Rate the Last Movie You Saw

[dannyboy121070]

I watched THE DELIVERANCE on Netflix last night, a new demonic possession flick from Lee Daniels. I wonder how many people actually watch these made for Netflix movies...? They do no publicity or advertising of any kind, as far as I can tell, and they seem to only target them to the feeds of people who their algorithm tells them are likely to watch. If I hadn't heard about this from stumbling across a Mo'Nique talk-show appearance, I would never have known about it.

Which would not have been a bad thing, maybe...? The story is your typical "Family moves into a bad house" story, but there's no real Horror until about halfway through. The first half is a winner, with some great performances, particularly by Glenn Close and Mo'Nique. Close, especially, seems to be having a blast as a slutty white-trash granny with cancer. (!!!!)

Once the Horror kicks in, the film becomes your typical possession flick, with all of the usual tropes and cliches. I found myself wishing that they had just stayed with the domestic drama of the first half, which was really compelling. The underlying family problems aren't helped by the main character being a completely unlikable piece of shit.

Films like this are always a problem. I love THE EXORCIST and JAWS, so I'm drawn to similar films, but, really....after seeing those two, where is there to go? Every shark film is ultimately a poor man's JAWS, and every possession film basically goes down the exact same road as THE EXORCIST. So, why bother?

The ending was one of those "How are they going to explain this...?" ones. I just pictured the cops showing up after the neighbors complained about the noise, and finding this huge mess in the house.

"OK, what happened here?

"Well, officers, my son was possessed, and..."

"You're under arrest."

[TacomaDiver]

I was SO disappointed with FURIOSA...way too much CGI, and ATJ, IMO, looks like an insect. There is no way this girl, in a few years, becomes Charlize Theron. FURY ROAD was one of my favorite films from the past few decades...I can watch it over and over. This was something that I forgot as soon as I left the theater. Supposedly George Miller has ANOTHER Mad Max prequel film in mind, called THE WASTELAND. Based on how hard FURIOSA flopped, and Miller's age, I doubt it will ever happen. I'd like to see Miller do an honest-to-goodness final Max film, with Mel Gibson returning to put the series to bed, but...never going to happen.

Hollywood needs to learn that most people don't really want prequels. After hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on the STAR WARS prequel trilogy, I witnessed what I already knew: Anakin Skywalker was a prick. FURIOSA showed me, at great expense to the studio, what a few lines of dialogue in FURY ROAD told me: Furiosa had a shitty life, and wanted to change it. I don't need to see what Citizen Kane's parents did to make him the way he was. I don't need to see Captain Kirk as a teen-ager, I don't need to know what kind of baby food Jane Eyre ate.......Prequels are totally unnecessary. We already know how the characters are NOW, so seeing them in the past gives no chance for drama. We know how it turns out. I just found out that Paramount + has a ROSEMARY'S BABY prequel about the girl that lived with the Castavets prior to Rosemary meeting them coming in September. Ummm....we saw how that turned out in the original film...where will the tension be?

Death to prequels!!!

I couldn't agree more. But nostalgia is a huge thing right now. I tried explaining this to my wife but she didn't understand it. Furiosa looks nuts, but I didn't particularly enjoy it It was unnecessary to make. She doesn't need a backstory. Same with the latest Ghostbusters. I was not a fan of that movie and felt it was also unnecessary.

for me, the only recent prequel that worked was Andor, and it had no business working. I loved Rogue One (a prequel oddly enough) but I didn't need a backstory to a character that was already dead, but damn that was a good series.

[dannyboy121070]

I couldn't agree more. But nostalgia is a huge thing right now. I tried explaining this to my wife but she didn't understand it. Furiosa looks nuts, but I didn't particularly enjoy it It was unnecessary to make. She doesn't need a backstory. Same with the latest Ghostbusters. I was not a fan of that movie and felt it was also unnecessary.

for me, the only recent prequel that worked was Andor, and it had no business working. I loved Rogue One (a prequel oddly enough) but I didn't need a backstory to a character that was already dead, but damn that was a good series.

Well, you've got me there, because I thought both ROGUE ONE and ANDOR were great, and I never thought of them as prequels. (I am also the only person on Earth who loved SOLO.) I guess I'm so used to the Star Wars comics, which jump all over the timeline, that I just thought of them as side stories. They were all very well done, though. I wonder when season two of ANDOR will be along?

