Rate the Last Movie You Saw

[sholloman81]

Went to the local AMC theater near me last Friday (10/01) for their Thrills & Chills movie deal. Basically, you can see a random horror movie each Wednesday & Friday of October for 5 bucks. You don't know what you will be seeing until the movie plays. Friday's showing ended up being the Dawn of the Dead remake which made me quite happy as the original Dawn is still one of my all-time favorite horror movies. While I'm sure Romero hated the fast zombies, in my opinion, this happens to be one of those rare instances where the remake approaches the quality of the original. Overall, I am very glad that I got to see this on the big screen and can't wait to see what the next unannounced movie will be for the next AMC Thrills & Chills event.

[Ben Staad]

I am looking forward to Cry Macho. It sounds a bit like the issues with The Mule. Mr. Eastwood is just to old to play scenes with the ladies. That being said I typically like the slow paced movies he puts out there.

[dannyboy121070]

I watched a couple of new theatrical releases on HBO Max this past weekend, and I have to say thank you to Covid for keeping me from spending money to see either of them in a theater. Hugh Jackman's REMINISCENCE and Clint Eastwood's CRY MACHO were OK to watch for free, I suppose, but both had a lot of issues. The Eastwood film started out rocky, with some hideously bad acting from Dwight Yoakam and the actress that played the kid's mother, and the pace was glacial. The mother trying to seduce Clint, who looks like a clone of the evil Reverend from POLTERGEIST 2, was embarrassing. My wife, who knew nothing about the movie when we started watching, yelped "Holy shit! When is he going to stop making movies???"

REMINISCENCE was written and directed by Lisa Joy, who co-created the HBO series WESTWORLD, and was just as pretty and confusing as that show can be. My wife loved it, I thought it was mediocre and too dragged out.

So far, very few of the same-day theatrical releases to hit HBO Max would have been worth paying to see. JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH was outstanding, and THE CONJURING: THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT and THE SUICIDE SQUAD were both a lot of fun. I'll also throw in MALIGNANT as a worthwhile film, mainly for the bonkers ending.

[dannyboy121070]

As much as I disliked MALIGNANT, I can absolutely see why you and others enjoyed it. The movie swings for the fences with it's central idea and I can absolutely appreciate a film taking some bonkers chances. I've read in places (not in your review) people stating that those who don't like the movie don't like the central conceit. That was not my issue. I watch my fair share of weird and off-beat cinema and I kinda dig some of the ideas. For me, it was all execution.

You mention the giallo influence and I've seen that in multiple other reviews. I'll admit that Giallo is one area of my horror film knowledge that is pretty sketchy. I've seen a couple but not enough to debate its nuances. For me, I really got more of a late '90s/00s vibes a la GHOST SHIP, HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL, THIR13EN GHOSTS (yes, that's how they spelled it...). Clearly not plot-wise, but aesthetically, character development, acting. Even the medical institute in the film looks incredibly similar to the titular HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL.

While the movie did not work for me, I'm glad it did for others and I'm glad it got made.

While we're on the topic of bonkers, has anyone else checked out the trailer for LAMB?

Funny that you mentioned it, but the beginning of MALIGNANT immediately made me think of those early 2000s films that you mentioned.

I'm not exactly steeped in Giallo knowledge, either...I'm not a big fan of slasher films in general, and Giallo films are, to me, usually full of nonsense. I've seen enough to know the tropes, though. The whole killer with an odd psychic power, the color scheme, the stilted acting...those are usually part and parcel of the genre, especially in films by Argento and Fulci.

Lambs, goats, sheep, all of those gross things really freak me out, so that LAMB film looks......disturbing. Yes, I want to see it,, lol.

[Ben Staad]

Lamb looks amazingly weird. Thanks for sharing that.

