LTT Movie Club!

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

It's fantastic...but as he said, watch the subtitled one.

 

I am a huge fan of small budget horror/sci-fi films...but I am critical and won't just watch anything and praise it. I'm pretty picky actually. Having said that, allow me a list of horror/sci-fi films that are worth watching and re-watching:

 

Death Machine: One of the best Brad Dourif (of Chucky voice fame) sci fi flicks around. You must watch the "theatrical release" version. the director's cut is terrible.

Alien Outpost

Botched: An amusing Eastern European "horror" comedy.

Chernobyl: Technically not "horror" but horrific enough. A must watch mini-series.

Crawlspace (the recent aussie flick) one of my fav ozploitation flicks, in spite of some really naff SFX.

Dead Snow and the Sequel: Norwegian zombies. Highly tongue in cheek

Deathwatch/The Outpost/2/3/Overlord/Frankenstein's Army: ww1/2 supernatural horror/zombie stuff. (warning: FA is POV shaky cam for parts of it)

Dog Soldiers: Best werewolf film ever made.

Event Horizon: Fuses sci-fi and horror very well. A perennial fav. of mine.

Harbinger Down: A mixed bag, but almost pure practical FX.

Howl: Danish (IIRC) werewolves. Well done.

Juan of the Dead: Cuba(!) zombie flick. Interesting if for no other reason than a horror flick from an unlikely source.

La Horde: French Zombie flick. The subtitles are terribly done sadly, and lets the film down in parts. Track down the original French if you can understand it.

Let Us Prey: Scottish (again, IIRC) police horror flick.

Mr. Frost: Good luck finding a copy of this. Very very old. Jeff Goldblum plays....something (creepy flick)

 

That should get you guys started.

 

 

I am pretty picky about movies myself. One reason I ask. 

[Spotty]

13 hours ago, fpo said:

No spoilers plx!

 

All quiet on the western front by ..

*Cringe* Netflix... *Vomit face*

 

Is it good? 

I don't know the German director's past movies. 

This YouTuber I recently discovered calls himself "the critical drinker" and declared it was outstanding before he got into spoilers and I shut off.

I watched it last week and I liked it. I thought I wrote up a review for it but I must have gave up half way through writing it and not posted it.

You can safely ignore that it's a Netflix exclusive title, it doesn't have any of the usual downsides that normally come hand in hand with a Netflix movie. I haven't seen the original film or read the book so I can't compare it to those.

I watched the English dub version and it was a bit iffy in some spots, and there were some supporting characters that looked a little similar which I had a tough time recognising apart that I think was partly because of the dub... But for the most part there's not a huge amount of dialogue throughout the film so it wasn't a huge problem for me. The movie shows you a lot of what is happening without needing to tell the audience. I guess everybody already knows the basics of what is happening in WW1 so there's no need to do a whole lot of explanation or exposition, the more localised stuff relating to the characters story you can figure out just by what is happening on screen. If you're adverse to watching the German audio with subtitles then the English dub was fine I guess.

 

It's a long movie though and it will require a bit more commitment to watch. It does feel a bit bleak and depressing throughout the movie, so it might be a bit difficult for some people to watch and stay engaged with, but that is the intended tone and it does keep the movie more faithful to the story. It doesn't have the huge action scenes or the big heroic moments that some other (American) war movies have like the beach storming in Saving Private Ryan for example. There are action scenes but it seems much more focused on the day to day struggles the soldiers faced during WW1.

Spoilers (actual movie spoilers so only read if you've watched the film, don't blame me otherwise):

Spoiler

There is a scene where the main character is lying in a ditch taking cover from the approaching enemy forces when an enemy soldier attacks him. They fight and struggle with each other in the mud in this ditch before the main character manages to stab the enemy soldier. He then has to lie in ditch next to the enemy forced to listen as he slowly bleeds out and chokes on his blood. He tries to suffocate the enemy to stop his cries before he regrets what he's done and he tries saving the life of the enemy but it's too late.
The violent scenes in the movie are there for dramatic purpose. They're not just there to entertain the audience and give them a thrill, but more to show the harsh situation the soldiers faced during war. Don't expect big gun fights and explosions to carry you from one scene to the next.

Spoiler

The story follows a soldier and his friends who enlists towards the end of the war and there is a side plot involving the high command as they deal with the wind up of the war and Germany's surrender. There is a distinct juxtaposition between the conditions the soldiers are in on the front lines compared to the luxury the high command has. While soldiers are starving on the front line Generals are gorging themselves on feasts in large dining halls in large country manors, while making decisions to send more men to the front lines knowing they'll likely die.
From the first scenes following the dead soldiers uniforms being washed, repaired and handed out to new recruits all the way through to the final scenes where commanding officers are ordering soldiers in to a final suicidal push the movie portrays a very cynical outlook on the war.

