Posts by nimblemarlin6

Man, this second trailer just stirred up all these long-lost feelings—I am seriously counting down the days until I can finally catch this in a theater. Honestly, Tom Cruise is basically the James Bond we actually deserve.
From Top Gun: Maverick to this... it’s honestly fascinating how much life a 60-year-old can still pack into his schedule. Maybe there really is something to that Scientology thing after all...

Judging by the trailer alone, Meg 2 looks like it’s going to be way better than the first Meg.

I made it about halfway through before I called it quits.
I really wasn't looking to waste my afternoon on this.
Honestly, I think they missed the mark entirely.
I honestly can't tell who the target audience is supposed to be, let alone what genre we're even watching here.

Everything about this movie feels just... off. The cops don't act like any cliché police officers you'd see in a Hollywood thriller, and the mobsters feel like total nobodies—just aimless. The precinct is mostly filled with middle-aged, stout women and minorities, and none of them actually carry themselves like law enforcement. Then there's the mafia, which is run by a woman, and Renfield—who is supposedly hundreds of years old—acts like some clueless twenty-something trying to decorate his first apartment with cheap IKEA furniture because a self-help guru told him it was "on trend."

It’s clearly aiming for comedy or parody, but for whom? What is it even poking fun at? It’s like they're trying to satirize something, but when you consider how much we've been lacking good movies lately about Dracula, gritty police procedurals, or the struggles of Gen Z, the joke just falls flat.

Cage is fantastic as Dracula, though. He's the only one who actually deserves a solo movie.

So, let's say Adam Driver kicks the bucket—imagine a final scene where some 21st-century paleontologist unearths a human fossil that’s somehow 65 million years old.
That would have been pretty wild.

But the way it is now...

The fact that the setting is Earth doesn't actually move the needle on the plot at all.
They could have dropped them onto any damn planet filled with hazards.
Or even better—a world crawling with dangerous humanoids.
Honestly, they could've saved a fortune on CGI by just having them hunted by some guys with rifles in the wilderness... the story wouldn't have changed one bit.

A guy with a gun, a moody kid, and some dinosaurs.
The whole "man travels across a wasteland protecting a young girl" trope is ancient—like, prehistoric—but here, it’s just executed in such a dull, clumsy way.
The entire movie is basically them walking from Point A to Point B, getting ambushed by some creature along the way.
Then they either shoot it or run away, and they just keep moving.
New animal shows up... rinse and repeat... and that's the whole thing until the credits roll.

We've been staring at CGI dinosaurs since the mid-90s.
At this point, the novelty of seeing a big lizard on screen has completely evaporated.
You actually need to bring something more to the table than just digital scales.

And honestly? Don't waste your breath on that Gen Z version of The Last of Us.
It's a total non-starter—just a complete waste of time.

Betty Chase4 said:Actually, trash films go way further back than the ones you're bringing up. You've got the works of Herschell Gordon Lewis, and even before him, you had Ed Wood. Then moving into the 80s, you had Fred Olen Ray, plus classics like ''The Killer Shrews'' (1959), ''The Phantom fra 10,000 Leagues'' (1955), and ''Robot Monster'' (1953)... so this genre has been around much longer than people realize.
Roger Corman, TROMA, and The Asylum built entire empires on trash cinema—though, to be fair, Corman and TROMA did put out some legitimate films every now and then.

The definicija biti trebati for these movies is that they actually had some resources behind them, but because of an untalented director or just poor execution, they end up looking silly. Trash films can be a blast—for instance, I spent nearly three hours the other day at work watching ''Baby Oopsie 1-3''—but they become absolute snoozefests if they lack that sense of fun.

Now, these aren't trash:

"Grizzly" (1976), "The pack" (1977), "Piran" (1978), "aligator" (1980)...

They might look that way to someone today, but they aren't trash; they might just be bad or weak films. For context, ''Grizzly'' pulled in nearly 40 million dollars—until ''Halloween'' came along, it was actually the highest-grossing independent production at the box office.

A real trash film from that era would be something like ''Godmonster of Indian Flats'' (1973)... you only have to see the quality to tell the difference...
The fact that most of those movies had tiny budgets is a separate issue entirely. With these, you can actually see the effort put in to make everything look as good as possible.

Take ''Evil Dead'', for example—some people call it a trash film, but I don't see it that way.

