the helm for this sequel, and all the better for it. I love films that subtly builds up the tension, and doesn’t always show what your overly active mind is potentially thinking about.

Also, without spoiling anything, there is actually a rather original scenario within the confines of the horror film genre in Annabelle Creation. The vast majority of horror films have a predictable-ish template, and yet something happens in this film that really caught me off guard!

I would give it a 6/10 as I still think the likes of The Babadook, It Follows, Under the Shadow (this is an absolutely brilliant film) and The VVitch are more memorable - and stands out - in a rather crowded genre.

Speaking of horror films, IT has received a very positive reception during the critics screening the other night!

@Peek-a-boo You sound like you really know your horror films!

I've wanted to watch À l’intérieur for a while now. I've heard it's particularly brutal, though. Have you seen Martyrs or any of Gaspar Noé's films?

Annabelle Creation seems to be getting a pretty warm reception, considering it's a sequel to a mediocre spinoff to an already mediocre original horror film (sorry, I didn't think The Conjuring was nearly as engaging as a lot of critics did). I didn't know the guy who directed the solid Lights Out was behind it: that's encouraging!

The Babadook is the second best horror film I've seen since the turn of the century (after Kiyoshi Kurosawa's incredible film "Kairo," although people have unfortunately been more exposed to the incredibly inferior Hollywood remake "Pulse"). Absolutely masterful exploration of depression and how it can eat away at one's soul if left untreated.

It Follows... I wanted to like it more than I did. Something about the casting really put me off. I really like the central concept and the absolutely BRILLIANT synthwave soundtrack, though.

I had mixed feelings about The VVitch. It certainly wasn't a bad film, though.

I've actually never seen Under the Shadow, but I'm always looking for good new horror films.

The original IT was okay, but it wasn't a particularly scary movie. Never read the original novel, but Tim Curry's performance was so over the top that I couldn't help but laugh when Pennywise was on the screen. Hopefully the remake is decent.

Have you seen It Comes at Night? It's a wonderfully uncomfortable watch. Almost to the point where I don't know if I can even call it entertainment: it produced nothing but feelings of anxiety and dread in me. It might have done its job too well! Great film, though.

@Ralizah I was just thinking the other day about asking if you've seen The Babadook. I saw it last year after finding it at the pawn shop I frequent and I enjoyed it. Have you seen Lovely Molly? I'd like to read what you have to say about that movie.

Joy Ride: Hey, another movie with Steve Zahn as a main character! So, in this film, Fuller (Zahn) and Lewis (Paul Walker, starring in something that isn't a Fast and Furious movie for once!) are driving cross-country to meet up with Lewis' girlfriend (and drop Fuller off in Colorado) when they get bored and use a CB radio to start punking a local trucker that goes by the handle "Rusty Nail" (no warning going off in their heads when they torment "Rusty Nail," nosiree!). Well, the idiots somehow manage to get a local guy killed when they arrange for "Rusty Nail" to enter his hotel room with their idiotic antics (they were catfishing by posing as a female trucker called "Candy Cane") and then, to make matters infinitely worse, they think it's a good idea to get back on the CB after getting out of dodge and admitting everything to the guy they know is a murderer. Zahn's character, the instigator of trouble throughout the film, also sees fit to insult him because, you know, nothing to worry about when you taunt a psychopathic killer in a big truck.

Considering this is a horror film, this all goes about as well as can be expected. Perhaps the biggest surprise here is that, for all of the terror Rusty Nail puts these boys (and Lewis' girlfriend) through, there's surprisingly little actual violence in this film, as it does a good job of building up and relieving tension throughout without resorting to gore (whether Rusty Nail is forcing the boys to engage in embarrassing stunts themselves in order to lure them away from somewhere or chasing them down the road at terrifying speeds in scenes that probably owe a lot to Spielberg's "Duel"). The interesting thing to me is how it functions as a sort of pre-internet (even though this was released in 2001...) warning about the limits of anonymity, personal responsibility (turns out saying "it's just a joke, bro!" doesn't make the consequences of the terrible things you do "for the lulz" go away), and, of course, the eternal stupidity of catfishing.

Rusty Nail is a decent antagonist. The fact that we never clearly see his face (think about Halloween, for example, and how little we actually see Michael Myers: same effect here) allows him to remain mysterious to both the main characters and the viewer. The way he talks and reasons is also disturbingly alien, for the most part, which also helps to make him a source of terror. There's also a nice sense of poetic irony to the structure of events in the film, which I have no doubt was intentional on Rusty Nail's part. The biggest problem I have with the movie is that the main characters have to engage in a series of increasingly stupid behaviors to even get this ball rolling, which was... annoying, to say the least, but I think what resulted was a decent little thriller.

~ * ~

Joy Ride 2: Dead Ahead: Why? Why did I watch this? I know horror movie sequels are usually awful. And now we get this: an ugly, stupid, moronic, mean-spirited movie about a group of dumb kids being tortured and horribly killed by Rusty Nail that manages to spoil all of the good will the first film instilled in me.

Sigh.

Well, Rusty Nail is a generic slasher baddy now who seems to get off on randomly murdering people (unlike the first film, where the characters really had to mess him to set him off). He loses any sense of mystery now, and the personality has changed into something like Jigsaw, as he keeps self-righteously implying that driving picks into the kneecaps of teenagers and cutting off their fingers is somehow a just come-uppance for them stealing his car. Actually, he's quite chatty on the CB radio in this film, which kind of ruins the effect in the first place.

It does play out sort of like one of the millions of Saw sequels, except it doesn't even have the decency to try and set up even one half-hearted twist like those films would. Also, no interesting deathtraps like in this movies. Just...pointless, horrific violence.

I guess the one thing you could... kind of give the movie is its attempts at changing up the usual gender dynamics at work in these sorts of films. The main character's boyfriend gets kidnapped near the beginning of the movie, and it's his girlfriend who works throughout the film to rescue him. That's... something, I guess? Instead of a terrified woman being torn apart to get at the male main character, it's a terrified man being torn apart to get at the female main character. Yay equality.

I guess there are worst ways to spend your time than watching this film. It's probably less painful than actually having picks driven into your kneecaps.

@Fooligan I haven't seen that. Would you recommend it?