Last Seen Movie

  • Thread starter Thread starter JuanMena
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 221,134
  • Replies Replies 1,437
  • Likes Likes 5
81qSoMHQGVS._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg


MV5BODI4NDY2NDM5M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNzEwOTMxMDE@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg


MV5BYTViYTE3ZGQtNDBlMC00ZTAyLTkyODMtZGRiZDg0MjA2YThkXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_.jpg


.357
Post automatically merged:

cleaner-852724116-large.jpg


Meh!
Post automatically merged:

MV5BMGJhNjA5OTEtMjQ5OS00ZDZiLWE3M2MtM2E5NTQzYzE0ZTEyXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg

👍
Post automatically merged:

MV5BOWVjNjgyNzctODQ4Yi00NTU2LWJkZWMtM2M5NDNiMWViZmVlXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_.jpg


Watched it because Travolta is really good in Grease, Saturday Night Fever and Pulp Fiction, but it's really crappy.

Awful premise, the story tries to make sense, looks like a low budget movie, and "Neutral Spanish" dub didn't helped. I was very tempted to change to English but that would meant that I actually had to pay extra attention to a script that's already bad from the beggining.

The movie is just... why mid 2010s "movies" always... ALWAYS has to have Russians involved?
I could tell from the literal first frames of the movies that it had to do with Russians, and i'm not referring to the good kind of Russians you might be thinking of, but... Netflix Russians.

Awful, can't believe Travolta is doing these.
It was already bad in "Phenomenon" and "Face/Off"... but this? THIS?
 
Last edited by JuanMena,
F1 - And with that, I have now seen all the Best Picture nominees this year. I pretty much saved the "worst" for last. That's relatively speaking. F1 isn't a bad film at all. It gets the job done as a very simple and digestible popcorn flick. The F in the title should stand for "formulaic," because that's what the movie is. The story hits on so many damn familiar beats. It's no coincidence that the director behind this, Joseph Kosinski, also did Top Gun: Maverick. Similar main character. Brad Pitt is the Tom Cruise of this film. Whereas Top Gun 2 had a surprisingly emotional component, F1 is just a safe film. But it's also fun, and it sure got me invested in F1 racing. I didn't even know about the team aspect of it, I thought it was as simple as being in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place. Apparently, the movie utilizes a lot of VFX for the racing sequences. Some damn great VFX because I really couldn't spot it. The racing scenes are really cool. The characters are not very detailed, but the cast is very likable. Brad Pitt was the ideal actor for that old dog that still has some fight in him. One gripe with him, though, is his laughing. That was weirdly out of place. It was such a delight to see Kerry Condon and hear her speak in her natural voice. Oh my goodness, I was bummed that her role in Train Dreams was so short. Here, she has more to do, even though I don't like the obvious romance angle her character had to do. Damson Idris was a breakout star for me. I now want him as the next Black Panther. He was basically Glen Powell from Top Gun 2, but I think this guy has a bigger upside than Powell. He's charismatic, has the movie star good looks, and he's got rock-solid delivery. Javier Bardem was great as always. I especially liked his scenes with Brad Pitt. The two have some nice chemistry. Frankly, their chemistry was better than that between Pitt and Condon. I was able to manage the 2-hour and 35-minute runtime well, but it could've benefited from a shorter runtime. Maybe 2 hours and 10 minutes? I would cut maybe 1 or 2 races, there was a point where it got repetitive. The formulaic nature of the movie would also be deflating. On a technical level, the movie is very impressive. It's basically a takeout meal from a Chinese joint. It tastes great, but it doesn't last. Hours after watching it, I tried to recall a funny line, but I don't remember what it was! It's a movie that comes and goes, like an F1 car blazing down a racetrack. That said, it was a little better than I thought. 7.5/10