[Sock Monkey]

I also did a rewatch of THE GUILTY from 2018. I recently heard of the forthcoming American remake starring Jake Gyllenhaal and it made me want to revisit the original from a few years back. I've posted reviews for this the Fantastic Fest topic, so I added a link if you want to read my original review in post #26. Still an amazing film even after three viewings. I'll probably still check out the remake because I generally like Gyllenhaal, but I doubt it'll top the original.

[Sock Monkey]

I had a RARE night alone in the house last night, so I ordered an assload of Taco Bell, and watched two movies:

NEWS OF THE WORLD, with Tom Hanks was a decent little western.....One of those movies that is perfectly serviceable, but makes you wonder why they made it. There was absolutely nothing here that you haven't seen in a million other western movies. Hanks, as usual, elevated the film.

I need to check out NEWS OF THE WORLD. The trailer didn't knock my socks off, but there's Hanks and he's a national treasure. One day we won't have any new movies with Hanks in them and the world will be a little bit of a sadder place for it.

[Sock Monkey]

I had a RARE night alone in the house last night, so I ordered an assload of Taco Bell, and watched two movies:

NEWS OF THE WORLD, with Tom Hanks was a decent little western.....One of those movies that is perfectly serviceable, but makes you wonder why they made it. There was absolutely nothing here that you haven't seen in a million other western movies. Hanks, as usual, elevated the film.

MALIGNANT: I had a lot more fun with this than I should have. I figured out what was happening pretty early on, but the film still had a few surprises to toss at me. I agree with a lot of what Sock Monkey said in his post, but for all of my internal complaints about how slow the beginning was, how wooden a lot of the acting was, how weird some of the music was, how bad the lead character's wig was...when looked at as a huge in-joke/love letter to cheesy Giallo films, it all makes perfect sense. In that respect, I felt that James Wan really nailed it. I totally felt like I was watching one of Dario Argento's gorgeous/dopey films from the 70s, and I literally spent the last half of the film shaking my head and saying "This is the craziest shit that I have ever seen...."

I'm a HUGE James Wan fan, and this was a great addition to his film canon.

In case you're interested in MALIGNANT, I'd say just watch it without reading a synopsis or any reviews. The less you know, the better.

As much as I disliked MALIGNANT, I can absolutely see why you and others enjoyed it. The movie swings for the fences with it's central idea and I can absolutely appreciate a film taking some bonkers chances. I've read in places (not in your review) people stating that those who don't like the movie don't like the central conceit. That was not my issue. I watch my fair share of weird and off-beat cinema and I kinda dig some of the ideas. For me, it was all execution.

You mention the giallo influence and I've seen that in multiple other reviews. I'll admit that Giallo is one area of my horror film knowledge that is pretty sketchy. I've seen a couple but not enough to debate its nuances. For me, I really got more of a late '90s/00s vibes a la GHOST SHIP, HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL, THIR13EN GHOSTS (yes, that's how they spelled it...). Clearly not plot-wise, but aesthetically, character development, acting. Even the medical institute in the film looks incredibly similar to the titular HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL.

While the movie did not work for me, I'm glad it did for others and I'm glad it got made.

While we're on the topic of bonkers, has anyone else checked out the trailer for LAMB?

[dannyboy121070]

I had a RARE night alone in the house last night, so I ordered an assload of Taco Bell, and watched two movies:

NEWS OF THE WORLD, with Tom Hanks was a decent little western.....One of those movies that is perfectly serviceable, but makes you wonder why they made it. There was absolutely nothing here that you haven't seen in a million other western movies. Hanks, as usual, elevated the film.

MALIGNANT: I had a lot more fun with this than I should have. I figured out what was happening pretty early on, but the film still had a few surprises to toss at me. I agree with a lot of what Sock Monkey said in his post, but for all of my internal complaints about how slow the beginning was, how wooden a lot of the acting was, how weird some of the music was, how bad the lead character's wig was...when looked at as a huge in-joke/love letter to cheesy Giallo films, it all makes perfect sense. In that respect, I felt that James Wan really nailed it. I totally felt like I was watching one of Dario Argento's gorgeous/dopey films from the 70s, and I literally spent the last half of the film shaking my head and saying "This is the craziest shit that I have ever seen...."

