Posts by briskhound2

rustyscout34 said:but there aren't any werewolves in Daybreakers... 🤔

Nah...

It’s an interesting enough flick, though it feels a bit thin in places—like they hit all the marks but didn't really dig deep. The actors clearly showed up and did their jobs, but nobody's really breaking out into Oscar-winning territory... you can definitely tell they were working with a pretty tight budget, though I guess it didn't turn into the total disaster it could've been. It’s a decent watch with a few genuinely fresh takes on vampire lore (I mean, if that Twilight crap can make up its own rules about physics, anyone else can find better ways to reinvent the wheel)... That cure for vampirism 🤣 — actually makes a weird amount of sense.

Honestly, it wasn't even that hard to top the original—the movie is pretty "dense," if that's the right word... it’s not exactly straightforward, almost feels like a piece of anti-government propaganda at times, all wrapped up in this story about an "occupation" of a small town. Plus, some parts can be a real drag. From what I could gather, they were working with a tiny budget, which shows in certain key scenes where the lack of explanation just leaves you with a total WTF feeling. For me personally, it’s definitely one of Romero's weaker efforts, though maybe it's worth checking out before the remake just to get the vibe right...

The trailers look killer—I mean, they added so much pacing compared to the original foundation that modern audiences probably won't have much to complain about there. I've also been reading around that it's starting to pull some decent reviews (though it's a bit silly how people are reviewing it before it even hits wide release), so I'm holding my breath for now... just waiting for a solid torrent upload so we can actually talk about it properly. 😬

I guess it’s a little early to be dropping full reviews since the movie just hit theaters, but let's leave this thread up—it'll probably pick up some steam eventually... 🙂 Honestly, I rewatched Romero's original a few days ago and it just didn't quite click for me—don't get me wrong, there are some solid scenes in there, but the whole thing felt kind of underwhelming overall...

rustyscout34 said:this thread already exists - click 😉
actually a killer movie! 👍

Thanks—I haven't really scrolled past page five yet (the search bar was being pretty useless) but I noticed this thread’s been sitting here for a minute, so figured I’d give it a little bump... 🙂

Session 9 (2001) - IMDb

Session 9 - Trailer

So, I finally sat down to watch this... it's a solid psychological thriller with some heavy horror vibes—some people even call it straight-up horror—but I’d been putting it off forever. Honestly, I just didn't think the premise sounded all that original, even if the cast had some big names attached (though, let's be real, the acting wasn't always up to their usual level). My own biases definitely played a part here... probably just being burnt out from all those similar movies lately—you know, the whole Paranormal Activity wave—that ended up being a total waste of time. Anyway, since there wasn't much else to do last night, I decided to fix my mistake. Long story short? It actually blew me away.

The setup is pretty simple—a crew of contractors gets hired to clear out a section of an old, shuttered mental asylum (basically ripping out asbestos tiles), and things start getting weird. What keeps it from being just another mediocre flick is how they handle the characters... they're actually interesting, and the acting is decent enough—David Caruso is surprisingly solid when he's given actual room to work with. Plus, it avoids those typical slasher tropes and cheap jumpscares, opting instead to lean into the psychological side of things. Instead of gallons of blood, you get these eerie empty hallways and crumbling rooms... there's this part where a character finds recordings from a past session with a former patient that really stands out. It's also a huge plus that it doesn't constantly talk to the audience or rely on "BOO!" moments; it stays vague, which makes the final, relatively unexpected twist feel totally natural and well-constructed... quite intriguing, actually.

If I had to nitpick, you can tell the movie was originally intended to be something else entirely. The framing sometimes suggests a different vibe than what's actually happening on screen, and you can definitely see the tight budget at play—there's some improvisation in certain spots and a few missing explanations (which isn't a dealbreaker if you aren't the type who needs every single detail spelled out for them). Some of the dialogue also leans you toward thinking the story is heading in one direction, when it's clearly aiming elsewhere... it just feels like parts of it were meant for a completely different film.