KPop Demon Hunters
- I'm very late to the party with this film. I wanted to see the likely Best Animated Feature Oscar winner. Despite this being my first viewing, it turned out that I was a little familiar with the music in the movie. I recognized a few of the songs, indicating how much exposure the soundtrack has gotten. Of course, the biggest song from the movie, Golden, has been literally everywhere. I'm not a K-pop fan, and I'm not a big fan of musicals. Watching Cats reminded me of that. KPop Demon Hunters was a complete 180. Songs that factor in greatly to the story, lyrics that are solid and not dumb and obnoxious. Singing that's passionate and not an awkward mix of professionals and amateurs. Shit, the choreography in this animated movie is better than the monstrosity that was Cats. It's faster-paced than Cats. There's an actual fucking story! Characters you care about, a villain who isn't a total joke. There are morals, themes, it's a proper film that's nice for all ages. The animation is fantastic, the characters are memorable, the music is pretty infectious and entertaining, and it even boasts some cool action sequences. The voice cast did a fine job, a bunch of Korean actors fitting into their roles smoothly. I knew that Lee Byung-hun was the big bad Gwi Ma, but I didn't know he spoke that much English! Very cool, though, sadly, this is his Oscar-nominated film and not No Other Choice! Anyway, this movie is pretty fun. Shit, I liked it more than 3 of the 10 Best Picture nominees this year: F1, Frankenstein, and Train Dreams. Oh, and this cute and sometimes goofy animated movie had a better romance than F1! It's shorter than F1! It has better music! Yeah, better than the Hans Zimmer score for F1. That score was fine, but it's basically what you expect from Zimmer. The soundtrack also doesn't slap like K-pop Demon Hunters. F1 was a popcorn film. KPop Demon Hunters is visual and audio candy. I much prefer candy to popcorn. And it's entering the Criterion Collection! That's a stamp of quality. 8/10

Blue Moon
- I'm done with the Best Picture 10, but I wanted to cram in a few more films nominated for Oscars this year. Blue Moon's 2 nominations were Best Original Screenplay and Best Lead Actor for Ethan Hawke. Those are the only nominations it could get. This movie is all about the screenplay and Ethan Hawke's performance. It's a chamber piece movie, only taking place in a bar. Ethan Hawke played Lorenz Hart, a lyricist and one-half of the Broadway songwriting team Rodgers and Hart. The opening night of Oklahoma, the first play from Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein, premieres, and you see Hart basically cope with that. That's at least how I viewed his nearly 100-minute-long run of chatting. Holy crap, this movie is very wordy, very "writery." It is all about talking. Who better than Ethan Hawke? I know this was a movie he and director Richard Linklater have been wanting to make for over a decade. They held off on it so that Hawke would be the right age. So those two basically prepared for this for many years. It shows on the screen, this movie is so sharp and damn near relentless. You really have to lock in because Hawke talks a lot. It's not fluff, you get a deeper insight into Lorenz Hart as he talks and can understand his personality based on how he interacts with people. There's so much info about the man in this movie, it feels like a biopic. It was a little easier for me to get into this movie, mainly because I love Ethan Hawke. I love watching him wax poetic. He's the kind of guy who would be entertaining just by reading the dictionary. Richard Linklater and Ethan Hawke prove how strong their chemistry is in this film, they're very much in sync. The directing is seemingly simple, but it's so sharp as well. It keeps this chamber piece concept engaging. A weaker director would've made this repetitive and boring.

While Ethan Hawke carries the movie, some of the other actors did a damn fine job. Bobby Canavale was a dance partner for Ethan Hawke. Andrew Scott was pretty delightful. He played Richard Rodgers. So his few interactions with Hart are very enlightening. Margaret Qualley was also great. It was weird that the 47-year-old Hart was attracted to a 20-year-old girl, but I gradually believed that the attraction was more layered. Regardless, Qualley was able to keep up with Hawke in her few scenes. I don't really have many complaints about the movie, mainly because I think the movie is as good as it can be, given the deliberate creative decisions. Ethan Hawke could've won the Oscar in a different year. It's at least cool that he finally got nominated for a Best Lead Actor Oscar. He's someone who should've gotten many nominations. He's one of the greatest actors of his generation, and Blue Moon proves that. I should also shout out the makeup and hairstyling for Ethan Hawke, making him look like Lorenz Hart. They also did some camera trickery and stuff to make Hawke really short. Hart was 5'0. Sometimes I can tell how they tried to make Hawke shorter, which can be a little distracting. Anyway, I'll also shout out the music in the movie, it's lovely piano bar stuff. I think this is a movie that actors would love. A masterclass in acting using this movie can be done. 8/10

