Rate the Last Movie You Saw

[Brian861]

I enjoyed Get Out more vs Us. Although, I thought the twist in Us was very well done. It wouldn't hurt to waste a few hours watch each film.

Saw Saturday Night Fever and Staying Alive when I was really young. Probably should revisit them now that I can probably truly understand what's going on lol.

I'll have to check out Adaptation. Don't recall ever hearing of that one. The new Nicolas Cage film looks to be really funny.

[JJ123]

I really have to catch up on movies. I too have never seen American Werewolf, and would like to rectify the situation as the previous poster did. I also need to see Get Out and Us.

I did recently see A Nightmare on Elm Street, the original, after having never seen it. Enjoyed it. Same goes for New Nightmare, thought that was clever (Wes Craven, and I'm sure he would not mind someone saying this and probably would agree and get a kick out of it - well, just wasn't up to par acting-wise, I'll say it like that, but of course, it didn't really matter, that wasn't the point of the film...but it was so noticeable anyway!). Saw the Freddy remake, and liked that one too; I always tend to like these remakes that are done in what I call the post-Scream manner, which has steadily evolved into the Blumhouse paradigm.

Also watched Saturday Night Fever and Staying Alive. Had seen Fever before of course; really cool film, a weird mixture of tones but a sustained 1970s grittiness to it. Never saw Alive. Some interesting choices there, but in the end, even though in its own weird way it's entertaining in the context of cinema history, I have to wonder how disappointed viewers of the first film were with the second. They could have done something different...perhaps have Tony coming to grips with the disco backlash, maybe fighting with his friends and others because of it, and maybe doing one last dance. The choices in the sequel really created an unexpected tone.

Just finished watching (yet again!) what I think is one of the best films around...Adaptation with Nicolas Cage, written by Charlie Kauffman. Have watched that many times. Always see a new nuance on each viewing. Incredibly intellectual presentation, all the way down to the fictional quote at the end of the credits taken from a fictional screenplay written by a fictional twin brother (for those who know what I am talking about).....and they say that fictional screenplay idea inspired Identity, I think. Probably didn't, probably a coincidence, but still, cool notion...

[Sock Monkey]

Sock Monkey Thanks for the review. I wasn't overly interested in this remake as I thought the original was very good. I am also not on the Jordan Peele bandwagon. Get Out was okay but somehow lacking and I couldn't get into US.

Fairly disinterested in most remakes to be honest.

Some remakes work, most don’t. I find the idea of most remake boring. This one is definitely more of a sequel to the original than a remake, which I did appreciate. I’m sure on paper this movie seemed like a masterpiece as the ideas are compelling. The execution just couldn’t make it work. It’s a frustrating movie to watch.

[Ben Staad]

Sock Monkey Thanks for the review. I wasn't overly interested in this remake as I thought the original was very good. I am also not on the Jordan Peele bandwagon. Get Out was okay but somehow lacking and I couldn't get into US.

Fairly disinterested in most remakes to be honest.

[Sock Monkey]

CANDYMAN (2021): I'm the first to admit that I have not jumped on the Jordan Peele bandwagon. I thought that GET OUT was a smart little thriller and enjoyed it quite a bit, but thoughtUS was not nearly as clever and interesting as most reviewers thought it was. So when his name was attached as a producer, it wasn't a natural "sale" for me. His movies did have enough interesting ideas in them, that I couldn't just dismiss the new Candyman movie out of hand. Now after watching it, I wish I had.

I loved the original CANDYMAN. It's a smart, atmospheric movie that didn't quite get the love it deserved upon release, but is now almost universally praised as one of the few great horror movies to come from the '90s. Bernard Rose took Barker's original story and crafted a scary urban legend that still speaks to the racial tensions in America without getting didactic or preachy. It was a horror movie first and foremost. It unnerved with it's hook-handed killer, but also with the poverty-and-crime-stricken Cabrini-Green and it's residents who constantly live in fear of the terrors of the real world.

Nia Dacosta's new movie on the other hand almost forgets it's a horror movie. It absolutely wants the viewer to know that it is about something. And it almost gets there. Almost. The ideas of gentrification, police violence against African-Americans, and this same violence used as subjects of art are all touched upon and how this relates to the legend of Candyman is interesting. The problem is the movie is too interested in those ideas, about being about something that it forgets to give us reasons to care about the characters, to give the viewer something to latch onto. The movie is even confused about who the protagonist of the film is, switching POV in a manner that leaves the viewer disengaged.