I'm a HUGE James Wan fan, and this was a great addition to his film canon.

In case you're interested in MALIGNANT, I'd say just watch it without reading a synopsis or any reviews. The less you know, the better.

[Sock Monkey]

MALIGNANT:

A woman finds herself experiencing waking nightmares of a monstrous killer’s violent acts in James Wan’s newest film.

I had high hopes. MALIGNANT is directed by James Wan who has given us the original SAW, INSIDIOUS, and THE CONJURING. While my love for those films vary from one to the next, all were entertaining, well-crafted horror films.

MALIGNANT, on the other hand, is a mess. From the over-the-top prologue that extinguishes any sense of mystery to some pretty bad CGI in one of the big set pieces the movie just doesn’t work. There are some pretty interesting ideas littered throughout and some genuinely creepy moments in the first third of the film, but for every one of those moments, there’s also jokes and tonal shifts that are laughably bad.

The actors do the best they can with what they’re given but there’s a sense in most scenes that they were acting at, instead of with, each other. Throughout all the emoting, there wasn’t a single earned emotion in the film.

If you like B-movies from the late ‘90s/early ‘00s you might find something to enjoy here. Unfortunately, I did not.

GRADE: D-

[Sock Monkey]

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL

I continue my trek through the MI movies with the fourth installment and it was definitely another step in the right direction for the franchise. This time around the entire IMF division is disavowed and Cruise and team are alone to stop all out nuclear war. Literally. There is some course correction addressing master-spy Ethan Hunt's marriage in the last film and the reaction by one of the characters to it seems a little to easy-going for my tastes, but the action sequences are good and it was a decent way to spend two hours. I wasn't bowled over by the film, but it left it with good enough feelings that if I'd seen it when it came out originally, I'd remember it was being "pretty good" and be inclined to watch the next one.

Grade: B-

[Sock Monkey]

2 is bad, but really after 2 they only get better and better IMO. Actually I should rephrase that. 2 isn't bad per say, it's just a product of it's time. It very much embodies the year 2000. It just hasn't held up well over time.

Yes, it is most definitely a product of it's time. And, boy, does it show. I had to stifle a groan when Cruise throws his sunglasses at the screen and they explode. I just don't think I'm the target audience for that one.

[Dan Hocker]

2 is bad, but really after 2 they only get better and better IMO. Actually I should rephrase that. 2 isn't bad per say, it's just a product of it's time. It very much embodies the year 2000. It just hasn't held up well over time.

[JJ123]

Cell was a bit odd. Can't remember much of it now, but I think I thought at the time that it was an okay adaptation. The book was cool, but also odd in its own way.

I think I've only seen the first two Mission: Impossible films. The first one - was that 1996? - I recall enjoying, but wasn't too enthralled with the second one. I do want to check out some of the later ones, but I am sort of gravitating toward different films these days. I do admire how Cruise has made this one heck of a business for himself...I bet he takes home a disproportionate amount of cash flow at this point on each poject.

Speaking of projects, I watched Project Almanac once again this past week. One of my favorite films. I enjoy the high-school energy of it. Always makes me feel younger than I am every time I watch it. I'm also a sucker for found-footage stuff. Speaking of which, when do we finally get a found-footage version of Friday the 13th or Halloween? Or, has that already happened?

[Sock Monkey]

Yet another reason that I am very glad to have passed on the Mission Impossible movies. They've always looked crappy to me. Same with his Jack Reacher movies. Have absolutely no desire to watch them. Weird thing is that I actually almost always enjoy Cruise's stand alone films.

I avoided them for a very long time myself. I impulsively purchased the first five movies in a Blu-ray box set because it was on sale for like $20-25. I have not been blown away. I have made a pledge to myself to not buy any more movies until I’ve gotten through my “to watch” stack (which I’m only partially sticking to…) so I’m doing my best to get through everything.