I can't believe we're still talking about this, honestly. It’s like when you're watching a classic thriller and you see that one tiny, subtle clue that everyone else misses, but you just *know* it's going to lead to something massive later on. You know what I mean? It feels like we're standing on the edge of something big, almost like that tension you get right before the opening credits roll in an old noir film. I've been sitting here thinking about how all these different threads are starting to weave together, much like how a complex plot thickens in a great mystery novel, and it really makes you wonder where the whole thing is actually headed. kaže: I still find myself thinking about this even today:
I’ve gotta say, I think the series actually outdid the movie by a mile.
That one scene where the kid flips through the photo album, and then—bam—blood drips right onto his brother's picture, only for that clown character to pop up and start twitching around like something out of a fever dream? Man, talk about a chill down your spine. Absolute nightmare fuel.
Which movie are we talking about? They only seem to be making films these days... anyway, the series is pretty decent—got a few solid hits in there if you're looking.
When you’re looking for pure, gritty realism, I always go back to that opening sequence in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake—man, that part is killer. You’ve got this journalist coming down the stairs, the whole thing shot in black and white, giving it this heavy, antique vibe... then you've got water up to your knees and spiders everywhere crawling around skulls. It feels less like a movie and more like some ancient, cursed crime scene footage you weren't supposed to find... brrrr.
Ghost Rider is one of those movies that had all the potential to be something akin to Hellboy, but man, it just didn't even come close. It mostly boils down to Nicolas Cage and some seriously sluggish—and I mean incredibly lazy—scriptwriting. You get a little bit of a lift from legends like Peter Fonda and Sam Elliott, but only when they’re actually on screen, and honestly, it's just because they have these charismatic faces that could eat Nicolas Cage for breakfast... and he's a decent actor, really, he just gets completely lost in these massive big-budget productions where he stops actually acting. Even though Daredevil took a lot of heat back in the day for being a bad movie—which was way overblown, or maybe just for the wrong reasons—Rider actually deserves most of its bad reviews. The only way you can justify it is by looking at the box office, grouping it with successful comic book adaptations, but we all know that's never been a real measure of quality.
The Shadow You totally missed him. He’s definitely underrated, but honestly? A solid watch. As far as the legends go though... you’ve gotta have Superman, Batman (Burton), and The Dark Knight. Oh, and Phantom... just a decent little flick...
wiredbison82 said:The versions of Freddy Krueger from 1984 and 1994 serve as the definitive pillars of modern horror; frankly, the rest of the sequels haven't held much water since their initial release, let alone by today's standards.
True, I’m right there with you thinking both of Wes Craven's entries are the peak of the franchise... though I’d give the third one a passing grade just because the original cast showed up, plus John Saxon has always been such an interesting B-movie icon to me. Everything else is fine from a production standpoint, I guess, but creatively? It’s pretty thin...
Back in the day, John Carpenter was actually lined up to direct Firestarter, and they were planning on having Darwin Joston—you know, the legendary Napoleon Wilson from his role in that Attack on the Police Station—take on the part that eventually went to George C. Scott. He ended up dropping out after The Thing didn't exactly kill it at the box office, but man... nowadays you can't help but wonder how that whole project would've turned out if it had been handled by a true master instead of just a journeyman like Mark L. Lester.
Henry Lee84 said:Back when they were gearing up to shoot the latest James Bond flick, Casino Royale, Quentin Tarantino was actually on the shortlist. He’s always been obsessed with the idea of tackling 007 himself... but apparently, the higher-ups got spooked by his style and played it safe by picking some "reliable" director instead. I can't help but wonder what that movie would have looked like if Tarantino had actually taken the reins.
And then there's the rumor that Stanley Kubrick was actually looking into making a massive, high-budget porn... man, imagine. We really missed out on the greatest adult film ever made.😁
And honestly, maybe we dodged a bullet with that boring one 😁 Once upon a time, Steven Spielberg actually wanted to direct a Bond film, but then George Lucas basically handed him Indiana Jones instead. It’s kind of an open question here since Indiana... well, he's Indiana 😁 but I wouldn't put it past him to have crushed a Bond film too.
