CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › briskhound2 › Posts

Posts by briskhound2

770 posts shown.

What movies are on your wishlist? in Movies ·
redmarlin27 said:My movie list:

1. Star Wars 1-6
2. Lord of the Rings 1-3
3. Blade Runner
4. Rocky 2-6
5. Raiders of the Lost Ark
6. Last Crusade
7. Total Recall
8. The Terminator 3 and 4
9. Avp 2
10. Planet of the Apes

Torrents are your best friend here... and converters are even better—you could probably grab any flick from this list and burn a DVD in under four hours flat.

I, the Jury (1982) If anyone happened to stumble upon this one... I just can't seem to run into it anywhere...
Technotise - EDIT i ja (2009) in Movies ·
goldenhound32 said:So, first off, we're talking about a live-action movie here. It’s gonna be pricey—probably looking at something in the ballpark of $80 million out of a $100 million budget.

So, which actually good Hollywood sci-fi flicks hit that $100 million mark?

Terminator 2, Minority Report.
Knight & Day (2010) in Movies ·
Knight & Day falls flat on first dayIs this looking like another total disaster, kind of like Hex... because honestly, it actually looks like a pretty cute movie to me.
Unthinkable (2010) in Movies ·
Honestly, this movie was just weak. I don't even know how to properly react to it... It’s just one endless lecture on morality, constantly preaching through the character played by Moss, which gets tedious and exhausting way too fast. And Jackson’s role? He doesn't actually serve a purpose—he's just some butcher, and all that "boo-hoo" drama surrounding his character leads absolutely nowhere. That twisted twist at the end regarding the bombs—if you've seen it, you know what I mean—was straight out of a cheap Mexican soap opera. The characters just cycle through arguing about whether they should get the job done, then agreeing to do it, then arguing again... the whole script is basically just repeating itself over and over. And that final scene—where this brave American agent rescues kids from a hellish building—unbelievable. Such a shame because the beginning actually seemed intriguing...
John Carpenter's The Ward (2010) in Movies ·
The legend himself, John Carpenter, is finally back with a new flick. After a bit of a hiatus—though he probably doesn't count those episodes he did for the Masters of Horror series—following some creative burnout and that rough patch with his last movie Ghosts of Mars, Carpenter is heading right back into the horror lane where he belongs.

SYNOPSIS:

In JOHN CARPENTER'S THE WARD, Kristen, a beautiful but troubled young woman, finds herself bruised, cut, drugged, and held against her will in a remote ward of a Psychiatric Hospital. She is completely disoriented, with no idea why she was brought to this place and no memory of her life before being admitted. All she knows is that she isn't safe.

The other patients in The ward , four equally disturbed Young Women , offer no answers, and Kristen quickly realizes things are not as they seem. The air is heavy with secrets, and at night, when the hospital is dark and foreboding, she hears strange and frightening sounds. It appears they are not alone.

One-by-one The other Girls Begin to disappear and Kristen must find a way out of this hellish place before she, too, becomes a victim. As she struggles to escape, she will uncover a truth far more dangerous and horrifying than anyone could have imagined.

Helpless girls, a creepy psychiatric facility, a bad vibe hanging in the air, and secrets buried deep within the walls... honestly, it's got all the ingredients for a decent horror movie, and if he brings a little of that classic Carpenter magic, this could actually be pretty interesting...

CAST:

Amber Heard (The Informers, Pineapple Express)
Daniella Panabaker (The Crazies, Friday the 13th)
Mamie Gummer (Taking Woodstock, Stop-Loss)

The Ward (2010)

The Ward - Before The Cameras roll - just a quick bit of info about the start of production.

First Footage - the first (and only) look we've got at the footage so far.

image image image image

Some unofficial fan posters. Since the movie was just wrapped up, it shouldn't be long before the official stuff starts popping up...

image image image

A few shots from the set...

image image

Kinda official stuff, I guess.
The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010) in Movies ·
trailer 2

Some extra shots here—giving us a much better look at that CGI... plus some little hints of the fun stuff happening during the whole "learning magic" phase.

image image
image image

A few more official stills dropped too.
Killshot (2009) in Movies ·
Finally sat down to give this movie a shot. Honestly? It’s bad. Like, borderline unbelievable bad—I don't get how you can take a potentially solid premise and just... butcher it like this. Nothing in this flick actually works. You've got Mickey, this hitman who gets totally burned by his employers, ends up stuck in some middle-of-nowhere backwater town, picks up this incredibly grating kid named Richie, and for no apparent reason, starts hanging out with him and teaching him the ropes of the criminal life. It's like he's seeing his younger brother in the kid or something... Then there's Thomas Jane and Diane Lane playing a couple in deep trouble, teetering on the edge of divorce, with zero backstory provided to explain why they're even there. At one point, Jane just loses it and beats the hell out of the kid and Mickey, leading them to plot how to get rid of everyone since their faces have been spotted.