[TacomaDiver]

On the theme of Furiosa, I grabbed the Mad Max Anthology on 4k the other day, so my wife and I watched Mad Max and The Road Warrior

I had seen Mad Max last probably about 12 years ago so, and not sure of the last time I saw The Road Warrior. I had to warn my wife that Mad Max was not the same kind of movie as Fury Road or Furiosa, and even knowing this, she was really unsure of it. She was quite disturbed by a few scenes. Very odd movie - definitely a product of its time.

The Road Warrior was better than Mad Max, and it felt more like Fury Road, but toned down quite a bit.

I watched a review on YouTube and the reviewer said that The Road Warrior was more like what Mad Max was supposed to be, and Fury Road was more of what The Road Warrior was supposed to be, and that kind of makes sense. Reading about how Mad Max was filmed was quite the journey and surprising it even got made. Man the 70s were quite something weren't they?!

[dannyboy121070]

I am getting into Halloween early this year, watching a lot of Shudder. They have a new series called Horror's Greatest, which is your usual clip/talking head show, but I'm a sucker for stuff like that. Joe Hill is one of the talking heads. I also watched a movie that I've heard raves about, IN A VIOLENT NATURE, which is basically a Friday the 13th film told from Jason's perspective. Which, in this case, means about 70 minutes of the 93 minute film is watching the killer walk slowly through the woods. I am not kidding. The mythology is solid, there are some great kills, but almost all of the film is this guy slow-walking through the woods. This could have been a short segment of an anthology film, and it would have been fine. As it stands, it is one of the most boring films I've seen in years.

[sholloman81]

I am getting into Halloween early this year, watching a lot of Shudder. They have a new series called Horror's Greatest, which is your usual clip/talking head show, but I'm a sucker for stuff like that. Joe Hill is one of the talking heads. I also watched a movie that I've heard raves about, IN A VIOLENT NATURE, which is basically a Friday the 13th film told from Jason's perspective. Which, in this case, means about 70 minutes of the 93 minute film is watching the killer walk slowly through the woods. I am not kidding. The mythology is solid, there are some great kills, but almost all of the film is this guy slow-walking through the woods. This could have been a short segment of an anthology film, and it would have been fine. As it stands, it is one of the most boring films I've seen in years.

Not surprised to hear that about IN A VIOLENT NATURE. I love horror movies but have been somewhat uninterested in this one from the get-go. Personally, the last thing I want to know is Jason's (that sort of slashers) perspective or feelings. He's one of those characters that works better when unknowable IMO. I have a feeling this is also the route that the Crystal Lake series is going to take, if it ever comes to pass.

[Sock Monkey]

Not surprised to hear that about IN A VIOLENT NATURE. I love horror movies but have been somewhat uninterested in this one from the get-go. Personally, the last thing I want to know is Jason's (that sort of slashers) perspective or feelings. He's one of those characters that works better when unknowable IMO. I have a feeling this is also the route that the Crystal Lake series is going to take, if it ever comes to pass.

I'm not a big fan of slashers in general. In fact, it's my least favorite of the horror subgenres. In this regard, the movie didn't really pique my interest, though I was a little swayed by all the high praise it received. I tend to agree with your point about not wanting to know the slasher's perspective, but I will give some praise to 2006's Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon which is horror-comedy(ish) about a documentary crew who are following a new killer who is trying to make a name for himself in the world of slashers. It's been a very long time since I've watched this so I'm not entirely sure how well it holds up, but I remember having a pretty good time with the film.

[dannyboy121070]

I'm not a big fan of slashers in general. In fact, it's my least favorite of the horror subgenres. In this regard, the movie didn't really pique my interest, though I was a little swayed by all the high praise it received. I tend to agree with your point about not wanting to know the slasher's perspective, but I will give some praise to 2006's Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon which is horror-comedy(ish) about a documentary crew who are following a new killer who is trying to make a name for himself in the world of slashers. It's been a very long time since I've watched this so I'm not entirely sure how well it holds up, but I remember having a pretty good time with the film.

LESLIE VERNON was a great film! IN A VIOLENT NATURE is nothing like that....the slasher is basically Zombie Jason, so her never speaks, and the time we spend with him is mostly us watching him walk slowly through the woods. It almost felt like a practical joke on the audience.