I think the cinematography, acting* (*I mean, as far as I can tell when watching them in another language), and story were all good. While it was a longer film the pacing was still fine, I never felt bored during a scene waiting for it to move on and the scenes all served a purpose for progressing the narrative.

I think whether or not you like it will largely come down to whether you like and can stomach a bleak story about world war 1. Even people who normally are a fan of war movies might not be a fan of the more cynical and depressing tone this film has. That type of story definitely isn't everybody's cup of tea so I can understand if people don't like it. Overall I'd give it a 8/10. I thought it was a good movie but I probably wouldn't want to go through and watch it again if that makes any sense.

 

 

 

14 hours ago, fpo said:

This YouTuber I recently discovered calls himself "the critical drinker" and declared it was outstanding before he got into spoilers and I shut off. 

I like The Critical Drinker, and I find his movie opinions normally align with my own so if he rates something highly I usually enjoy it.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Spotty said:

I watched it last week and I liked it. I thought I wrote up a review for it but I must have gave up half way through writing it and not posted it.

You can safely ignore that it's a Netflix exclusive title, it doesn't have any of the usual downsides that normally come hand in hand with a Netflix movie. I haven't seen the original film or read the book so I can't compare it to those.

I watched the English dub version and it was a bit iffy in some spots, and there were some supporting characters that looked a little similar which I had a tough time recognising apart that I think was partly because of the dub... But for the most part there's not a huge amount of dialogue throughout the film so it wasn't a huge problem for me. The movie shows you a lot of what is happening without needing to tell the audience. I guess everybody already knows the basics of what is happening in WW1 so there's no need to do a whole lot of explanation or exposition, the more localised stuff relating to the characters story you can figure out just by what is happening on screen. If you're adverse to watching the German audio with subtitles then the English dub was fine I guess.

 

It's a long movie though and it will require a bit more commitment to watch. It does feel a bit bleak and depressing throughout the movie, so it might be a bit difficult for some people to watch and stay engaged with, but that is the intended tone and it does keep the movie more faithful to the story. It doesn't have the huge action scenes or the big heroic moments that some other (American) war movies have like the beach storming in Saving Private Ryan for example. There are action scenes but it seems much more focused on the day to day struggles the soldiers faced during WW1.

Spoilers (actual movie spoilers so only read if you've watched the film, don't blame me otherwise):

  Reveal hidden contents

There is a scene where the main character is lying in a ditch taking cover from the approaching enemy forces when an enemy soldier attacks him. They fight and struggle with each other in the mud in this ditch before the main character manages to stab the enemy soldier. He then has to lie in ditch next to the enemy forced to listen as he slowly bleeds out and chokes on his blood. He tries to suffocate the enemy to stop his cries before he regrets what he's done and he tries saving the life of the enemy but it's too late.
The violent scenes in the movie are there for dramatic purpose. They're not just there to entertain the audience and give them a thrill, but more to show the harsh situation the soldiers faced during war. Don't expect big gun fights and explosions to carry you from one scene to the next.

  Reveal hidden contents

The story follows a soldier and his friends who enlists towards the end of the war and there is a side plot involving the high command as they deal with the wind up of the war and Germany's surrender. There is a distinct juxtaposition between the conditions the soldiers are in on the front lines compared to the luxury the high command has. While soldiers are starving on the front line Generals are gorging themselves on feasts in large dining halls in large country manors, while making decisions to send more men to the front lines knowing they'll likely die.
From the first scenes following the dead soldiers uniforms being washed, repaired and handed out to new recruits all the way through to the final scenes where commanding officers are ordering soldiers in to a final suicidal push the movie portrays a very cynical outlook on the war.

I think the cinematography, acting* (*I mean, as far as I can tell when watching them in another language), and story were all good. While it was a longer film the pacing was still fine, I never felt bored during a scene waiting for it to move on and the scenes all served a purpose for progressing the narrative.

I think whether or not you like it will largely come down to whether you like and can stomach a bleak story about world war 1. Even people who normally are a fan of war movies might not be a fan of the more cynical and depressing tone this film has. That type of story definitely isn't everybody's cup of tea so I can understand if people don't like it. Overall I'd give it a 8/10. I thought it was a good movie but I probably wouldn't want to go through and watch it again if that makes any sense.