I get this sense that back in the day, people weren't actually trying to make trash.
Even Ed Wood—as we saw in that biopic about him—actually considered himself a serious filmmaker.
And Corman—from what I've managed to watch of his, which isn't nearly enough, unfortunately—isn't really making trash, he's just making cheap exploitation flicks.

Low budgets, ripping off a cliché Hollywood blockbuster, and throwing untrained people at the camera—that's the recipe for garbage that happens to be fun. Eventually, people realized they actually enjoyed watching it... and only then did we enter this era where movies are intentionally designed from day one to be trash.

Nowadays, trash doesn't just emerge "organically" from a pile of bad filmmaking—it's a carefully calculated, pre-planned genre.
What would you even call that? Metatrash?

Here’s what people seem to be missing—those kinds of movies back in the 80s were actually taken seriously, at least by the kids watching them.
And honestly, maybe the directors making those horror flicks back then thought they were making legitimate cinema too.
They weren't sitting there beforehand telling themselves, "Alright, time to go make some total trash."

Take, for instance:
"Grizzly" from 1976.
Or "The pack" from 1977—you know, that one about a murderous pack of stray dogs.
Then you've got "Barracud", "Rats", and "Piran" from 1978.
Or "aligator" from 1980, featuring that massive aligator living in the sewers.
There was all sorts of stuff like that.

At their core, these were just conventional movies.
It’s only after you get some experience and grow up a bit that you really start seeking out trash.

With Cocaine Bear, the "trashiness" is intentional from the jump—it's the whole point—and the actual story about Cocaine Bear isn't the "serious" part; it's more like a side note.
That’s why it isn't just some "80s throwback" or a retro flick like some people claim—it’s a genuine, modern movie from 2023.

bluerider3 said:One movie that immediately comes to mind is Maniac Cop. It doesn't necessarily have to be an animal attack flick to count; it just has those specific qualities you find in those cheesy 80s cult classics. Take Friday the 13th, for example—you've got those silly tropes involving local police and all those classic 80s trash film clichés. It really hit all the right notes and crafted a solid piece of trash cinema that captures that 80s spirit perfectly. It’s just fun, features some entertaining kills, and honestly, it works exactly how a trash movie should.

Hmm... the thing is, 80s movies with these themes had one massive difference: they didn't actually view themselves as trash.
Basically, someone who hasn't watched much cinema wouldn't even be able to explain why those films are considered trash.

They *were* trash, but they acted "as if" they weren't.
The "trashiness" only exists because of those repetitive patterns, situations, and clichés we recognize now.
They lacked that obvious, self-aware farce that hits you over the head.
There was no winking at the audience.

Pop culture details that eventually became "trashy" due to being overemphasized weren't the main focus back then.
In actual 80s movies, they weren't making a big deal out of little things like posters on a wall, bandanas, fashion choices, or songs playing on the radio...

Also, 80s movies didn't capitalize on nostalgia for previous decades. A movie like Friday the 13th or Maniac Cop isn't set in some caricatured version of the 50s or 60s—it takes place in its own contemporary time.

That's kind of why Cocaine Bear fails—because it isn't really a movie about Cocaine Bear, but rather some sort of self-aware fake.

It feels like a movie made by someone who clearly hasn't watched many 80s horror flicks, but has heard that they are "trash." So, this is just the realization of a wrong assumption regarding what such a movie should look like.

bluerider3 said:This movie is absolute gold if you love trash cinema. It hits all those classic 80s vibes perfectly—honestly, it feels like the first time Banksy really nailed that style.

Could you actually name a few 80s movies that have those exact traits?

I've sat through plenty of 80s cinema, and honestly, I can't think of a single one that fits that description.

It’s as if some talentless studio head suddenly had a "brilliant" epiphany—an idea that wasn't even funny to him personally, but he figured the mindless masses would find it hilarious, so he just greenlit the whole thing without a second thought.

"Cocaine Bear" isn't an homage to anything, nor is it genuine trash; it’s more like this polished, self-aware, highly intentional kind of fake trash—except the high production value actually ruins the whole concept.

It isn't funny, it isn't scary, and it doesn't evoke a single actual emotion...

Just total nothingness. I didn't sit through much of it. A complete waste of time.

Eric Rodriguez7 said:It would be fine if they hadn't gone and thrown in all these new characters. If I could say, "Yeah, look, they cut people because of pandemic protocols to keep the crew size down on set," I'd take it. But nah, they just invented new people instead.
People love to claim it’s "just like the cartoon," but that logic doesn't really hold up once you start adding new characters. You can't honestly tell me it's the exact same story if the original version didn't even have those people in it.