This new movie also commits the gravest of sin that a horror movie can make: it forgets to be scary. The movie lacks tension even as it ramps up the supposed horrors. In fact, the majority of the violence of happens just off-camera. I'm not a gorehound by any means, and leaving things to the imagination can be extremely effective, if shot properly. Unfortunately, that's not the case here. The scary scenes lay flaccid on the screen, bored. Even some of the line delivery in these scenes are laughable and out of step with the tone with rest of the movie ("Is this real?" One character asks as his lover bleeds out on the floor in front of him, her throat slit before his eyes.)

There is some great ideas in this new film (and the animation sequences are outstanding), but more than anything, it just doesn't work. An interesting misfire, but a misfire nonetheless.

Grade: D

[Ben Staad]

The Night Eats the World.

Watched this mildly entertaining zombie movie today. It is one of those about a guy who ends up alone during the Z apocalypse. Nothing new here and nothing added to this particular genre of movie. It was just okay.

2.5 out of 5 stars.

[Ben Staad]

I just wrapped up a distracted viewing of a 1978 film called Magic starring Anthony Hopkins. In all honesty this film left me with a hole in my stomach.

3.5/5 distracted stars.

[Brian861]

I have seen The Howling, and, while I liked The Howling, I didn't love it. If I only had the chance to watch one or the other, for my money, it would be An American Werewolf in London by a landslide. Also, yeah, that transformation scene by Rick baker in An American Werewolf in London is freaking amazing. Had heard about it in the past, but, it still managed to knock my socks off. I'm a huge mark for practical effects and this one was outrageously good, probably the best werewolf transformation scene in history.

Especially considering how old the film is now, it still holds up remarkable well. I like how it just didn't happen and the process was made to seem extremely painful. As I'm sure it would be. Like you know something bad is about to happen to your body and you have absolutely no control over it. A huge element of fear in that as well.

[sholloman81]

Couldn't agree more. I have a confession as well. I've never seen The Howling and I think there are several of these? Having only the Werewolf in London to go off over; it's got to be the best transformation screen from man to wolf ever done.

I have seen The Howling, and, while I liked The Howling, I didn't love it. If I only had the chance to watch one or the other, for my money, it would be An American Werewolf in London by a landslide. Also, yeah, that transformation scene by Rick baker in An American Werewolf in London is freaking amazing. Had heard about it in the past, but, it still managed to knock my socks off. I'm a huge mark for practical effects and this one was outrageously good, probably the best werewolf transformation scene in history.

[Brian861]

Finally got around to watching a movie that has been on my radar forever but that I have always resisted watching for some reason, An American Werewolf in London. Really annoyed with myself as I enjoyed the heck out of this one. Definitely in the running for best Werewolf movie of all-time. Think I was put off of it by every review mentioning how much humor is in the movie as I generally do not enjoy the funny/jokey horror movies. That being said, the humor in this one was pitch perfect and very very dark. The film was also much gorier than I expected. Overall, I am very glad that I finally gave this movie a chance and will now be recommending it as one of my top Halloween watches!

Couldn't agree more. I have a confession as well. I've never seen The Howling and I think there are several of these? Having only the Werewolf in London to go off over; it's got to be the best transformation screen from man to wolf ever done.

[sholloman81]

Finally got around to watching a movie that has been on my radar forever but that I have always resisted watching for some reason, An American Werewolf in London. Really annoyed with myself as I enjoyed the heck out of this one. Definitely in the running for best Werewolf movie of all-time. Think I was put off of it by every review mentioning how much humor is in the movie as I generally do not enjoy the funny/jokey horror movies. That being said, the humor in this one was pitch perfect and very very dark. The film was also much gorier than I expected. Overall, I am very glad that I finally gave this movie a chance and will now be recommending it as one of my top Halloween watches!

[Ben Staad]

I agree with most of what you are saying. I wasn't happy with the choice of the 80s, Mike, and thought they could have done a little more with Henry's crew.