Cleopatra Jones
- Before Black Belt Jones, there was Cleopatra Jones. This was a very fun Blaxploitation film that hits all the right notes for the genre. There's a colorful cast of characters, the acting is sometimes over the top and hilarious, the action sequences are sloppy but fun, and the protagonist is a badass. This isn't a movie to take seriously, it's very lighthearted. Drugs are involved, but when the main villain is a middle-aged white woman named "Mommy," then you know this isn't a movie to have intense conversations over. It was totally up my alley, and especially after watching many Oscar contenders, I needed to bathe in goofy genre nonsense. There are legitimately good things about the movie. The costume design is rather dazzling, which helps in selling the power of certain characters, especially the title character. Some of the stunt work is great! There's a car chase that goes on for a long time, but it steals the movie. Maybe it was too good for a movie like this. Some of the stunts were dangerous, and it's easy to imagine the risk because of how much of a low-budget production this was. The fight scenes were nowhere near the level of a Bruce Lee film at the time, but the effort is most appreciated. Tamara Dobson, who played Cleopatra Jones, embodied all the best characteristics of the film. Full of life, great presence, beautiful, physically daring with the fight scenes and stunt work, enjoyable acting performance, and just easily entertaining for me. Surprisingly, there were some familiar actors in the cast. Bernie Casey, Antonio Fargas, Albert Popwell, and Bill McKinney. The latter two were in quite a few Clint Eastwood movies. Bill McKinney played a racist cop here, looking like a total goof. He also walked a little weirdly. Antonio Fargas was in a few Blaxploitation films, and one of his most memorable features is his face. His facial expressions are so ridiculous, accentuating the bottom lip at many points.

Shelley Winters played Mommy, and she was hilarious. One funny feature of Blaxploitation films is continuity errors. Mommy's hair is an example of that, as there are different shades of red depending on the scene. She also repeatedly makes a comment that points to her being a lesbian. Speaking of repetition, one of the henchmen of Antonio Fargas' character kept saying "That's right" in one scene. That had to be a comedy gag. I laughed from that, and now that will come to mind whenever I say "That's right." They kept cutting to the guy saying it, and he's in the same position, with the same delivery. Hell, it could be recycled footage, but it's still funny. Anyway, I like Black Belt Jones more, mainly because Jim Kelly was legit. With that said, there should've been a crossover with Cleopatra Jones and Black Belt Jones. Ah well. 8/10

Super Fly - A Blaxploitation double feature, and the films are very different! Cleopatra Jones was shot in Los Angeles, and Super Fly was shot in New York City. Super Fly came out first in 1972, and I think that's very telling because the movie's less refined than Cleopatra Jones. The filming is rougher, the look of the film is colder, rawer, and grittier. Dreary New York City and sunny Los Angeles. The protagonists are very different. Cleopatra Jones is more or less an altruistic hero, while Priest in Super Fly is a coke dealer who wants to turn a new leaf. Despite wanting to go straight, he's still a bit of a messy person. The editing is rougher in Super Fly, and the stunt work is not as dazzling. The acting is more consistent than in Cleopatra Jones, which isn't necessarily a great thing. In this case, it meant that Super Fly had fewer funnier people. But the occasional, unintentional comedy is hilarious. One of the funniest aspects is the lead guy himself. Ron O'Neal, who plays Priest, was a classically trained stage actor in New York. I think you can tell because he sticks out so much from the others. It's not just his light skin that makes him stick out. His hair sticks out, and surely that was an influence on Snoop Dogg. The fact that there are Super Fly sequels, the one the year after, directed by O'Neal, indicated that he loved playing Priest. I think that can be seen in this movie. It's that passion mixed with his relatively posh background that makes him a very intriguing character. And that's easily the best character in the movie. He carries the movie, though some of the supporting cast are entertaining and hilarious.