I have to give credit where it's due, though—the biggest win here is that it was filmed on location at the actual Danvers asylum, which obviously helped with the low budget 🙂 and makes everything feel incredibly authentic once you see it. It's a shame they didn't use more exterior shots, but even what we get is enough to give the whole thing a sense of weight and quality.



Definitely worth a look if you're into psychological thrillers or horror.

If John Travolta really thinks this is how you jumpstart a career, he might as well just call it quits... The movie is fun for a split second—maybe a couple of decent lines—but after that, it’s just a massive waste of time. The twists come at you one after another, the plot is painfully predictable, and the action? Just messy, weak, and honestly... nothing. I see the Box Office numbers tanked too—well, can't say I'm surprised. Compared to how much of a dud Pelham was, it's still a masterpiece next to this mess.

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 🙂

Just another pretty face without any real substance to back it up—honestly, I don't even have a reason to vote since pretty much everything she’s been in has been a total dud. I wasn't planning on weighing in, but adding these post-production titles to lists like this feels pretty pointless... I mean, sure, maybe in two years someone will be looking back and actually wanting to cast a vote (or maybe they'll even make something worth watching by then), but at the end of the day, these lists just get refreshed anyway.

graniteheron132 said:Hey, can we get a poll going here... who’s actually the best Van Helsing? 🙂🍿

Interesting thought—though I don't think we should just pigeonhole it to Van Helsing...

Blacula (1972)

Dracula just isn't really Dracula without his own little trashy spin-off version 🤣

quietdriver3 said:Indiana Jones, obviously. I just wish they'd split them up into a trilogy and then a fourth one, I guess. 🙂

I thought about splitting them all up, but honestly, it felt like a bit much—too many categories... But this setup works—you can actually point out which part beats the other (though personally, I don't really differentiate with the Jones flicks🙂)—which is something I totally forgot to mention back when I was explaining why I lumped the trilogies and series together.

Cahit, I'm right there with you—The Goonies hits home for purely emotional reasons😍... For me, if we're talking personal picks—it's Jones based on "official" rules, mostly because nothing else quite captures that adventure spirit and they're just damn fun to watch—The Deep was probably the first movie I ever saw, so it holds a special little spot in my collection given the subject matter... and National Treasure ended up being way more fun than I expected—just a solid, easy watch—even if the sequel is easily twice as bad.

Treasure Island (1950)
Treasure Island (1990)

Most of those > flicks could easily fit into this whole saga, but honestly... trying to cover all of them would just be way too much work. I did make a few small exceptions for two war movies that have that classic heist vibe baked in—but since they’re shot more like adventure films than straight-up crime thrillers, I figured they still belong in this lineup...

So yeah, that's pretty much it 🙂

The Librarian series
The Librarian series
The Librarian: Curse of the Judas Chalice
The Quest (1996)
The Rundown (2003)
The Mummy (1999)
The Mummy Returns (2001)
The Mummy series and Treasure of the Sierra Madre
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
Three Kings (1999)

Into the Blue
Kelly's Heroes
National Treasure
National Treasure: Book of Secrets
Sahara
Romancing the Stone
The Jewel of the Nile
The Da Vinci Code
The Deep
The Goonies

The Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy... specifically that first one, the Curse of the Black Pearl... man, it’s still such a blast to watch. It’s got that perfect mix of swashbuckling energy and just enough supernatural grit to keep things interesting—definitely holds up way better than most modern blockbusters I see popping up lately.
So, I was thinking about the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy again—specifically that middle chapter, Pirates of the Caribbean: dead Man's Chest... man, looking back, there’s just something about how they captured that swashbuckling energy, even if things got a little wilder than the first one. It’s one of those movies that stays with you, kind of like how you feel after watching a high-stakes heist film or something involving a massive search for lost loot... just leaves you wanting more. Still holds up pretty well in my book...
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
So, I was thinking back to that 2001 version of Tomb Raider starring Lara Croft... honestly, it’s one of those movies that just hits different when you look back at it now. It’s got that specific early-2000s energy—you know the vibe—where everything feels a bit more earnest and less polished than the big blockbusters we get today. It’s definitely not trying to be some deep philosophical masterpiece, but there's something about that era of action flicks that works... even if it's a little rough around the edges. It’s basically just a high-octane ride through ancient mysteries and ruins, kind of like watching a live-action version of an old-school adventure game. Not exactly high art, but hey, sometimes you just want to see someone dodge traps and punch their way through a mystery... turns out, it still holds up better than most of the CGI-heavy stuff they're churning out lately.
So, I was thinking about Lara Croft and that whole Tomb Raider and The Count of Monte Cristo vibe... specifically looking back at Tomb Raider and The Count of Monte Cristo (2003)... and man, some of these adventure flicks just hit different, you know? It’s one of those movies where you can almost feel the dusty, high-stakes energy through the screen—kind of like if you mixed a bit of Indiana Jones with a modern action flick... anyway, just some random late-night thoughts on how they handled the action and that specific era of adventure cinema... it's wild how much things have changed since then...
So, I finally sat down and revisited The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)... and man, it really holds up. It’s one of those movies that just hits different when you're looking for that perfect blend of high-stakes revenge and old-school cinematic flair. You know, that specific vibe where everything feels epic but also deeply personal... It’s got that sweeping, dramatic energy—sort of reminds me of how people obsess over the National Treasure trilogy, but with way more grit and much less slapstick. Instead of hunting for clues in dusty basements, you've got this intense, calculated descent into vengeance that keeps you hooked from the jump. The pacing is solid too; it doesn't rush the transformation, which is key because you need to actually feel the weight of what Edmond lost before he becomes... well, the Count. I was thinking about what briskhound2 said the other day regarding period pieces, and honestly, they were onto something. A lot of modern stuff tries too hard to be "gritty" by being dark and muddy, but this movie finds that sweet spot of elegance and brutality. It’s not just a mindless action flick like some of those newer adventure movies—it actually cares about the soul of the character... if that makes sense. Anyway, if you haven't seen it in a while, or if you're just looking for something with a bit more substance than your typical summer blockbuster, give it a spin. It’s a classic for a reason... definitely worth the watch.
Cutthroat Island and Firewalker... man, looking back at that one is always such a trip. It’s one of those movies that just feels like it belongs to a different era of Hollywood, you know? Like, it had all the ingredients for a massive hit—big budget, high stakes, plenty of action—but somehow it just didn't quite land the way people expected. Still, I can't help but feel a little nostalgic for it... there was something about that specific kind of swashbuckling energy that you just don't see much anymore.
Firewalker (1986)... you know, I was just thinking about that one lately—it’s such a weird little relic of its era. It’s got that specific kind of mid-80s energy that you just don't see anymore... almost like watching a fever dream captured on film. You can tell they were really trying to capture that sense of adventure, aiming for something in the vein of Cutthroat Island and Firewalker, but it ends up being its own strange, isolated thing. It doesn't quite hit those high-octane notes you might expect, but there's a certain charm to how messy and unpolished it feels... just a bit of a trip if you catch it at the right time.
So, I was thinking about Fool's Gold again... that 2008 flick with Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson. It’s one of those movies that just kind of exists in this weird space where you know exactly what you're getting, yet you still find yourself watching it when you're bored on a Sunday afternoon... It’s basically your classic high-seas adventure, sort of leaning into that vibe you get from movies like Romancing the Stone or even some of the more lighthearted Treasure Island adaptations. You've got the whole "searching for lost riches" trope, which honestly works pretty well because the chemistry between the leads is actually decent—even if the plot is thinner than a slice of deli ham... I mean, it doesn't try to be anything groundbreaking. It isn't trying to be a deep Dan Brown mystery or an intense Indiana Jones adventure... it’s just breezy, sun-drenched, and full of that specific brand of early 2000s optimism. It’s definitely more of a popcorn movie than something like The Da Vinci Code, but sometimes you don't want a puzzle to solve—you just want to see people chasing shiny things in beautiful locations... It’s funny how these types of films stay in the back of your mind. It’s not exactly a cinematic masterpiece, but it’s got a certain charm that keeps it from being totally forgettable... just a fun little ride through the blue...
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)... just a classic.