[Sock Monkey]

LESLIE VERNON was a great film! IN A VIOLENT NATURE is nothing like that....the slasher is basically Zombie Jason, so her never speaks, and the time we spend with him is mostly us watching him walk slowly through the woods. It almost felt like a practical joke on the audience.

Sounds like I'll be steering clear of IN A VIOLENT NATURE then. Doesn't quite sound like my jam. I'm happy to hear that you liked LESLIE VERNON and it makes me want to dig out my old DVD and revisit soon. Probably won't be for a while, though. I'm in the process of finalizing my Halloween viewing list and don't think I'll be able to slot it in as it's already ambitious considering my schedule.

[Sock Monkey]

With October here, the Halloween season if finally upon us and even more of a reason to watch more horror movies!

HALLOWEEN HORROR MOVIE #1:



I'm always try to work older horror movies into our Halloween viewing slate and this year I have a whole selection of black and white horror movies that we'll be watching. The first is this interesting 1960 film (also known as Horror Hotel) starring Christopher Lee. The film is about a young college student (played by Venetia Stevenson) who is sent by her professor (Christopher Lee) to an almost forgotten town in Massachusetts to research a paper on witchcraft only to uncover sinister happenings. I don't hear this film discussed much, either as a forgotten classic or a necessary benchmark in Lee's long career in the genre, and honestly after watching I can understand why. The plot is paper-thin and feels stretched out even during its scant 76 minute runtime. The ending is pretty cool, though and that poster is pretty awesome and much better than the cover to the disc I have. As is often the case with some of these older horror films, subtlety was not a consideration so most elements are blatantly telegraphed ahead of time, some even in the same scene. However, it doesn't get the credit for what rightfully deserves as it plot points bear a bit of resemblance to another Lee flick, The Wicker Man. Now, to be honest, The Wicker Man does this much better, but it was interesting to see this thread. By the end, I wound up quite a bit of fun with the movie and really enjoyed it, even if it ultimately feels like a lesser film in the history of horror.

For those interested in such things, I watched this via the VCI remastered blu-ray that was released back in 2018. I think I picked this up at a clearance sale for a few bucks and it was well worth it. Besides a few minutes at the beginning of the film, the remastered transfer was pretty nice. The audio mix for the dialogue was clear but rather quiet so we had to put on the subtitles to catch everything. If you can get this on the cheap, I'd recommend it. Otherwise it looks like it might be streaming on Kanopy, Tubi, and AMC+.

Grade: C+

[dannyboy121070]

I, also, have started the Halloween viewing for the season. I was eager to see the Max premiere of 'SALEM'S LOT on Thursday, and it was pretty much what I expected. Kind of a Cliffs Notes version of the novel, which I don't think would make much sense if you haven't already read the source material. It is almost a "Greatest hits" clip show: Dead kid knocking at the window, corpse sitting up in the morgue, Barlow reveal, Barlow confronts Priest....You've seen, and read, those scenes done better. The film sat on a shelf for two years, and I can see why....It just feels cheap and small. The running time is less than two hours, so you don't really get to know any of the characters, and by the time you get to the "reveal" that the town is virtually deserted, you'll be like "It was deserted anyway! They never showed anybody!". The Director said he turned in a three-hour cut that Warner edited the hell out of....Since it went straight to streaming, why not just show that version, or make it available as an extra? It almost HAS to be better. The cast is a mixed bag...It's always nice to see William Sadler, and Alfre Woodard does a nice job, as usual. Lewis Pullman, as Ben Mears, is as expressionless and charisma-free as his father, Bill, and Barlow looks just like THE NUN without a habit. King fans will want to check it out, but I can't recommend it.

Last night, my Horror-hating teen agreed to watch a Halloween movie with me, so I let him choose. He picked the Director's Cut of DOCTOR SLEEP, which I enjoyed just as much as the theatrical cut. I think this film, which tanked at the box-office, will grow to be more appreciated in time....I think it is one of the best King adaptations, and Mike Flanagan did a great job of threading the needle and making it palatable to fans of the book AND the film of THE SHINING. I like this movie so much I could probably watch it again tonight.