The characters? Zero depth. Everyone makes these staggeringly stupid, nonsensical decisions—I mean, everyone already knows Mickey is a killer, yet he still spends energy trying to eliminate two totally insignificant witnesses... things just get forgotten mid-movie (like, the mob suddenly decides they don't want Mickey dead anymore, and actually start helping him?), and the sheer stupidity of certain "plot twists" is mind-boggling—like, some random old lady somehow has Thomas and Diane's number after they go into witness protection, and Mickey just happens to call it.

There are maybe three scenes worth watching. When Thomas Jane starts laying into Mickey and Richie in the office, when Richie goes ballistic in the grocery store and trashes the place with a shotgun, and the final showdown... but that's really it. That's barely enough to scrape together a passing grade. It's a bad, illogical, and at times deeply irritating movie—both because of the characters and the actual plot—that I'd barely bother watching once...
The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010) in Movies ·
briskbison41 said:Yeah, I'm with you regarding Cage. Seems to me like he’s leaning harder and harder into these fantasy and medieval roles lately.
Given the vibe, it was pretty much a given that Disney would pick this one up—and honestly, these kinds of movies are all about blending the modern world with the old ways now. Like, everything's getting mixed up.
You've got this modern kid learning the ropes of magic, which is basically the same setup we saw in Percy Jackson and the Olympians.
With a project like this, you can mostly just expect a fun movie filled with tons of CGI... and obviously, some wizards 😁

Personally, I felt the plot dragged a bit in that one. But hey, good old Jerry rarely misses when it comes to production value, so hopefully he doesn't miss here either 😁 For him, Cage is like a lucky charm—every time they team up, it turns into a hit. I'm really curious if Molina is going to channel that energy from Spider-Man 2, or if he'll go for a more traditional villain vibe. Usually, those character-driven actors just let loose and really ham it up in projects like this...
The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010) in Movies ·
briskbison41 said:This one's gonna be a blast. I've always had a soft spot for movies in this genre, so... 😁

I think there might already be a thread about this film, though I can't say for sure...

I've been digging around trying to find it since there's already a ton of info out there, but no luck yet. As for the movie itself—it's definitely on my watchlist. Cage looks pretty relaxed here, which usually means he'll be actually fun to watch, kind of like in some of his other stuff...
The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010) in Movies ·
image image

The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010)

Trailer

Balthazar Blake (Nicolas Cage) is a master sorcerer in modern-day Manhattan Trying to defend The City fra his arch-nemesis, Maxim Horvath (Alfred Molina). Balthazar can't do it alone, so he recruits Dave Stutler (Jay Baruchel), a seemingly average guy who demonstrates hidden potential, as his reluctant protégé. The sorcerer gives his unwilling accomplice a crash course in the art and science of magic, and together, these unlikely partners work to stop the forces of darkness. It'll taka All The courage daviti Can muster to survive his training, save the city and get the girl as he becomes The Sorcerer's Apprentice

Basically—you've got this older wizard grabbing some young, totally average dude with untapped potential to be his student and sidekick in a showdown against another evil sorcerer.

There’s an old saying—if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Honestly, that kind of applies here too. The same crew behind those two hits National Treasure is back at it with something new. We've got Jon Turteltaub directing (yeah, the guy from National Treasure), Nicolas Cage starring—who, let's face it, has been churning out movies at lightning speed lately following his bankruptcy drama—and the mastermind behind it all is Jerry Bruckheimer, who's basically become Cage's go-to guy. The fresh addition is the stunning Monica Bellucci, while Alfred Molina plays the guy we're probably gonna hate. From what I can tell looking at the trailer, we can expect a fantasy spectacle, a total CGI overload, some shallow but fun humor, and... yeah, that's about it. At least until the movie actually drops. Which should be fine—Cage is usually pretty likable in these action flicks, Molina's a solid actor, Bellucci looks great, and Bruckheimer usually delivers exactly what you expect when you see his name. The one downside? The timing... it's hitting theaters right when fantasy epics are everywhere, so it might just end up being another face in the crowd.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see how it pans out

image image image
image image image
Title Sequence in Movies ·
Jeffrey Howard79 said:So, looking back at the first Batman movie... Prince's music... man, what can you even say about that? It's just on another level..