Speaking of Schwarzenegger and Ridley Scott... I remember reading somewhere a while back that the two of them were actually looking at doing a new take on "I Am Legend," which honestly would've been such a cool watch. Then you've got James Cameron—who, unfortunately, ended up dropping out of Spider-Man because of all that endless, drawn-out legal tug-of-war over the rights... he eventually just pivoted over to Titanic instead. Word is they were eyeing Michael Biehn for the lead role, too, which... man, that really would've been something special to see.
It’s honestly getting pretty obvious that Lev Schreiber is starting to steal every single scene he’s in. Even with blonde Bond right there, you barely even notice his acting because his character looks so incredibly washed out...
Do we even need to give a reason? Twilight — honestly, whoever directed it, I don't care. It was just incredibly dull—a horror/romance/sci-fi hybrid... or whatever they're calling it these days. After about an hour of the plot basically standing still—I mean, it’s pretty obvious to everyone in the movie that the guy is a vampire except for the lead girl—I just had to shut it off and find something else to watch...
Jonathan Cox4 said:Can someone help me out here? 🙂 How many installments are there in total?
So, you've got six parts following the "current timeline," then there's that seventh installment called Wes Craven's New Nightmare, and finally the eighth one—which is basically just a mashup of Freddy Vs Jason... yeah, eight parts total.
cosmicraven2 said:The film actually cost $50 million. Speed Racer had a $120 million budget.
A bit more manageable, I guess. Anthony Smith3 got the numbers wrong though 😁 Either way, I've just got this nagging feeling they won't even claw back half of what they sank into this...
It’s basically a budget version of Indiana Jones, but honestly, it’s got enough charm that you can just kick back and have a good time with it... The humor actually lands, and the casting isn't half bad either. Noah Wyle does a pretty solid job stepping outside his usual ER vibe. I'm moving on to the third one next.
So, looking back at guys like Corey Feldman and Corey Haim... there was definitely a window where they were both massive icons—props to Feldman for pulling off two huge hits in a row—but the other guy? Kiefer Sutherland has actually been around the block forever. You’ve seen him in *Young Guns*, *Flatliners*, or *A Time To Kill*... he’s always been working. It’s just that *24* is really what turned him into a household name and made his career super lucrative—think along the lines of *Mirrors*, *Phone Booth*, or even that *Monsters vs. Aliens* flick. He didn't exactly pull a disappearing act like a child star such as Haley Joel Osment did...
Since we're already talking about this... might as well weigh in 😁 This Disney is an absolute train wreck. The first half kind of holds its own—the war scenes are solid, the house setting works, all that stuff—but after that, it just goes downhill fast. In the book *Little John*, things get way darker... like, Hannibal eats a meal and realizes by pure accident that his sister was the one on the menu because he spots her teeth in the toilet or something... but the movie ignores that depth. Instead, the final act feels like some cheap comic book nonsense—just constant sword swinging and mindless action that’s honestly exhausting to watch. I was basically counting the minutes until it finally ended.
Even when we’re talking about those $200 million or so budgets where everything is supposed to be polished like a Hollywood blockbuster... ninety percent of that cash just vanishes into special effects, so every single movie ends up being flawless on that front. It's basically ordered and delivered. Apparently, James Cameron burned through $250 million on Titanic, and back then, neither Leonardo DiCaprio nor Kate Winslet were the kind of A-list elites pulling in $20 million per gig, so these massive spectacles suddenly discovered how to find hot water—they started hiring practically unknown people just to keep the overhead from spiraling. Transformers doesn't really have big stars either because all that money went straight into the VFX, which, let's be honest, are spectacular.
As for Bay and his smaller budget days, he did a brilliant job with the first Bad Boys since neither Will Smith nor Martin Lawrence were top-tier names at the time—and the movie itself, in terms of "spectacle," holds its own against something like Smart Weapon 4, which blew $150 million on and barely broke even... so the guy clearly hasn't lost his touch, he just hasn't stuck to that specific tone. And blaming a director for making bad movies just because his producers handed him $200 million... I mean 🙄 Transformers was built specifically for the American market; what he makes in the US isn't even enough to cover the catering for the crew, though looking at the posts, there are some people out there who seem to think Bay makes movies for them, or like he's doing them a favor by putting on a show.
