Posts by David Price5

silentpilot6 said:Honestly, I can't remember how it wrapped up 😬 because I gave up about two hours in... but from what I gathered, the whole thing runs about two and a half hours, which means I likely watched the "European" cut.

Actually, it looks like you didn't even finish the first one..

Runtime:
Singapore: 150 min (PG version) | China: 146 min | South Korea: 134 min for the first part..

silentpilot6 said:Wait, is there actually a second part? From what I recall, they only split it into two parts for the Asian market; everywhere else, it was released as one single movie...

I'm not sure which version you watched. How did your movie end? How long was the runtime?

You should really check out the second part as well. It features fewer "one-man army" fights, focusing instead on some truly excellent tactical maneuvers. I spent a little time reading up on this battle on Wikipedia; while they definitely took some creative liberties with the history, the core concept remains intact.

And here is a recommendation for you:

Battle of Wits—it isn't just about one person fighting a hundred; it’s all about the strategy...

So, based on this, they're fully aware of everything?

Anthony Smith3 said:A fan made trailer for Command Performance "featuring Dolph fucking Lundgren!" 😁 🤣

FAN MADE TRAILER

That link isn't working for you...

I was simply pointing out that it’s nothing more than pure propaganda. Given the typical Hollywood mindset and worldview, this kind of thing is hardly surprising during an election cycle...

Jerry Martin19 said:So, the screenwriter picks up an Oscar for the script and goes on about how this guy was his absolute hero because he fought for their rights and all that. Honestly, the whole movie feels like straight-up propaganda, which I’m not a fan of. It’s too targeted—you don't really get the freedom to look at the situation objectively as a viewer since they just serve you their specific take on the issue. And honestly, leaning that hard into the liberal angle shouldn't be used to steer the audience like that... it's just not right.

Isn't that just classic Hollywood?

Whether a remake turns out to be a hit or a total flop, it always ends up breathing new life into the original film. I suppose there’s definitely some value in that.

Jerry Martin19 said:Just wanted to ask you guys something. Why does everything in Odyssey have to be so grimy and filthy, trying way too hard to be "realistic" like in Blade Runner? What's the logic behind making a relatively new spaceship—built specifically to explore uncharted territory—look beat up and battered, like it just crawled out of some cosmic war zone? I mean, it’s not exactly Han Solo’s Millennium Falcon 🤷
...

That’s just the influence of Battlestar Galactica. If the ship isn't scuffed up, it isn't a real ship. 😁

Anthony Smith3 said:If I remember right, there's an elevator in that little chapel where they find the second entrance... and whether anyone survived or not depends on which version you watched—the American cut or the British one.😉

If we're being honest, regardless of which ending we watched, there was still a fighting chance at survival.To be fair, none of us have actually laid eyes on the bodies of Juno and sarin.)

Dennis Cook78 said:Hey everyone, I haven't actually worked up the nerve to watch that movie yet, even though I absolutely love a good horror flick. Since you all have been saying how terrifying it is, I think I'm eventually going to have to face it.

Plus, if you're watching a real horror movie in the dark, I'm usually...😉

Melissa Wilson2 said:The first part, the one without the "happy ending," actually had a perfect ending for what it was meant to be. I feel like for the sequel, they’ll probably expand the lore into something else entirely. It wouldn't surprise me if they introduce some new creatures, or maybe a queen bee type of thing, or just some random crazy twist that ruins the vibe. There's no way they'll just repeat the same story with different victims🤷.

P.S: analogcanyon10 is looking for a "happy ending," so they might be missing the point here.

He was probably watching the version with the happy ending. The movie is really only a minute or two shorter than this one. If you check out the synopsis, you'll see that the ending wraps up with a scene in a car.

Kate Baker3 said:Wait, are you kidding me? I didn't even realize this movie had two different endings until just now! Does anyone have a link for both versions? I need to see them side-by-side to figure out which one I actually watched, because the ending I saw left me feeling totally lost and confused... thanks...