It’s Danny Elfman, obviously. You hear that Batman theme kicking in right as the camera starts its slow glide around the edges of the Batman logo... honestly, a pretty solid way to kick things off.
Supporting Actors in Movies ·
Dennis Doyle3 said:image

James Cromwell

-L.A. Confidential, -Eraser, -Babe(1, 2), -Deep Impact, -Romeo is Bleeding, -Pink Cadillac, -The People v.... Larry Flynt, -Robot, -The General's Daughter, -W, -Spider-Man 3, -Surrogates, -The Sum of All Fears, -The Longest Yard, -The Queen, -The Green Mile, -Salem's Lot, -Space Cowboys

image

As the inventor of the Warp drive, Zefram Cochrane... man, that's just l-e-g-e-n-d-a-r-y 🙏
Supporting Actors in Movies ·
Anthony Smith3 said:I’d personally go with that trio—Tom Sizemore, David Morse, and Bill Paxton... though I can probably think of a few other names if I tried harder.

But man, I still remember those days when you'd see those three popping up in every other movie, usually playing one of those supporting roles that actually made the film interesting.

It’s probably only been a month or two since I went on a bit of a war movie binge, and honestly, Sizemore’s got quite the Hat Trick going with Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbor, and Falling Black Hawk. He even crossed paths with William Fichtner in both Pearl Harbor and Falling Black Hawk—neither were lead roles, obviously, but they really stood out from all the pretty-boy actors making up the main cast. It’s a shame Krunoslav Šarić hasn't landed any massive, standout roles lately... he was easily one of the most charismatic guys in American cinema.
Supporting Actors in Movies ·
So, what defines a "movie star"? It’s one of those things that really depends on who you ask... but my personal picks aren't going to be found on any lists of the wealthiest, most successful, or most famous names out there. Honestly, most people in the industry are hard to pin down by their actual names—you mostly just recognize their faces—but they show up in projects that absolutely shake up the cinematic world (for better or worse), and more often than not, they end up being the only redeeming quality of the whole damn movie. For me, these character actors are usually the reason I even bother sitting through a film... because I know that no matter how shallow or messy the material is, their performance is always going to be top-tier. So, putting aside all those massive, overhyped, pampered, gorgeous, and untouchable A-listers... I want to know who your favorites are. Who are the guys that make you actually stick around even when some hated "lead" is driving the show?
My personal shortlist...

image image image image
image image image image

Liev Schreiber
Gary Sinise
William Fichtner
Tom Sizemore
David Morse
Bill Paxton
Krunoslav Šarić
Michael Wincott

...though I could probably keep this list going forever. This is just a tiny sampling of actors who have credits in movies I wouldn't even give a second glance if they weren't in them...
Independence Day vs. War of the Worlds in Movies ·
Anyway—might as well weigh in since the topic is right here 😁 Independence Day—there really isn’t much of a debate to be had. Why? It’s basically just a massive love letter to those absolute bangers from the 50s and 60s... it’s spectacular in that simple, popcorn-munching, "turn your brain off" kind of way. It’s funny without trying too hard to be, and just sentimental enough that you actually find yourself getting sucked into the plot and rooting for the good guys. packed with big-name actors and recognizable faces—honestly, it’s the perfect flick for any lazy, sunny afternoon. For pure entertainment—8/10
Armageddon vs Deep Impact in Movies ·
Susan Nguyen71 said:Maybe you could group more movies with the same theme—you know, like the end of the world—and run a poll? We could throw in stuff like 2012, Armageddon vs Deep Impact, Hard Hit, Core, and things like that so everyone can vote... then we’d actually see the true consensus and what people here really think about those kinds of flicks. (Just a suggestion)

Disaster movie - Movies - Already did that one... 🙂
Chaos on Brest Street! in Movies ·
gentlebadger88 said:First off, I wasn't reading comments with my friend; we just hopped on the forum after the theater to see what people were saying about the movie, and my buddy goes, "Oh, I read this on IMDb," and found the link immediately. So stop talking nonsense and twisting my words. It's obvious you're doing this because it looks like everything you wrote was just run through a translator. As for the burnt face thing, obviously I've seen it—I've seen enough in my professional life—so I don't get why there's such a big deal over some doll, an alien, or whatever other nonsense. Regarding the cast, that kid who seemed obsessed with not being in the movie was unlikable to me too (if I remember right, he's the one from > and >), while the lead actor was okay. He's not >, but still... They definitely could have finished the series without this version and wrapped it up with a solid seven installments (not counting that trash >) but hey, the movie is decent enough with plenty of scenes and shocks (whatever, to each their own ☕). Honestly, I think people are overreacting and trashing it in such vague ways. Not to mention half the people in the theater didn't even watch the movie; they were just squirming in their seats and then trashed it online afterward. That's not just happening with this movie; it happens with truly great movies all the time. One thing about this movie I REALLY HATE, though, is how incredibly stupid it is. If I remember correctly from the old series, Freddy was the killer whose parents burned him alive in revenge. Here, it turns out he was just some farmer who kidnapped kids and dragged them into a basement to assault them in every way possible, causing physical injuries, and somehow—using some weird logic—all the kids had repressed memories, like total amnesia for that entire period, regarding both Freddy and the events. None of them remembered a single thing. That makes zero sense to me 🤷.

