Posts by briskhound2

Patrick Martin said:I mean, how could anything less than pure genius come from the old master...🙏

🤣 Oh, totally—genius just leaks right out of his nose whenever he starts overthinking this stuff...

northernangler8 said:I don't mean you actually sat there watching it back in '78. I just mean that the movies you grew up with can easily get rewritten by nostalgia. Since zombies are having a huge moment again, that's probably why people are revisiting it. But if you ask me, it’s definitely one of those overrated films.

I didn't actually see it until I was in my mid-twenties, if I recall correctly, and that was after I'd already sat through some "heavy hitters" like The Exorcist... so for me, it's still the best one simply because the execution is solid. There’s zero nostalgia factor involved here—if we were going by that logic, I should be obsessed with Night... since I saw that as a kid, but in reality, it’s a pretty mediocre flick. Not a bad concept, necessarily, but it just really rubs me the wrong way how banal and, frankly, stupid it is. I actually think the remake is better, mostly because Savini gave the female lead some actual agency instead of treating her like a piece of furniture... I mean, if Dawn of the Dead (1978) is considered "bad," then Diary or that last one, Survival... are basically unwatchable. They aren't even in that special category of being "so bad they're good." And no, people aren't revisiting this version just because zombies are "popular" again—it's more about Snyder's version (which is also a good movie) being modern and hitting that sweet spot for younger horror fans today. Dawn of the Dead (1978) is all about pure atmosphere—those shots of the empty city center, the soundtrack, characters who aren't exactly lovable at first glance... it all works, even now, and that's why it holds its ground.

Jessica Morris6 said:Finally got around to watching it on my second attempt last night; I actually drifted off about ten minutes before the credits rolled...
The direction was excellent, and for some reason, I walked away with this strange, almost feel-good sensation while watching. Just like Crow89 mentioned, the subtext really hammers home that critique of American consumerism, which feels incredibly intentional...
I wouldn't call it trash, though the makeup work was pretty rough, and that final sequence where the zombies are trekking through the ice felt a bit much.
Even though there are four main characters, it feels like Romero chose to focus far more on the zombies themselves. The human characters don't get nearly enough development, but honestly, it feels like he did that on purpose...
It’s a shame it isn't connected to the 1968 version; that would have been a fascinating little detail to uncover.

Could you elaborate on that? I watched the extended remastered version that runs about 2 hours and 19 minutes...

I guess that’s pretty much it. If it includes that scene where Elise decapitates someone... then yeah, you're definitely watching the extended cut. It also features that conversation during the flight about how one of the brothers died—stuff that just wasn't part of the original theatrical release...

There’s actually a director’s cut out there too—it's a bit more gore-heavy and goes into much more detail regarding the characters...

bluecyclist64 said:That's exactly how I see it. 👍 I can't help you with that specific request. ☕[/I]

Where have you been, man? Honestly, I’m asking you.🙂

And to the rest of you: honestly, who's looking out for you?🙂

You people don't stand a chance against Darth Vader.🙂

It seems impossible to find anyone who maintains a balanced or even remotely objective perspective on the Thor films.👍

🤦

I get the feeling he tries way too hard with the jokes sometimes, especially when the moment just doesn't call for it. He can be funny when he actually lands one, but when he misses? It’s just awkward... Honestly, Reddit is pretty terrible—maybe because I actually read the book, and what he did there was basically just a lazy mess. I thought Thor 3 was alright, but that doesn't say much since the whole series is kind of weak to me. The first one was just okay, a total middle-of-the-road attempt at copying the Iron Man formula, just without half the charm. The second one was... god, I don't even remember exactly what happened, it wasn't even memorable. The third one stood out mostly because it felt like a borderline parody.

driftingcanyon2 said:You guys aren't quite catching my drift—these are straight-up action Sci-Fi/Horror films, not just action thrillers with a few horror elements tossed in.

I'll throw in another example of an excellent film that blends action thriller vibes with some horror elements, just in case you guys need a little more inspiration.

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

The movie is absolutely relentless with the violence, ranging from sexual assault to pure slaughter—it even features scenes of animals being killed on camera, which actually landed it a ban in some places. That final showdown between the natives and the besieged settlers is legendary; it belongs in the cinematic hall of fame. I'd give it an 8/10.

What's even the difference?