You could easily toss the original The Count of Monte Cristo onto this list without any hassle—but I actually pulled it off just because that whole bit about the hidden treasure, and the actual discovery of it, felt a little underwhelming... I mean, let's be real, it was a TV movie with a pretty modest budget, so it didn't exactly go all out. The remake—or just calling it a fresh version—really handles that specific part way better, making everything feel much more vivid and visually engaging...

Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom (1984)
Indiana Jones and Last Crusade (1989)
Indiana Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
King Solomon's Mines (1985)
Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold (1986)
King Solomon's Mines (1950)
Long Xiong HU di (1987)
Fei ying gai wak (1991)

Diamonds, pearls, rubies, gold bars, forgotten cities, biblical artifacts, sunken ships, pirate hoards, those yellowed maps with an "X" marking the spot... and traps that stay lethal even after three hundred years of sitting around—basically, the whole "searching for lost treasure from a bygone era" thing isn't exactly a new concept... even if it really started finding its footing back in the 70s and especially during the 80s. But honestly? These stories still hook audiences everywhere. It’s a genre pattern that doesn't look like it's going anywhere anytime soon—I mean, you hear rumors almost daily about some fifth installment being filmed for the adventures of Professor/Archaeologist Indiana Jones, negotiations have kicked off for a new screen adaptation of the latest Dan Brown bestseller, the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise just can't seem to get moving or finally wrap up the trilogy once and for all, and then there's Nicolas Cage openly wishing his decent—if a bit middle-of-the-road—but commercially solid National Treasure trilogy could actually happen (and I wouldn't bet against it)... so yeah, one corner of the adventure genre definitely has a bright future ahead of it, not to mention a pretty legendary past...

So—even though these are all movies I genuinely love and have revisited plenty of times—I actually started digging into this whole topic after finishing that book by Gradimir Radivojević—Great search for sunken treasure (it’s a beautiful edition, honestly a nightmare to find in the States)... and I was pretty floored by how many people have stumbled upon totally accidental discoveries, like shipwrecks, galleons, or old sailing vessels, and pulled in massive hauls. Specifically—and this part is kind of wild—the movie The Deep is actually based on a real case (with some fictionalized flair) where a WWII wreck ended up sitting right on top of an old Spanish galleon, and some amateur divers ended up pulling in millions... This exact setup has been used in at least three different movies, but who's counting? Does this genre pull people in because it promises that quick "get rich quick" thrill, or is it more about the intrigue of uncovering things lost to time... or maybe just the fact that this stuff actually happens in real life? I'm curious what you guys think if you're into these kinds of flicks—which one stuck with you the most?

Just a heads-up—I grouped the trilogies and series together to save everyone from endless scrolling through the poll. There's a good chance I missed something, so definitely drop your recommendations in the comments. You can vote for more than one option, so don't feel like you have to pick just one...

As always—have fun with it.

So, what’s the deal with the sequel to Baptize Papić's "Savior"? Was it called Royal Legacy or Infection—I think the title swapped between those two at some point—starring Leon Lučev and Lucija Šerbeđija... or whoever they were. Word on the street was that there was actually some decent cash poured into the production too. Does anyone know if this thing ever actually hit screens, or is it just sitting in some dusty archive somewhere?

cosmiclynx57 said:In what way is she better? You mean like she hasn't really tapped into her full potential or talent yet?

I guess she just needs more solid projects under her belt—she kills it in comedies, can hold her own in action flicks, and has that whole "strong woman" vibe down... but looking at her filmography, it feels like she’s kind of just drifting through nothing special. It seems like she gets more headlines for her husband's appetites than for her actual acting career...

Jbt - honestly, I thought she’d passed away or something... She’s definitely one of those actresses who is easy on the eyes, though I can't help but feel her career could’ve gone a bit further than it did. Anyway—Bad Boys—when a little blonde girl outshines both lead actors with her comedic timing, you know you're watching something actually decent.