The director, Gordon Parks Jr, directed Three the Hard Way after this. That's much more like the fun Blaxploitation films, closer to Cleopatra Jones. And I like that more than Super Fly. This film's more serious nature sometimes doesn't make it very entertaining. The soundtrack is easily the best part of the movie. Curtis Mayfield made multiple bangers for this movie, and it paid off. The soundtrack sold more than the film! I recognized some of the songs, mainly from rappers sampling them, and other movies using them. The 1995 film Friday used some Mayfield songs from Super Fly. The music for the movie is so good that certain scenes that don't even have music stick out badly. Quite a few of those scenes appeared in the second half, making that not as strong as the first half of the movie. The climax was not very action-packed, but I laughed from it. That's enough for me to say the movie stuck the landing. I could also see how the movie influenced Black Dynamite. Some of the characters, the costume design, the music, and the presence of cocaine seem like examples. The cool thing about the Blaxploitation double feature is the music. Both movies have amazing funk and soul music. The only thing Super Fly has over Cleopatra Jones is the music. Oh yeah, there's a montage in the movie that is basically a slideshow of photos. That was so weird, I thought it indicated that they ran out of money. But then it seemed like it was deliberate, a collection of evidence, I guess. Cleopatra Jones had better villains, that's for sure. The "big" villains in Super Fly were not convincing, just corrupt white cops.

Overall, I enjoyed Super Fly. It wasn't as consistently entertaining as Cleopatra Jones, but it's another example of how fascinating the Blaxploitation era of the 70s was. Seemingly at the forefront of that movement was Warner Bros, which distributed both Super Fly and Cleopatra Jones. So WB used to be cool. 7.5/10
Sirat
- If only I had watched this last year. The reactions I had while watching this film would've competed with my reactions to The Ugly Stepsister! But yeah, I had some of the biggest reactions so far this year because of this movie! If you haven't seen the movie, please don't watch the trailer. Don't look up the movie because you could risk being spoiled or given a particular impression of it. Just watch it. Don't concern yourself with the narrative. I read one lukewarm review that complained of the narrative. This is a movie where the narrative shouldn't be scrutinized like many films. This film is more about vibes, the experience, than a narrative. Being this open to Sirat paid off because the film was free to assault me with intense sounds, stunning visuals, and some of the most shocking scenes I've seen in a long time. The shock value did wear off a bit toward the end, but I kind of appreciated that because the film was just too much for me. The ending might not seem like a resolution of things, but it was so sobering and felt right. A necessary coming down after the tragic highs the movie took me. The casting in the movie is also cool and could've been an inspired nomination. Most of the cast are real-life ravers. The only recognizable name was Sergi Lopez, who was Vidal in Pan's Labyrinth. Unsurprisingly, he gives the best performance. While I say that, I don't suggest thinking so much about the acting. This is a unique film and should be judged for the overall experience, the emotions it evokes in you. It got intense emotions out of me, and I appreciate that. This is a viable top 10 film of the year for me, but it's just outside my personal top 10. Rewatchability is a little questionable since I'll know what will happen. It's a movie that might be best on a first viewing. Regardless, it's a great film. 8.5/10

The Voice of Hind Rajab
- I feel kind of bad for giving the movie a rating, judging it as a film. The purpose of the film and what it achieves make it absolutely necessary to watch. The film does its best to honor the little girl, with realistic and compelling performances from the cast. Certain editing and camera shots made me feel a little disoriented, which I think was meant to make me relate to the characters. I think the film would be better overall if it were a short. But the movie is still very effective. I cried a bit at the end, but that's only because they showed real photos and video. That's more heartbreaking than the dramatization, as well done as it was. While the film is very specific, I think some aspects of the story could relate to other stories where emergency response is horribly delayed. There was one moment before the ending that made me jump a bit in my seat. That moment truly signified the end of Hind Rajab's story. It was overwhelming. Not only is the movie heartbreaking, but infuriating. I wanted to scream at the people to get the rescuers to Hind Rajab. 8/10