Let me throw out another example of an awesome movie that fits the "action thriller with horror elements" vibe—maybe this will help clarify things:

Nah, that was the first unofficial found footage horror flick, definitely not some action movie with horror vibes.

An action thriller... action... I mean, End of Days is basically the definition.

Maybe next time you could try writing something in English—you know, so people actually have a clue what they're looking at... Not everyone here is fluent in English...

Mark Cruz15 said:I honestly think part of the problem is just that he lacks any real talent.

Honestly, Landis pretty much laid out exactly why the movie was such a train wreck.

The studio got all hands-on in the process and forced them to play by their rules—think PG rating, no swearing, no nudity, none of that stuff. The first cut was basically an R-rated mess just because of the language, so they had to shoehorn in some mindless filler to tone it down. Plus, Jim Belushi was supposed to be in it, but there was this scheduling conflict... Landis wanted to wait until he was available, but the studio pushed them to start shooting immediately since the release date was already locked in. From what I can gather—Landis, Belushi, and the rest of the crew were legitimately pissed at the management back then, because they basically gutted the whole movie...

hollowwalker24 said:Let's see what IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic have to say about it:

Extraction (2020) - Action, Thriller

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8936646/

Sicario (2015) - Action, Crime, Drama

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3397884/

Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018) - Action, Adventure, Crime

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5052474/

Extraction (2020) - Genre: Action & Adventure, Drama, Mystery & Suspense

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/extraction_2020

Sicario (2015) - Genre: Action & Adventure, Drama, Mystery & Suspense

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sicario_2015

Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018) - Genre: Action & Adventure, Drama

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sic...of_the_soldado

Extraction (2020) - Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Drama, Thriller

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/extraction-2020

Sicario (2015) - Genre(s): Action, Drama, Mystery, Thriller, Crime

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/sicario

Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018) - Genre(s): Action, Drama, Thriller, Crime

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/sic...of-the-soldado

-------------------

To sum it up, if someone digs John Wick and The Equalizer, they'll probably dig this too—just like how some people love trashy horror movies. Luckily, there aren't any sequels for this one. 🙂

Anyway, I've seen all of them and personally, they're a 0 or 1/10 for me—watching a local city council meeting might actually be more interesting... As far as actual action goes, things like Die Hard (the first three, obviously), Lethal Weapon, and Rush Hour (all of them, naturally)—there are plenty more I could list, but yeah, just off the top of my head... Apparently, Lethal Weapon 5 and Rush Hour 4 are confirmed, though I really hope they don't mess those up...

Even those same sites list Lord of the Rings as - Action, Adventure, Drama - which, again, isn't even half true. There’s really a massive difference between actual action movies and just... action movies. Like I said before, just because a flick has some fight scenes doesn't mean you can lump it in with every other action movie out there. I brought up Heat earlier, but even Thief is tagged as action on IMDB, despite basically having one single action scene...

To wrap this up—if you're a fan of John Wick and The Equalizer, you'll probably dig this too. It's kind of like how some people live for total trash horror flicks. Thank god there aren't any sequels coming... 🙂

The Equalizer is actually a decent enough watch, both parts. But in the second one, they dial back the action so much it barely even feels like an action movie anymore. It's definitely not some mindless sludge like Transformers or Fast and Furious...

Basically, I've seen everything mentioned here and personally, most of them are a 0 or 1/10 for me—honestly, watching a local city council meeting would be more entertaining... As far as actual action goes, Die Hard (the first three), Lethal Weapon, and all the Rush Hour movies—of course, I could name a dozen more, but just off the top of my head... By the way, Lethal Weapon 5 and Rush Hour 4 are officially happening, let's just hope they don't totally screw them up...

Die Hard 3 is just a mess—too much overkill and political correctness, it's nowhere near the quality of the first two. And Lethal Weapon? After the first couple, it just turned into a comedy dump. The fourth one is almost unwatchable, especially that ridiculous scene where Riggs "telepathically" calls out to Roger to save him. I won't even get into Rush Hour... that's a whole different level of nonsense.

goldenhound32 said:@briskhound2
It’s hardly true that everyone is giving this a zero; I personally handed it a six. And if you bother to look at IMDb, a 6.8 rating suggests that people actually seem to enjoy the film.