 

 

 

I like The Critical Drinker, and I find his movie opinions normally align with my own so if he rates something highly I usually enjoy it.

Thanks! Yeah, I'm beginning a bit arrogant and wanting more artistic films. 

I'm looking forward to this. 

 

Sounds like a mix of war horse's emotion with platoon's telling like it was. 

[Takumidesh]

45 minutes ago, fpo said:

Thanks! Yeah, I'm beginning a bit arrogant and wanting more artistic films. 

I'm looking forward to this. 

Funnily enough, while I still love a good arthouse film. I have found that I am increasingly enjoying more and more B and Z movies. Sometimes I feel like the really crappy B movie are more artistic than a lot of the 'quality' art films.

ofcourse my extensive binging of red letter media probably has something to do with it.

[Spotty]

Watched The Lobster yesterday. Weird movie. I missed the first few minutes which likely didn't help. Set in a world where single people are turned in to animals if they can't find a partner. Romance isn't normally a genre I'm interested in. Didn't hate it though and it had its moments. Might be one for @fpo if looking for some more abstract movies.

 

Watched Morbius. Pretty boring honestly, after about the first 30 min I just ended up spending most of my time on my phone occasionally glancing over at the TV to see whatever blur of slow motion CGI was happening. Story felt like it was on rails and just going through the motions. Villain wasn't particularly interesting or convincing. 

Spoiler

The scene in the London underground New York subway where Matt Smith is running at Morbius in slow motion and it takes 8 hours for him to run 20ft while Morbius just stands there waving his arm about feeling a breeze reminded me of the Monty Python scene from the holy grail where the soldier is charging the castle and it keeps cutting back and he's not getting any closer.

 

 

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

2 minutes ago, Spotty said:

 

Watched Morbius. Pretty boring honestly, after about the first 30 min I just ended up spending most of my time on my phone occasionally glancing over at the TV to see whatever blur of slow motion CGI was happening. Story felt like it was on rails and just going through the motions. Villain wasn't particularly interesting or convincing. 

  Reveal hidden contents

The scene in the London underground New York subway where Matt Smith is running at Morbius in slow motion and it takes 8 hours for him to run 20ft while Morbius just stands there waving his arm about feeling a breeze reminded me of the Monty Python scene from the holy grail where the soldier is charging the castle and it keeps cutting back and he's not getting any closer.

 

 

Why would you subject yourself to that? It is AWFUL

[Spotty]

7 minutes ago, ShawtyT30beTHICCC said:

Why would you subject yourself to that? It is AWFUL

I heard a few bad reviews for it but I was still curious and willing to give it a shot. I've been pretty starved for new movies lately so I'm open to watching a worse movie if it's something that I haven't seen before.

For all the hate Morbius gets I don't think it was really much worse than the Venom movies.

[Radium_Angel]

So people of the movie thread, what do you consider the worst film in a particular (or your favourite) movie franchise?

 

In the Star Wars franchise, I"m going with The Phantom Menace

The Hellraiser series (all bloody 11 of them) I"m going to say the latest, as it committed the cardinal sin of being boring.

In the * of the dead series (dawn, night, day return, etc) Day of the Dead: Bloodline

 

 

[NF-A12x25]

13 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

n the Star Wars franchise, I"m going with The Phantom Menace

I would’ve said Phantom Menace… before the shitty sequels came out. PM is my least favorite of the canon movies though.

[Radium_Angel]

Just now, NF-A12x25 said:

I would’ve said Phantom Menace… before the shitty sequels came out. PM is my least favorite of the canon movies though.

Admittedly, I never saw anything after PM, because that film sucked rocks....are you saying the other sequels are *worse*? 

[NF-A12x25]

45 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

47 minutes ago, NF-A12x25 said:

 

Admittedly, I never saw anything after PM, because that film sucked rocks....are you saying the other sequels are *worse*? 

The other two prequels are better (2 and 3) but only a little, but I mean the sequels- episodes 7, 8, and 9 by Disney. They’re as bad as Morbius.

[Radium_Angel]

48 minutes ago, NF-A12x25 said:

They’re as bad as Morbius.

Ooooooouch.....because Morbius *suuuuuuuuucked*

[Spotty]

11 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

So people of the movie thread, what do you consider the worst film in a particular (or your favourite) movie franchise?

 

In the Star Wars franchise, I"m going with The Phantom Menace

For me it's the 8th movie where they're outrunning the enemy ship and then there's the half hour dedicated to side characters nobody cares about riding CGI animals through a CGI backdrop of a casino while giving a lecture to the audience, all which actually ends up doing nothing to progress the plot. Honourable mention goes to the 9th film for the ending/'twist' and basically just giving Rey whatever super power and plot armour she needs to get through any situation.