Song Sung Blue
- This was the last Oscar nominated film I wanted to watch before the Oscars. Kate Hudon was the sole nominee, but she's easily the weakest in the field. Her performance is fine, but it's also very Oscar-bait-y. It doesn't help that the movie in general is very Oscar-bait-y and checks every box for a shmaltzy biopic. I liked the first half of the film. It was very cheesy, but I gradually got into it. The 2nd half was a sharp dramatic turn that's so damn predictable. It was such a pile-on too. Tragedy struck Kate Hudson's character, and on the same day, tragedy struck Hugh Jackman. Shortly after that, tragedy struck Kate Hudson's daughter! It was ridiculous, and it also felt like the movie could've ended just before the 2 hour mark, but they kept going. I might like it on a rewatch. I'm just very bothered by Kate Hudson taking a spot that belonged to many other actresses, such as Chase Infiniti from One Battle After Another. That said, she is kind of the best part of the movie. Hugh Jackman was fine, his enthusiasm made up for questionable acting choices. The singing is also good. Jim Belushi was such a cartoon character, but I let it slide. I let a few other things slide, but overall, it was a mediocre film. 5.5/10
 


I really hate a lot of stuff in these films, though I do find it interesting how "spectre" is a parody of how committees work in real life to arrange the attempted assassinations of people such as me.

There have been board meetings at places that a trusted friend notified me of whose entire purpose was to devise a plan to kill me. Creepy stuff at the time, but now I can watch this over a decade later and say, "yep, just regular power-trip bureaucrat standard take-over-the-world-and-kill-us-Christians meetings, so what's new?"

I've seen these kinds of evil organizatons discuss evil plans before, though obviously not at this level in person with the ability to record them. If only I had recorded the online meeting with their faces, but no worries, right?
 
Last edited by MPRTwice,
  • Haha
Reactions: hippy dave
MV5BMTY3MTY3MzkzNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNTAwNDk2._V1_.jpg


I saw this a long time ago, I forgot how... uh... interesting this is/was.
Democracy saves the world one bomb at a time.
Fun if you don't take it seriously ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯



unnamed.png


Democracy tries to save the world one bomb at a time... wait... :unsure:
 
  • Like
Reactions: AncientBoi
Scream 7
I'm a fan of the series, and I enjoyed it. You know you can't take this stuff too seriously, gotta suspend the hell out of that disbelief, but it's a good Scream movie. Nice to have Sydney back of course, even if I was disappointed that the main sisters from the previous one didn't continue. Some more familiar faces and some other good actors I knew from other stuff. Also Jeff Winger, but even he didn't ruin it.

As I said in other thread, new favourite death = :grog:
 
  • Like
Reactions: AncientBoi
Run (2025) - Not to be confused with the Uwe Boll movie that's also from 2025 and is on Tubi along with this Chris Stokes film. I only watched this movie because of an upcoming roast on my favorite podcast. It's from the same writer/director who shat out the 2 Adopted movies on Tubi. This is an alien invasion movie that kept referencing Independence Day, while blatantly ripping off Signs, especially with the design of the aliens. If you didn't watch the beginning of the movie and came in at almost any random point, you would wonder if this really was an alien movie. That's because most of the 95 minute runtime is wasted on annoying and boring characters talking. The best parts of the movie are when the aliens attack, and those moments are hilariously bad! Amazon's War of the Worlds came out last year and overshadows it. It's quicker paced and more hilarious, while this movie is more of a waste of time. But it's what I ultimately expected from a Chris Stokes Tubi movie, whereas War of the Worlds was a stunning surprise in shit cinema. The CGI is abysmal. It looks like the kind of shit you'd see from The Amazing Bulk, low-budget blockbuster ripoffs, and even African action movies that rely heavily on CGI. The aliens are not weak to water, but the LED flashlight from phones. Wow, seems like an easy mode of offense. But wait, the aliens have been cutting off sources of electricity. Before that was announced to the public, the main characters could've been able to fend off aliens for a bit. But nope, most of their phones were low on power and the chargers just so happen to be in a car, and going to that car risks an alien attack! It's then revealed that the aliens die by getting shot in the head. The only gun the main characters have access to is in the damn car! Then it's announced that the world's power supply is getting destroyed, nullifying the phone shit. So what was the point of even introducing that weakness? Toward the climax of the film, one of the main characters does use their phone light for the first time. Why not before? Anyway, she uses it, but it more or less irritated the alien, nothing major. So that was all a waste. That's the movie in a nutshell, a rarely funny, but complete and idiotic waste of time. And I wouldn't be surprised if there's a sequel based on a horrible post-credits scene. This is the kind of shit that takes up space in Tubi, and it's just not funny enough to recommend a full viewing. It's best to watch Tubi compilations on YouTube because the fat is definitely cut out. 1/10
 