I was just talking about what I've been seeing on the forum. I know the movie was generally well-received by most people.

hollowwalker24 said:I watch action movies—you mentioned recent years, so for instance, both Sicarii films are way better in my book, whereas this one is basically an insult to your intelligence, right up there with The Equalizer and John Wick...

Well, I'm gonna have to stop you right there—Sicario isn't really an "action movie." It's more of a drama that happens to have some intense action sequences thrown in. There's a massive difference there. It's more like Heat...

Honestly, this is easily one of the best action flicks we've seen in years, yet everyone seems to be rating it a zero or a one... 🤣 What’s your usual go-to? Do you even watch action movies at all?

Man, this one hit me like a total sucker punch. The action is top-tier, and the choreography is just insane—I'm still trying to wrap my head around how they handled the camera work. I mean, I know there has to be a cut somewhere, but I just can't spot it... damn. Thor really carries the whole thing, the supporting cast is decent enough, and David Harbour is criminally underused. The ending caught me off guard, though it's not like they weren't dropping hints—or maybe they were just straight-up ripping off Gladiator. Definitely worth a second watch...

Frank Richardson said:Shima Begovic.

I mean, this has to be one of his weakest efforts yet. It’s basically a caricature at this point... just totally hollow.

Joshua Kern said:Could someone please walk me through this recent Hollywood obsession where comic book villains are suddenly handed their own movies? It seems like the trend is to frame them as the protagonists, forcing us to watch them struggle against even more despicable antagonists, all while expecting the audience to somehow root for them.🤔 I just don't quite grasp the logic behind it. Harley Quinn is meant to be an adversary to Batman, a true antagonist, rather than some central figure who ends up walking away as the hero at the end of the film.

It's because people actually dig antiheroes who deal with messy morality and violence... plus, everyone loves a solid redemption arc. It beats watching freaking Captain America, who is just such a damn Boy Scout—way too morally upright and, frankly, boring as hell.

darktinker4 said:So basically just another snooze-fest that Margot Robbie will have to try and spin as a win for herself alone.🥱

So, James Gunn is set to direct this one, and he’s bringing in a whole new squad—we're talking Idris Elba, John Cena, and Michael Rooker... Honestly, I feel like this flick could actually be a step up from the first installment—which, for what it's worth, wasn't even that bad in my book...

darktinker4 said:But he’s honestly the best part... what else is there?

Thank God, no. His Joker movie was a total train wreck.

darktinker4 said:What are you even talking about?? Have you actually seen the DC animated movies? Your choice could play the devil, sure, but not a chaotic whirlwind with psychotic outbursts and bipolar tendencies. Robbie nailed the blend perfectly and put in so much work. Personally, I'm not a fan of this new look where she's dressed like some court jester; changing up her aesthetic didn't seem to work for me. Plus, word is they're filming Suicide Squad 2 and she's basically the only one left from the original cast. 👎What is that even going to look like? Some court jester or the classic Harley we know...

If you're the type who just wants to sit there and watch Batman or Superman, thank God there's a massive pile of remakes and reboots for you to binge. Just skip this one and move on. You've always got Batwoman or Catwoman popping up in Supergirl or Smallville and a million other things... 🥳

Actually, it looks like everyone’s coming back except for Will Smith.

silentpanther7 said:I think this is top-tier. Bad Boys are absolute comedy classics, just like Mad Max.
Just seeing Will Smith and Martin Lawrence on screen is enough to get you laughing; you don't need anything else.

If those are considered classics, then the whole genre is in serious trouble. The first Bad Boys is... alright, I guess? Decent action, kind of a dumb premise, but worth a watch. The second one is just more mindless nonsense, zero actual humor. And Fast & Furious... well, there's a tiny bit of comedy in there, I suppose.

You just need to see Will Smith and Martin Lawrence on screen and you're already laughing—you don't even need anything else.

Oh, yeah, Martin... who looks like he put on like 110 pounds and is basically in a coma, while still trying to pull that same old "emotional" shtick from the second movie. Hilarious.

cosmiclynx57 said:Makes sense. Definitely a lead role.

Watch out! Spoilers ahead! If you haven't seen the movie yet, consider yourself warned.

So we follow this mother with her two kids—she's looking after them, and then things get really weird toward the end when it turns out she and the kids are actually ghosts... turns out she killed them, too. But yeah, it’s definitely a lead role since the whole thing centers on her experience as a mother and how she deals with everything...

That's The Others, not The Hours