Anyway—sorry for the rough start, but you're the one who claimed my comment was just a translation. And I'm not talking nonsense—I actually sat down and went through the whole series right before this new installment came out, and I gave a detailed breakdown of what worked and what didn't—feel free to check it yourself, including how my take is the total opposite of what the "experts" think (especially regarding the third one). As for that "obviously you did this" line—that's just a baseless assumption on your part. An article dropped here on the site just two minutes before my post that covered almost the exact same ground... so yeah, clearly multiple people noticed the same things 🤷 I really don't get the drama—from what I can tell, your comparison to IMDb and my actual comment only share some tiny detail about Freddy—the rest of it doesn't even relate... anywhere. And while we're at it, let's settle this debate about his look—it's not even about the aesthetic itself, it's more about him being overexposed, having unoriginal dialogue, and lacking any real depth in terms of characterization (and yeah, I agree it's ridiculous to frame him as a pedophile since that's totally irrelevant—Freddy's always been a kid killer, plain and simple)—plus all those other "changes." Personally, I thought it was almost funny because he looked like some sort of alien caricature...🤷 To be precise—the only commentary I actually stumbled upon was in a documentary about the series, and that's what I mentioned—how everyone from the original crew (Craven, Shaye) basically washed their hands of the remakes, while a few others were invited for cameos (Saxon) but turned them down because they just didn't see the point.
Chaos on Brest Street! in Movies ·
gentlebadger88 said:I see you're quite the expert at English since you managed to find bad reviews on IMDb and translate them into American instead of providing an actual argument of your own 👎. My friend caught onto that immediately while we were reading these comments at my place after seeing the movie in theaters.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1179056/...&p=1#163453908
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1179056/...3362#163263362

You’re probably one of those people who approaches horror remakes with this attitude of: "I already know this is going to be garbage based on a trailer that dropped months ago," and then you go ahead and watch the movie anyway 🙄 with that exact same chip on your shoulder. As for comparing Twilight fans to whatever this is... honestly, I'm just not going there. I don't want to get a lifetime ban for what I'd actually say about that comparison. Look, in most cases, the originals are better—like Halloween or Friday the 13th—and yeah, that's true here too, but the movie isn't actually that bad. By the way, if you think the character looks like a doll or something (which is such a cliché thing to say, let's be real), have you ever actually seen a real burned face in person? Do you even know what that looks like? And regarding everyone being unlikable... looking at Katie Cassidy and your comment, one has to wonder 🤣. The lead actor really nailed the performance (honestly, I don't know who could play him better RIGHT NOW, since we can't expect old Robert Englund to act forever). The atmosphere is genuinely solid, there's blood up to your knees, and jump scares every few minutes, but I guess people expected too much and kept comparing it back to the original, so it just didn't land the way they wanted.

🤦 So you have to read comments with a friend just to figure out what you'd say? Not me. Whatever's on my mind goes straight to the keyboard...

You're probably one of those people who watches horror remakes thinking, "I already know this is going to be trash based on a trailer that dropped months ago," and then walks into the theater with that exact attitude 🙄.

🤦

briskhound2 said:image

New poster just dropped. Even without Englund, the flick doesn't look half bad based on the trailer—though it feels like they ripped off bits from pretty much every great entry in the franchise... still, fingers crossed it actually works 🙂

To quote myself again—everything I said was basically what I expected just from looking at the trailer.

As for that comparison between Twilight fans and this movie, I'll pass on commenting because I'll probably get a lifetime ban for what I'd actually say. And yeah, for me, the originals are usually better most of the time (like Halloween or Friday the 13th), and it's the same here, but still, the movie isn't all that bad.

Please, go ahead—I'm dying to hear your take (just give me the censored version)—because when I see characters who are basically just "emo" types whose whole vibe relies on looks and brooding stares, I've seen enough. BTW—The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and The Last House on the Left are way better than their originals—the classics aren't holy scripture. A bad movie is just a bad movie.