It feels a bit silly and forced, honestly. You’ve got a white father and a Black daughter. Maybe the mother was Black? They don't even mention her in the trailer. Regardless, making her dark-skinned goes against everything the original animation and books planted in people's imaginations. Now they're going to change something that's been set in stone for 150 years. It’s like trying to overhaul a long-standing tradition. If that's the case, just change the title already—it isn't the same story anymore. I'm not against Black actors, but Disney didn't need to do this. Turning the little mermaid from a light-skinned character into a Black one just feels unnecessary.

I honestly wouldn't mind if there were some hypothetical race of underwater people who happened to look Black.

The issue lies elsewhere.
The second you introduce race into a fairy tale, things get messy.
It stops being a magical fable and starts becoming a story about racial dynamics.

Judging by the ships, the wardrobe, and the architecture, it’s pretty obvious this world is modeled after the 18th century.
Back then, Black people were viewed as inferior, and the slave trade was just part of the landscape—along with every other kind of social inequality imaginable.

Which means that prince and his entourage would, by any modern standard, be hardcore racists.
If a young Black woman showed up, it would be totally unrealistic to think an aristocrat would see her as anything other than a temporary distraction. Love? Please. No way.

So, what? Are we supposed to assume that in this fictional 18th-century setting, racism simply doesn't exist?

Fine.
But there are princes.
Meaning, there is a ruling class that holds all the weapons and suppresses everyone who isn't "blue blood."
That’s actually a much deeper issue than racism, but the movie doesn't touch it.

The upper class lives off the backs of everyone else, but hey, as long as they aren't racists, everything is fine.
All the sins of the aristocracy are forgiven, provided there's a romance between a Black woman and a prince.
Just don't make it a Black woman and a poor fisherman.

When you scratch beneath the surface of these Disney stories, it gets pretty gross. It’s all about maintaining the status quo and glorifying greed, wealth, and inequality...

Look, I don't have a problem with whether The Little Mermaid is Black or white, but I do have one if her father is white.
In that case, her dad should probably be Black too.

That scene where the prince and The Little Mermaid are in the boat was honestly kind of hilarious to me—since they’re both decked out in 18th or 19th-century attire, my brain immediately went to: this is happening somewhere in Louisiana, and a plantation owner's son is flirting with a gorgeous enslaved woman.

Also, the whole trailer is just coated in this nauseating, sugary sweetness that really rubs me the wrong way.
But hey, that’s just the classic Disney trademark.
In the original story, The Little Mermaid gets legs because she's in love with the prince, so it feels like she ends up dying for love in the end.
Even though that's a deeply moving and tragic tale, I highly doubt they'll go that route here.

It doesn't seem like it's being made clear anywhere that she actually wants legs because she fell head over heels for the guy. That kind of motivation is actually pretty subversive by today's standards.
A woman sacrificing herself for a man? Who would have thought!
They really should have just made it so the prince was the one craving the fins.

goldenhound32 said:An airplane. Seriously? Is this actually the first movie where Gerald Butler plays a Scot? Anyway, it was pretty decent—solidly put together, really. It’s got a clear structure and doesn't wander aimlessly. But if you figure out the ending halfway through, you're basically done. There aren't any twists or extra layers to the plot; it's just very straightforward and thin.
VI

Look, you don't need "extra" plot points—the plot *is* the point.
It's what it is.
It kind of transported me back to the 80s—you know, that era of lean, mean action flicks designed purely to give you a quick, digestible hit of adrenaline.
Back around 1985, this would have been a massive blockbuster. Nowadays, it's just a minor flick, but honestly, because it doesn't try to be anything more than what it is, it actually works.

I will say, by the end, I found myself wishing they'd tacked on maybe ten more minutes of gunfire or at least one more fistfight.

But, like my old man used to say, you should always leave a little room at the table.
Moderation is key. A little bit, but make it count.

This is exactly why people watch movies like this.

So, I just finished watching "Plane."

It’s an American action flick starring Gerald Butler.

The setup: Gerald plays this middle-aged pilot who deals with a major mechanical failure while flying over the ocean.
He ends up forced to make an emergency landing on some remote island near the Philippines—which, naturally, is controlled by some nasty guerrillas.
The rebels take the crew and passengers hostage, so Gerald has to step up and save everyone with the help of a convict he meets along the way.
Expect plenty of brawls and shootouts.

It feels like a bit of Ramb 2 mixed with Die Hard—sort of a low-budget version of Tom Hanks in one of his action roles.

The movie doesn't try to be anything it isn't; it’s straightforward, unpretentious, easy to watch, and honestly, pretty well-executed.
All in all, it’s a solid, entertaining flick. 👍

Red Sonja shouldn't be walking around with a body straight out of a Playboy bunny photoshoot.

I mean, sure, those models have incredible physiques—but you can tell they’re curated. They're raised on a steady diet of caviar, oysters, gourmet pastries, and high-end cocktails at poolside parties in five-star hotels. It’s a very specific look.

Red Sonja is sexy, sure, but she isn't someone you mess around with.

Her build needs to be lush, yet undeniably athletic—think more along the lines of a classic Frank Frazetta illustration.

Honestly, Gina Carano back when she was starring in "Haywire" would have been the perfect choice.

Just look at the way Gina Carano moves in a fight—she was only 29 then, and now she's 40.

What a powerhouse!

bluecyclist64 said:Highlander🙂🙏

Honestly, the villain in Highlander is easily one of the greatest antagonists in cinema history.😁

If someone in a marriage cheats—but we’re talking purely physical, zero emotional strings attached, just a way to blow off steam—why is that considered some kind of moral catastrophe?
Sure, traditional religious views call it a sin, but if you aren't religious, why should it be an issue?
Picture this: your spouse heads out for a massive corporate retreat over a weekend—lots of activities like paintball, white-water rafting, touring some historic estate, followed by a steak dinner, drinks, and a wild party. Somewhere in that mix, things get physical with someone else.
Then your partner comes home feeling refreshed, recharged, maybe even carrying a little extra energy from the trip...
What happened at the retreat stays at the retreat.
And the couple just carries on, happily managing their life together—the mortgage, the kids, the daily grind.

Where is the actual harm in that?

Ashley Vaughn79 said:03.01. Would you rather be the cheater or the one being cheated on?

Well, it's not like people say, "Oh, I could never cheat..." or "My partner would never cheat on me" anymore.

You have to pick one side. 🙂

And since... well, the answer to the weekend poll was that she'd rather cheat and explain later.
I guess I'm actually curious about why. 😁

__________________________________________________ ___
Topic of the day extracted from post 293. after topic of the day.

What nobody knows can't hurt anybody.

That previous bolded sentence sounds perfectly true and reasonable to me.
If it stays unknown, it's as if it never happened.

Just imagine a partner goes on a business trip to Chicago.
Who knows what went down on that trip. Maybe they were part of some massive orgy... If everything continues as usual and no STI pops up, then really, nothing ever happened.
Right?

***

I'd say I'd rather be the cheater.

But I have this one psychological hang-up about it.
See, even when an open opportunity presents itself, I get this feeling—this nagging sense—that I'm doing something wrong, something ugly and low.
And the opportunity is right there, all you have to do is take it!

I consider it my own flaw—some kind of Catholic atavism buried deep in my agnostic psyche—and I really need to suppress it so I can finally run wild like every other normal modern man!

Caught Uncle's latest one the other day. Honestly? It’s brilliant. Easily one of the best Hollywood films I've seen in a while.
They nailed that greasy, claustrophobic atmosphere—it really gets under your skin.
They even leaned into that wooden, overly theatrical acting style that everyone usually complains about in American cinema, but here, it actually works—it feels completely justified by the drama.

Raymond Anderson4 said:If you ask me, everything went sideways once they messed with that final scene in the first movie.
Why do we need to pin down exactly what he is? Keeping it a mystery would have been much more effective—instead, we just ended up with Michael Myers in a clown suit.

We aren't there yet, honestly, because Terrifier 2 has this almost childish sense of playfulness. 😁
Watching Terrifier 2, I felt like I was back in freshman year of high school, watching some sequel to "Street Beast" or "Friday the 13th" with pure, unadulterated excitement.
The Terrifier films have this freshness to them—they're just straightforward fun.
You can tell they were made without any ego, just pure enjoyment.
It’s the simple joy of guts being pulled out and skulls being cracked open. 🤣

With Halloween, this new Green trilogy is weighed down by its own legacy. That’s why the first one in the series worked best—it was just trying to recapture that original Halloween feeling.
In the sequels, there was this desperate attempt to say something "smart," and that pretentiousness just cluttered up the storytelling.

Art just happily slaughters people, and that's fun. That's exactly why people dig it.