Last edited by RustInPeace,
  • Like
Reactions: hippy dave
91oJ7cYnH+L._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg


Beautiful movie.

Don't know if some scenes hides a deeper meaning because (just between you and me) Iñarritu as a person is the equivalent of a MAGA but worse.
So I legit cannot believe THIS came out of the mind of Iñarritu.

I was paying extra attention to color palettes, but soon later realized that it's got nothing to do with other than setting up the mood of scenes (as in the scenes of play, not the scenes of movie) and immediately found out the whole Birdman situation.

Not sure how to interprete some scenes that contradicts between them psychologically, and that makes me confused about the ending.
Sam delivers two endings, both as ambiguos with each other that it's honestly, open to any interpretation.

I often think about spectator interpretation in my work... because deliverately leaving a product "unfinished", makes room for personal interpretations in which literally, anything can happen, as that's the spectator's job to fill in the gaps. It's a less subtle and fancier way of saying: "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder".
 
View attachment 563635

Beautiful movie.

Don't know if some scenes hides a deeper meaning because (just between you and me) Iñarritu as a person is the equivalent of a MAGA but worse.
So I legit cannot believe THIS came out of the mind of Iñarritu.

I was paying extra attention to color palettes, but soon later realized that it's got nothing to do with other than setting up the mood of scenes (as in the scenes of play, not the scenes of movie) and immediately found out the whole Birdman situation.

Not sure how to interprete some scenes that contradicts between them psychologically, and that makes me confused about the ending.
Sam delivers two endings, both as ambiguos with each other that it's honestly, open to any interpretation.

I often think about spectator interpretation in my work... because deliverately leaving a product "unfinished", makes room for personal interpretations in which literally, anything can happen, as that's the spectator's job to fill in the gaps. It's a less subtle and fancier way of saying: "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder".
Saw Birdman back when it was originally released. Great movie!
 