Btw, if you think the guy looks like a doll or something (which is a total cliché, but alright), have you ever actually seen a burned face in real life to know how it looks?

Seriously, I get it. You know what I mean?

The atmosphere itself is actually pretty solid—lots of blood, gore, and jump scares every few minutes—but honestly, people probably expected too much and just kept comparing it to the original, so it didn't land nearly as well...

And that’s supposed to be "good horror"—just endless blood and cheap shocks every five seconds? Not really my thing. To add to that—the real magic and charm of the old Nightmare films was that you never quite knew if you were watching a dream or reality... that's where the actual tension lived. This one doesn't have that at all. It’s not just missing; it’s almost like they’re shouting, "Pay attention! This is a DREAM now, so get ready for Freddy to jump out." If that's cool to someone—hey—good for them. It just isn't for me.
Chaos on Brest Street! in Movies ·
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) Why? image I have to say something about this one—it’s pretty much impossible to find anything good here—this movie is an absolute train wreck. To start with the good stuff—which won't take long—you get that iconic melody (thank God they didn't turn it into some hip-hop remix), and a few dream sequences actually have a decent atmosphere, and... yeah, that's about it.

What really fails is—well, the total butchering of the original. Every single character is so unlikable that you’re practically rooting for Freddy's knives to find them... they're irritating to a degree you rarely see in cinema. Everyone is trying so hard to be "trendy," like they're from some Sex and the City wannabe generation, all the cool poses and looks—it's almost unwatchable. Nancy has basically turned into Bella Swan from Twilight, some weird school geek who's—well, you know—in some kind of mess, and Glen is just a loser, some hip-hop kid type replacing what should have been a Johnny Depp vibe... everyone is acting all edgy and depressed and "alternative," like they've already dealt with nightmare issues and know everything... and half of them look like they just wandered off the set of Melrose Place. Then there's the fact that the whole movie is just a patchwork of scenes ripped from the original. They swapped roles around, so now Tina / Kriss is the one with the massive classroom scene (since Nancy doesn't even exist in this version). That famous ceiling slaughter scene—I mean, how do you even mess that up? Basically, Tina / Kriss is FLYING across the ceiling like Spider-Man—one quick cut (softened, apparently, so we don't ruin the lead actress's hair)—and that's it. The rest is just stacking stupidity on top of stupidity and straight-up copying entire sequences from the original...

As for Freddy Krueger—that's a whole other issue. Look, I have nothing against Jack Earl Haley as an actor, but this isn't the role for him—the guy is barely five feet tall and thin, and all the other actors tower over him. His voice is a chronic rasp, a pathetic attempt at imitating Englund's intonation (kudos to the writers, though, since they didn't give him a single smart line like the old Freddy had) and when that fails, he just drifts into a Ledger-style Joker vibe. And the look? It's a joke. Freddy ended up looking like some little gray cartoon alien—his face literally reminds me of those caricatures. He carries himself like a wet hen—there's none of that "I'm gonna slice you up, kid" swagger left... honestly, I regret watching the original series before this because this version of Freddy is just... well, it says a lot about the movie that Wes Craven, Robert Shaye, Robert Englund, and everyone else who built the first film wouldn't want any association with this mess.

So—this movie is for the generation that turned Twilight into some hazy blockbuster hit. The characters are tailor-made to mimic that specific vibe—the new Jesse is basically Edward Cullen with that exact stare and look... the horror is just there for show, you know, just so those kids can feel like they're dealing with "real problems"... it's ugly, just plain ugly what they did to this film. Michael Bay should probably be legally banned from touching classic franchises because he always manages to screw them up completely. A massive, highly generous score of 2/10
Chaos on Brest Street! in Movies ·
image

Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy (2010)

An eight-hour documentary— 🙏 finally review all works. Four hours are just one continuous stretch, then the rest is made up of these split-up extras, extended interviews, location visits with the cast showing how everything looks today... it's all there. All the big players from the franchise (Wes Craven, Robert Shaye, Robert Englund, Renny Harlin... you name it) talk about the process, the concepts, the scripts, how they pulled things off, what went down on set, and how the public actually reacted to the series—it’s basically all in one spot. Johnny Depp and Patricia Arquette aren't there in person, but it honestly works without them (Depp shows up via some old footage from the movie). The best part—when they discuss how the second film was such a hit in Europe and show the American cover for the film. For any fans out there, this is essential viewing... just a must-watch.

The extras are pretty interesting, though maybe a bit mid—some cool fan stuff, some locations that haven't changed at all—but still, it wraps the whole thing up nicely. 10/10