Went to my local AMC theater last night for another of their Thrills & Chills movie nights. The surprise horror movie they ended up screening was IT: Part One (2017). Saw this one when it was first released. Liked it but didn't love it. Still feel the same way after this 2nd viewing. While there was a lot to enjoy in this film (the score, the cinematography, as well as the superb acting job by the girl who played Bev), there were also an equal number of baffling choices that left me a bit cold as a viewer. Not sure that the film/story needed to be updated to the 80's as opposed to the late 50's other than to be able to bring in some of the 80's jokes/cultural references that would perhaps land easier for current audiences than 50's jokes/references. I actually think the 50's works better for the kids section as it helps to covey a bit more innocence than the 80's. Also, I still can't figure out why they shifted so much of Mike's character and arc over to Ben. Doing this turned Mike into a completely forgettable character in both parts of the movie, which is a shame. The Ben character already had plenty of things to work with such as the love triangle, body image issues, etc. that there really was no need to shoehorn so much of Mike's character/arc over to him. Overall, while I always enjoy getting to spend some more time with the Loser's Club, even a die-hard IT/King fan such as myself can't argue that this was a great film. Hopefully, some day, there will someone brave enough and with enough sway/resources to make the definitive version of IT.

[sholloman81]

Went to my local AMC theater last night for another of their Thrills & Chills movie nights. The surprise horror movie they ended up screening was IT: Part One (2017). Saw this one when it was first released. Liked it but didn't love it. Still feel the same way after this 2nd viewing. While there was a lot to enjoy in this film (the score, the cinematography, as well as the superb acting job by the girl who played Bev), there were also an equal number of baffling choices that left me a bit cold as a viewer. Not sure that the film/story needed to be updated to the 80's as opposed to the late 50's other than to be able to bring in some of the 80's jokes/cultural references that would perhaps land easier for current audiences than 50's jokes/references. I actually think the 50's works better for the kids section as it helps to covey a bit more innocence than the 80's. Also, I still can't figure out why they shifted so much of Mike's character and arc over to Ben. Doing this turned Mike into a completely forgettable character in both parts of the movie, which is a shame. The Ben character already had plenty of things to work with such as the love triangle, body image issues, etc. that there really was no need to shoehorn so much of Mike's character/arc over to him. Overall, while I always enjoy getting to spend some more time with the Loser's Club, even a die-hard IT/King fan such as myself can't argue that this was a great film. Hopefully, some day, there will someone brave enough and with enough sway/resources to make the definitive version of IT.

[dannyboy121070]

Thanks for that report. How was the theatrical experience with SARS-2 still around?

I will be watching, maybe tonight, on Peacock. Maybe I'll watch half tonight and the rest tomorrow, not sure the time I'll have (I know a lot of people disagree with that approach, but I see films as chapters and parts now, I guess for time-management reasons). From your report, sounds like this will be good. I enjoyed the previous one. Call me a wimp, but I am more squeamish these days than when I was younger, so I hope the gore/etc. isn't so out-there intense. Plus, gore for gore's sake no longer interests me, especially in the era of the Elevated Horror Picture Show.

I wonder if minimizing Laurie Strode's presence is a way to affordably cast Curtis? I read an interview with her on the movie at the Deadline site and have to say, this sounds too like it will offer some deeper commentary on violence/etc. She seems very proud of the movie, and I was glad to get that feeling.

I also need to remember to pick up the novelization. I know there's one available for this one (or will be soon, anyway), but I think that has become a lost art, hasn't it, or does it just seem that way?

You still get a decent amount of Curtis, but the canvas is opened up a little wider in this film, and you have a lot of returning characters from the original and more Haddonfield citizens.

[JJ123]

Thanks for that report. How was the theatrical experience with SARS-2 still around?

I will be watching, maybe tonight, on Peacock. Maybe I'll watch half tonight and the rest tomorrow, not sure the time I'll have (I know a lot of people disagree with that approach, but I see films as chapters and parts now, I guess for time-management reasons). From your report, sounds like this will be good. I enjoyed the previous one. Call me a wimp, but I am more squeamish these days than when I was younger, so I hope the gore/etc. isn't so out-there intense. Plus, gore for gore's sake no longer interests me, especially in the era of the Elevated Horror Picture Show.

I wonder if minimizing Laurie Strode's presence is a way to affordably cast Curtis? I read an interview with her on the movie at the Deadline site and have to say, this sounds too like it will offer some deeper commentary on violence/etc. She seems very proud of the movie, and I was glad to get that feeling.

I also need to remember to pick up the novelization. I know there's one available for this one (or will be soon, anyway), but I think that has become a lost art, hasn't it, or does it just seem that way?