[Sock Monkey]

I, also, have started the Halloween viewing for the season. I was eager to see the Max premiere of 'SALEM'S LOT on Thursday, and it was pretty much what I expected. Kind of a Cliffs Notes version of the novel, which I don't think would make much sense if you haven't already read the source material. It is almost a "Greatest hits" clip show: Dead kid knocking at the window, corpse sitting up in the morgue, Barlow reveal, Barlow confronts Priest....You've seen, and read, those scenes done better. The film sat on a shelf for two years, and I can see why....It just feels cheap and small. The running time is less than two hours, so you don't really get to know any of the characters, and by the time you get to the "reveal" that the town is virtually deserted, you'll be like "It was deserted anyway! They never showed anybody!". The Director said he turned in a three-hour cut that Warner edited the hell out of....Since it went straight to streaming, why not just show that version, or make it available as an extra? It almost HAS to be better. The cast is a mixed bag...It's always nice to see William Sadler, and Alfre Woodard does a nice job, as usual. Lewis Pullman, as Ben Mears, is as expressionless and charisma-free as his father, Bill, and Barlow looks just like THE NUN without a habit. King fans will want to check it out, but I can't recommend it.

Last night, my Horror-hating teen agreed to watch a Halloween movie with me, so I let him choose. He picked the Director's Cut of DOCTOR SLEEP, which I enjoyed just as much as the theatrical cut. I think this film, which tanked at the box-office, will grow to be more appreciated in time....I think it is one of the best King adaptations, and Mike Flanagan did a great job of threading the needle and making it palatable to fans of the book AND the film of THE SHINING. I like this movie so much I could probably watch it again tonight.

The editing of SALEM"S LOT for streaming doesn't make much sense, unless they plan on promoting an extended version down the road. Either way, it seems like a missed opportunity to let the director's vision speak for itself. I feel like this is the 47th adaptation of SALEM'S LOT (okay, it's really like the fourth?) and it just seems like maybe that well doesn't need to drawn from again.

Agree about the director's cut of DOCTOR SLEEP. We watched it last Halloween season, along with Kubrick's THE SHINING, and I thought that SLEEP deserved better than what it got during its theatrical. I concur about it growing in appreciation over time, even if it is just an appreciation of Rebecca Ferguson as Rose the Hat.

[dannyboy121070]

Seeing the remake made me want to watch the original Tobe Hooper mini-series, which is streaming on Max, so that'll be my film tonight. They also have the "sequel", A RETURN TO 'SALEM'S LOT, which I'll probably keep taking a pass on.

[dannyboy121070]

The Halloween train rolls on, with the original Tobe Hooper 'SALEM'S LOT mini-series on Max.

It holds up a lot better than i expected. Definitely the best of the three versions that have been filmed. The cast acquits themselves quite well, with the great James Mason being the standout as a spectacularly smarmy Straker, and David Soul and Ed Flanders making the most of their roles. The first appearance of Barlow still managed to make me jump....his look is a strange departure from the source material, but Hooper managed to create an iconic vampire that stills commands attention close to five decades later, so...well done.

There were a few gaps in logic that I forgot about, that seem to have been created in an attempt to throw in a few more scares, but those were easily overlooked. I appreciated how Hooper had enough time to show that there were other people in the town, something the latest remake failed miserably at, but most of those townspeople just appear and are never seen again. (Hooper makes a big deal about introducing Weasel, who has a few important scenes, but then we never see him again. Same for the husband and his cheating wife...they glom up a lot of screen time, but then vanish.)

The end features some spectacular set design with the Marsten house...I never noticed before that the horns and antlers that adorn the walls all had dead dogs impaled on them. Amazing detail.

My biggest disappointment with all of the adaptations so far (Although I may or may not be correct about the Rob Lowe mini-series, which I only saw once about 20 years ago) is the omission of the hinted-at details about Hubie Marsten's Satanism, and his attempts to bring Barlow to America decades earlier. (For a great literary followup to this, I recommend Sean Hogan's TWILIGHT'S LAST SCREAMING, which finds THERE WILL BE BLOOD's Daniel Plainview being drawn into the plot to bring Barlow stateside.)

Overall, it holds up well. The three hours flew by at a fast clip, and I'm glad I revisited this childhood favorite.

[dannyboy121070]

Last night was Shudder's new V/H/S Beyond, which is getting hyped like crazy, but was unremarkable aside from the first story. Mike Flanagan wrote the last story, which his wife directed, but it did nothing for me.