 

11 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

The Hellraiser series (all bloody 11 of them) I"m going to say the latest, as it committed the cardinal sin of being boring.

Aren't they all boring?

[Takumidesh]

8 hours ago, Spotty said:

CGI animals through a CGI backdrop of a casino

It wouldn't be star wars without the Lucas Wild And Wacky Animal Exposition Sequence™

[Radium_Angel]

12 hours ago, Spotty said:

Aren't they all boring?

Depends on your love of horror and specifically body horror. 

 

And of course I forgot the Alien franchise. With a tie between the last two films (holy mucking crapballs they sucked!)

[Tan3l6]

Coherence (2013)
It's good.

 

..

 

If you like the Schrödinger's cat

[wseaton]

Phantom Menace was bad, but Qui Gon and Obi Wan gave it a run vs Maul fight.

 

Of the new films I only found Rogue 1 worth watching. 

 

Recently watched 'Nope' and loved it. 

[Guest]

I saw light-year 2022. Good movie. 

A few weird things but easily overlook-able. If you see the movie you'll figure out what I'm talking about. 

 

 

Now...

Blade runner 1982 or blade runner 2049?

Is 2049 a remake?

 

I'm thinking of seeing the "final cut" of 1982 soon for the first time. 

If I understand the movie correctly it's standalone so there's no need to see anything or know anything before seeing it. 

I'm asking because I hear blade runner 1982 is one of the best movies of all time. Up there with terminator 2, Laurence of Arabia, so on. 

 

Of which I just saw Terminator 2 again recently... That is a heckin awesome movie! Every time I see it I'm like "this is amazing" 

[Radium_Angel]

32 minutes ago, fpo said:

Blade runner 1982

Theatrical release (with voice overs) only. Nothing else exists. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

Theatrical release (with voice overs) only. Nothing else exists. 

Uh oh...

 

We're going to need a few people to chime in and why. 

 

Cuz I just saw a video explaining that the final cut is the best one...

[Radium_Angel]

19 minutes ago, fpo said:

Uh oh...

 

We're going to need a few people to chime in and why. 

 

Cuz I just saw a video explaining that the final cut is the best one...

The VO is needed, because otherwise Deckard acts like he is an idiot in several scenes (he does it on purpose, as the VO explains)

And the whole Deckard is/Deckard isn't is a result of editing errors (and the Director said as much, before bowing to fan pressure later on and ret-conning things)

[Takumidesh]

On 1/1/2023 at 7:59 PM, Radium_Angel said:

The VO is needed, because otherwise Deckard acts like he is an idiot in several scenes (he does it on purpose, as the VO explains)

And the whole Deckard is/Deckard isn't is a result of editing errors (and the Director said as much, before bowing to fan pressure later on and ret-conning things)

I have only ever seen the re-cut/final cut, whatever it is called. I guess I *have* to see the theatrical cut now..

[Radium_Angel]

14 minutes ago, Takumidesh said:

I have only ever seen the re-cut/final cut, whatever it is called. I guess I *have* to see the theatrical cut now..

Several great directors have ruined their earlier works by going back and "improving" them. Lucas, Scott, Coppola, Spielberg. It's a tragedy really. 

The trouble with BR is, if you saw the theatrical version and liked it, anything else ruins the film. If you only ever saw the final cut version, you will likely be let down by the original. Let me know what you think about the original. I am curious.

[Takumidesh]

1 hour ago, Radium_Angel said:

Several great directors have ruined their earlier works by going back and "improving" them. Lucas, Scott, Coppola, Spielberg. It's a tragedy really. 

The trouble with BR is, if you saw the theatrical version and liked it, anything else ruins the film. If you only ever saw the final cut version, you will likely be let down by the original. Let me know what you think about the original. I am curious.

I am going to try to watch it this week if I can find a copy of it.

[wseaton]

I absolutely effing hated Blade Runner 2049 and don't get the hype. Boring, boring, boring. 

 

BR 1982 is a masterpiece. One of the best films every made. Ridley Scott in his prime. Watch it late at night on the biggest screen you have with no interuptions. The theatrical cut with Harrison Ford narrating isn't bad, but it kind of does the thinking for you. Ironically the movie took place in 2019 and Rutger Hauer died in 2019.

 

Ridley Scott went back and added about half an hour to Kingdom of Heaven, and also made it one of the best films I've ever seen.