F1 - And with that, I have now seen all the Best Picture nominees this year. I pretty much saved the "worst" for last. That's relatively speaking. F1 isn't a bad film at all. It gets the job done as a very simple and digestible popcorn flick. The F in the title should stand for "formulaic," because that's what the movie is. The story hits on so many damn familiar beats. It's no coincidence that the director behind this, Joseph Kosinski, also did Top Gun: Maverick. Similar main character. Brad Pitt is the Tom Cruise of this film. Whereas Top Gun 2 had a surprisingly emotional component, F1 is just a safe film. But it's also fun, and it sure got me invested in F1 racing. I didn't even know about the team aspect of it, I thought it was as simple as being in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place. Apparently, the movie utilizes a lot of VFX for the racing sequences. Some damn great VFX because I really couldn't spot it. The racing scenes are really cool. The characters are not very detailed, but the cast is very likable. Brad Pitt was the ideal actor for that old dog that still has some fight in him. One gripe with him, though, is his laughing. That was weirdly out of place. It was such a delight to see Kerry Condon and hear her speak in her natural voice. Oh my goodness, I was bummed that her role in Train Dreams was so short. Here, she has more to do, even though I don't like the obvious romance angle her character had to do. Damson Idris was a breakout star for me. I now want him as the next Black Panther. He was basically Glen Powell from Top Gun 2, but I think this guy has a bigger upside than Powell. He's charismatic, has the movie star good looks, and he's got rock-solid delivery. Javier Bardem was great as always. I especially liked his scenes with Brad Pitt. The two have some nice chemistry. Frankly, their chemistry was better than that between Pitt and Condon. I was able to manage the 2-hour and 35-minute runtime well, but it could've benefited from a shorter runtime. Maybe 2 hours and 10 minutes? I would cut maybe 1 or 2 races, there was a point where it got repetitive. The formulaic nature of the movie would also be deflating. On a technical level, the movie is very impressive. It's basically a takeout meal from a Chinese joint. It tastes great, but it doesn't last. Hours after watching it, I tried to recall a funny line, but I don't remember what it was! It's a movie that comes and goes, like an F1 car blazing down a racetrack. That said, it was a little better than I thought. 7.5/10
I appreciate this review because I felt similarly. I think a much shorter runtime would have made the more cookiecutter characterizations and storylines less of an issue. I had lost some serious steam by the end, and I'm not sure if it was my fault or the movie's. I still think it's an entertaining and solid watch.

I really do miss the Summer blockbusters of the 90's and early 2000's, and this movie felt like it would have belonged more to that era. A shorter runtime that cut all the fat would have made it an even bigger standout.
 
Joshua and the Promised Land - Written, directed, and animated by the one and only "Jim Lion," this movie took 4 years to make. The result is one of the worst animated projects of all time, which is what makes it hilarious. Not all the time. It's 54 minutes, but the movie meanders a lot, so the hilarity is far from consistent. The story is a lazy and horribly flawed adaptation of biblical tales, with dialogue that is so dumb. Everyone talks like they have a low IQ. It also sometimes felt like English is the 2nd language of these characters. All the characters are anthropomorphic creatures for some reason. Everyone is ugly and looks drugged out. The voice acting is dry as fuck, fitting perfectly with animation that is devoid of life and is so far behind. It looks like the first 3D graphics in a video game. It's worse than much-maligned CGI from the 90s such as Lawnmower Man. It's free to watch on YouTube, probably best to watch with other people. 1/10
 
The Hills Have Eyes (1977) - It took a while until Wes Craven made a truly great movie. The Hills Have Eyes isn't that. I think I liked it less on this viewing. It was slow, too quiet at times, and it takes a while for it to really cook. It feels like it's anchored by the low budget. I would've liked it less if it wasn't for unintentional funny things. Between that and some good gore and crazy visuals, the movie avoids mediocrity. I am curious about the remake, I heard it's better. I would've changed the order of people dying. Dee Wallace would've been the final girl in my version. Great casting with Michael Berryman, I assume this was his big debut. 7/10

The People Under the Stairs
- This was another rewatch, another Wes Craven movie, and the evolution is so clear to see. This was a truly great movie, and I didn't believe that when I first watched it 10 years ago. Somehow, it got better on the 2nd viewing. I loved this movie. There's some decent commentary, even if it might be on the nose. For 1991 though, it's very righteous and perhaps a little ahead of its time. This definitely had a stronger cast than The Hills Have Eyes. Brandon Quinton Adams was great as the lead, despite being a kid. Ving Rhames had a great little role. The actors who owned the movie were Everett McGill and Wendy Robie, who were husband and wife in Twin Peaks. I think they were a lot crazier here, and so devilishly entertaining. Some surprising gore and impressive practical effects. The house pretty much became a character in the movie, with great production designs and prop construction. The cinematography was so good, quite a bit of crooked camera angles. It was very 90s, but it was perfect for this movie. This is definitely underrated, it should be talked in the same conversation of top tier Wes Craven films as Scream and A Nightmare on Elm Street. That's how much I love the film now. It's just so damn fun and hilarious at points. Intentionally so, this was a very strong horror/comedy. 9/10
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum