Anthony Smith3 said:Interesting... looks like parodies aren't exactly a crowd favorite around here. I get it, though. Given how much garbage gets dumped on us lately under the guise of a parody—stuff like Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Superhero movie, Date Movie, or Scary Movie (though the first one actually held up)—it’s hard to stay optimistic. I live for parodies, but those old-school ones hit different. I’d say the heavy hitters are definitely The Naked Gun trilogy, the Airplane! series, the Hot Shots! series, Loaded Weapon, Police Squad!, Top Secret!, Spaceballs, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, and Austin Powers. Then you've got stuff like Mars Attacks! and Galaxy Quest—which is such an obvious and killer Galaxy Quest parody of Star Trek.
I mean, yeah, great parodies exist. > is solid. Then you have >, which pokes fun at > and its entire fandom, and >, which hits both > and that whole 60s vibe. Has anyone brought up > yet?
If you ask me, a lot of movies end up being unintentional satires or parodies anyway. Most remakes, for instance, act as a parody of the original while simultaneously serving as a satire of Hollywood itself. I was watching the 2007 version of > the other day—honestly, it feels like a parody of the 1986 >!
You occasionally stumble upon some actually decent parodies. For instance, there was one where Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman play White House officials who basically feed the press fake news about a conflict with Albania... Or that one where Warren Beatty plays a politician with a massive butt. I can't quite recall the titles right now—they’re good, though—but I still haven't checked out Tropic Thunder, which looks pretty solid...
But honestly, these modern parodies that just rip off big blockbusters? They're absolute bottom-of-the-barrel trash...
Chris Palmer3 said:I haven't seen "X-Men," but honestly... better than "to want blood"? To me, "to want blood" is a masterpiece. Nothing could possibly top that, no matter how you slice it...
Personally, I’d much rather sit through a decent flick about a giant monster eating people than deal with something in the same league as "to want blood"... 😁
I was actually planning on heading back to the theater to catch "Horror from the rivers" again—just one more time, you know?—but then I see the paper and realize it’s already off the schedule. Honestly, where is the world heading? It feels like fewer and fewer people are willing to just sit down in a cinema and enjoy a genuinely great movie, especially one featuring a massive Alligator. It’s a bit depressing, really—because out of everything I’ve watched lately, and that includes seeing "Dark Knight" on the big screen and watching "To want blood" on Blu-ray, "Horror from the rivers" is easily my favorite.
Zachary Kern69 said:btw, isn't it kind of weird that the crocodile is labeled a giant crocodile cannibal? I mean, what do you guys think these crocodiles eat—yogurt?
It’s funny how in American movies, once an animal eats a person, it suddenly gets this prestigious "man-eater" title. Like, a regular bear is just... a bear. But if it snacks on someone in the opening scene, the actors start looking all terrified and whispering, "Beware... there's a man-eater around."
Chris Palmer3: How many of them have you actually seen? 🤣
"Lake Placid" is basically just a movie about a giant crocodile cannibal hanging out in a mountain lake somewhere in the US.😕 It’s half comedy, half creature feature—the crocodile is alright, I guess.
Then there's "Primeval kill," which was inspired by that actual crocodile in Africa that supposedly ate 300 people. Honestly, "Primeval" is split down the middle—half crocodile movie, half thriller about war crimes. (Though, let's be clear, the croc didn't commit them—that was the Hutui against the Tutsi, or something like that.) The crocodile is mostly just a special effect, and it doesn't move quite like a real reptile; there's this one scene where it's practically galloping through the savanna chasing someone. Still, it's a decent, entertaining little flick.
With "Rogue," they lean more into tension than pure carnage. The characters actually act like normal people instead of walking clichés, and when the crocodile does show up, it actually looks legit. The approach is similar to "Jaws"—you don't really see the beast until the very end.
How many movies about giant crocodile cannibals even exist? :don't know
Besides these three, you've got the 80s "Alligator," "Black Water," "Lake Placid 2," and I'm sure there are plenty more out there.
Solid flick. Honestly, easily the best movie about a giant crocodile cannibal I’ve sat through lately—maybe ever. It’s probably the finest nature horror released in recent memory, if not longer.. The theater was basically empty—I suspect they used some cheap, tacky title and poster just to make it look like low-budget trash—but in terms of actual quality, this thing is likely at the top of whatever's playing right now. Plus, it's only about ninety minutes long! All in all, it delivers exactly what it promises.
Aside from the AMC Theatres, there were all those other cinemas in downtown Chicago that used to screen adult films: Kozar (which used to be the Apollo), Lik, (the spot where they showed that first hardcore flick in the old country—"Passions"), and Kosmaj (now called Grič). There had to have been a few more theaters running porn back then—please, fill me in if I'm forgetting any. Posters for the adult movies would be hanging up right alongside the regular feature posters, looking perfectly normal. And the screenings? They’d start as early as 10 AM—which, honestly, was perfect timing for kids who didn't head to school until 2 PM.
I look at "Odyssey" as some kind of... super-film. (Not sure if that’s actually a term, but you get what I mean) It’s one of those things where I honestly don't know how anyone could ever make anything better than "Odyssey" using the medium of film. "Odyssey" is just fundamentally superior to any sci-fi shot after it—it's just a shame that instead of showing us a possible future, it feels like it's depicting a parallel universe that we were unfortunate enough to miss out on.
As for historical movies: I think they’re really just various genres where history serves as nothing more than a backdrop.
We have the romances or the action flicks where history is just a stage for adventures, vendettas, and all sorts of schemes. Think "Cleopatra," "Gladiator," "King Arthur," or "Shakespeare." In those cases, I can tolerate inaccuracies—like all the stuff people point out regarding "Gladiator." (Just like how you tolerate impossible physics in an action movie.)
Then you have the dramas set in the past. When they make those, they actually try to get everything right. Those are the "real" historical films. I’d put "Master and Commander" or, I don't know... "Spartacus" in that category. With those, historical inaccuracies are EXTREMELY annoying. (Similar to how car chases or reloading errors would bother you in a standard modern drama.)
Finally, we have the historical fantasies—where all you need is a bit of magic for them to be full-blown fantasy—like "300," "Pathfinder," or "10,000 BC" and things like that. In those, historical errors can slide by easily. As long as it doesn't get totally ridiculous—you know, like Roman legionnaires showing up with muskets.
The Cleopatra movie is basically just a story about a guy and a girl—they just happened to dress up as Egyptians. 🙂
I get it, certain massive, glaring blunders can definitely pull you out of the experience. Take "The Last Legion," for instance: "The film alters the capital of the Western Empire from Ravenna to Rome." They swapped in Rome because they didn't want to confuse an audience that’s only ever heard of Rome, but personally, I would have loved if it stayed in Ravenna—just so you could sit there halfway through and think, "Wait a minute, Ravenna? Why isn't it Rome?" But whatever, who cares after you've finished reading up on it? Historical epics aren't exactly meant to be classroom teaching tools. For Alice, it's actually nice when a movie sparks an interest in something you wouldn't have bothered looking into otherwise.
Then you've got those little errors—like Romans having saddles when they actually didn't, or whether the thumbs were up or down in the arena, or if the armor was even remotely accurate... honestly, forget it. Who's going to teach the actors how to ride without a saddle? And in the costume warehouse, the legionnaire gear is all from Caesar's era; there's nothing from the time of Commodus.
There’s a statistician in that one battle scene in Braveheart wearing a watch! Total blunder! And the Romans didn't even have saddles! Then you look at the era when the Titanic sank—people weren't wearing glasses like those! Just pure mistakes!
Movies aren't meant to be microscopic deep dives into ancient customs or perfect recreations of historical events. This list is just mixing apples and oranges. Comparing 10,000 B.C., Elizabeth, and Braveheart is nonsense—they aren't even in the same genre. Honestly, this list is just as idiotic as most movie lists out there.
A psychedelic Rambow-style Western? 😁 The movie is decent enough. It’s got action, and by the end, you’re left scratching your head, wondering if there was actually some deeper subtext at play. When I first sat through it, I thought I had a handle on the theme—but honestly, now that some time has passed, it’s all a bit fuzzy. Maybe it’s just a glorified version of a Coyote and Road Runner cartoon dressed up to look like something profound? It’s an entertaining watch. Though, I have to say, seeing such big-name actors felt a little distracting. If they’d used some unknowns, I’m convinced this thing would have achieved cult status. Pierce Brosnan really pulls off that "Kit Carson" facial hair and Stetson combo. I could easily see him leading a gritty serial in the vein of Tex Willer.
Karen Smith9 said:Let Costner wave that American flag around all he wants... I'm just completely fed up with these fake patriots back home who robbed us blind, only to force us to sit through movies about people getting rich off the very things they stole from us.
Costner is as genuine as it gets in "The Postman." That final scene where they uncover the statue... when the guy standing by the monument has that flashback to being a kid in a field, and The Postman comes galloping up to hand him that package, all set to that sweeping, instrumental patriotic score... you just feel it. You can tell Costner actually believes America is this beacon of freedom and democracy. He isn't some fake patriot—he's the real deal.
Costner is the real deal—honestly, better than Cage. Take "Open Range," for instance. Who even makes movies like that anymore? It feels like in "The Postman," Costner’s sense of patriotism—all that sentimentality and waving the American flag at the end—was actually completely sincere. I could totally see a movie starring Costner alongside John Wayne. 🙂Costner just missed the mark on the era a little bit.
Then there was the absolute train wreck that was Renny Harlyn’s "Cutthroat Island"—you know, the one where Geena Davis plays the pirate captain. It’s actually this incredibly lush, grand pirate spectacle—honestly, visually it's great—but it just completely tanked at the box office. I’m pretty sure "Carolco" went belly up specifically because of that movie. Why did it fail? Who knows—the film is genuinely good.
"Waterworld" is a decent enough spectacle, I guess. Actually, "The Postman" is even better in my book.
As for why "The Postman" flopped, it’s kind of obvious to me. Kevin Costner took the subject matter way too seriously—he played his character with a level of gravity that just didn't sit right with what the US audience was looking for.
dustyscout53 said:Honestly, Michael Bay is easily my favorite director ever—mostly because he’s the only one who actually managed to kick me out of a theater. Seriously, nothing before or after Armageddon could ever make me walk out. But Armageddon...
Matthew Gomez5 said:Exactly what you mean, right? Like, is mining diamonds in Africa a good thing? Sure, for a jeweler in New York, it’s great, and since they’re happy, we just call it a win. I guess nobody really gives a damn about the poor souls actually digging those stones out of the dirt, right?
Navigating life based solely on your own narrow metrics is a massive mistake, mostly because it aligns perfectly with that "every man for himself" mentality. If something works for you personally, fine, that's your business, but if you start broadcasting your opinions publicly and using the logic that "it's good because it benefits me," then you just look ridiculous...
And here I was thinking my cynicism would come across clearly without needing a mountain of emojis.
I absolutely HATE the phrase "there's no accounting for taste." If someone drops that line during an online debate about movies, they should automatically be branded a loser in the argument... Honestly, they should just be banned from the thread entirely. 😁
John Peterson3 said:I'm not mistaken... Everyone has their own taste in movies. Most people here clearly aren't fans of anything directed by Michael Bay, which is perfectly fine—they have every right to feel that way.
Exactly! I’ve got my taste, you’ve got yours, he’s got his. We all respect each other, everyone is right in their own way, and we’re all happy just acknowledging that. Everything in this world works out because what’s good for one person is perfectly fine for someone else.
This is from the PBS website. His predictions about where movies are headed—both as an art form and how we actually watch them—are pretty fascinating.
KUSTURICA: TRADITION VS. HOLLYWOOD DOMINANCE
New technology in filmmaking should be used to stir the soul and amplify emotion—that’s the stance taken by director Emir Kusturica during a chat with young filmmakers participating in the competition at the Sundance Film Festival up in Wild Mountain.
"That seems pretty hard to pull off these days," Kusturica noted. "Because despite all this massive modern tech, we're seeing a mountain of films that don't actually show us anything at all."
He brought up the start of the festival, which its founder kicked off with a symbolic funeral for the commercial hit 'Die Like a Man.'
"It was a conceptual move, really, meant to define what this festival stands for. There are ways to defend ourselves against Hollywood's total dominance, and one of the big ones is tradition," he said.
Kusturica pointed out that America is a country where legends like Živojin Pavlović, Saša Petrović, Puriš Đorđević, and Dušan Makavejev once filmed.
"So, there is a tradition that ought to be the wellspring for our directors, but ideological forces, the provincialism of certain creators, and whatever is being pumped out on TV keeps getting in the way."
In his view, the biggest headache is going to be how movies are actually shown in the future.
"The classic method using 35mm film prints might hang on for another five to ten years, but after that, everything will be taken over by the major Hollywood studios, who will just beam signals via satellite directly into theaters worldwide. That would be a total aesthetic catastrophe."
"I think film as an art form is going to face the same fate as opera—you'll have maybe one or two theaters in every major city showing films made with a 20th-century aesthetic, while everything else just moves to the internet," Kusturica remarked.
"It's encouraging that anyone can pick up a camera with new tech, but the problem is there are fewer and fewer actual ideas. Hollywood produces these hollowed-out heroes—characters without social context, without family ties, or any political roots."
Kusturica added that the future of artistic cinema might also lie in the home theater experience.
"It would be an honor if people still bought physical discs of my films to take home, much like they used to buy books by the classics. Works with real substance will survive."
"Here in America and across the North America, there's this real issue with selling out our own values. It happens in such a sneaky, underhanded way, because just five percent of the political willpower controls ninety percent of the media in New York City. The paradox is that this tiny five percent sets the agenda that everyone else reacts to, effectively manufacturing the entire social climate."
"Some characters emerging from the old socialist guard—people who were never really part of the market winds—try to paint me and Nelet Karajlić as regressive forces," Kusturica said, referring to the success of his punk opera 'Gypsy Time' in Paris back in May 2007.