(

Sarah then faces Juno, lifts her pickaxe as if to strike, and reveals that she has Juno’s pendant. Then Sarah swings the pickaxe at Juno. Juno makes no effort to avoid Sarah's attack and is impaled through the shin. Juno pulls the pickaxe from her leg and turns to face a large group of crawlers. As Sarah flees, she hears Juno’s screams, which abruptly fall silent. Sarah immediately stumbles down a hole and is knocked unconscious. Sarah awakens, scrambles up a huge pile of bones towards daylight, squeezes through a narrow opening onto the surface, runs to her vehicle and speeds off. Suddenly, Sarah sees Juno sitting next to her, her face streaked with tears of blood. Sarah screams and awakens to find herself still in the cavern. She sees her smiling daughter by her side and a birthday cake between them. The field of view widens to reveal that Sarah is hallucinating. The calls of the crawlers grow louder, but Sarah is oblivious.)If you saw the scene in the car as the final moment, you watched the shorter US version.

analogcanyon10 said:I’ve got a bad feeling about this one. Honestly, I highly doubt it’s going to land. The plot feels pretty shallow, and compared to the first movie, there isn't a shred of originality left. I mean, who in their right mind would ever go back into those caves after everything that went down? Such a shame.

There isn't even a return happening. They haven't even made it out of the cave yet, if we're looking at how the first movie ended.

Edward Hernandez332 said:No, this movie actually hit theaters here as Ring of Fire.
Honestly, calling it horror cave is a halfway decent translation, I guess...

http://www.filmski.net/filmovi/4187/vatreni_prsten

A group of adrenaline junkies finds themselves trapped in underground caves alongside monsters hungry to devour them.

Publisher/Distributor:
Lionsgate / Blitz film

Anthony Smith3 said:Great news for everyone who loves this movie... it’s finally getting a DVD release here through Continental film.

New DVD releases hitting [Continental] on February 4th.

HORROR CAVE - 20th Century Studios' Descent

Director: Neil Marshall

Cast: Shauna Macdonald, Natalie Jackson Mendoza, Alex Reid, Saskia Mulder

Six women head out to some remote part of the Appalachians for their annual extreme outdoor adventure, looking to explore a hidden cave deep in the woods. Everything goes south when a rockslide seals the entrance, leaving them trapped. They push deeper, praying there’s another way out, only to realize they aren't alone—something else is lurking down there. It turns into a brutal fight for survival as these friends become prey, forced to rely on pure instinct to survive an endless onslaught from something truly terrifying.

Wait, didn't they already release it under that ridiculous title "Ring of Fire"?

Edward Hernandez332 said:Sure, fine, but let’s be honest—without those creatures, we wouldn't even have half the fun we got from this movie.😉

I know... that's why this isn't just your run-of-the-mill survival horror. There’s actually some depth to it. :-)

Edward Hernandez332 said:When you say "supernatural," are you talking about the villains? Without them, the movie wouldn't be nearly as terrifying—not to mention we'd be missing out on the action. At least, that’s how I see it.

In my view, those villains are just catalysts. The heart of the story is really the conflict between Sarah and Juno. That seed of doubt planted in the opening minutes carries through to the very end. The monsters simply force their worst traits to the surface.

quietdriver3 said:Man, I don't even know what to add to this barrage of condescension and obsession with "intellect." I bet Bogo was handing out cards to Bel when the world was being created 😁 and whatever I write here isn't going to pierce through that ego armor of yours... Anyway, the point is, it's totally pointless to tear a horror movie apart based on logic, because logic is probably the genre's biggest enemy. Imagine going in and bashing Romer's zombie movies just because they break every known rule of medicine? It's ridiculous.
My issue with The Descent is that it gets way too ambitious with the supernatural stuff in the second half; it would've been much more interesting if it stayed in that survival horror lane without the monsters. My other gripe is the characterization of that cheating character.
But overall, it's a good movie.
As for H. T., I'm not looking for a debate about it (we already have a thread for that movie), I'm just mentioning it as a prime example of the mental gymnastics you're doing here. Because honestly, I'm afraid you might break your own neck if you stay this inconsistent with your stances. 😉

Which part felt supernatural to you?

granitehound19 said:That whole "beat him up first, then have my way with him" bit is straight out of the movie Lionheart 😉

I knew it... I actually watched that film during the war :-). Since the character he was fighting said it, I suppose it serves as some kind of director's tribute...