Posts by Nathan Murphy

Gerald Jackson48 said:I think I still have my old DVD somewhere, probably picked it up at a Best Buy back in the early 2000s. It’s one of those cult classics that honestly transcends its genre and the era it was made in. You get a healthy dose of Horror, some dark humor, and a bit of drama and social commentary, all wrapped up in those psychedelic colors of the free-love era. It really lifts the movie above the usual intellectual low bar set by your typical zombie flick.

Anyway, I had a moment recently that totally captured the vibe of the film, so I wanted to share it with you guys. 😁

I walked into my local grocery store during the day, and it was eerily empty for this time of year. I was the only customer in the whole place. Now, I’m not talking about a massive Walmart here, but it wasn't just some tiny corner bodega either. There were just two cashiers standing there, both staring intensely at their phones. They didn't even look up or acknowledge me, even though I walked right past them and the door chime definitely went off. The only sound was the low hum of the refrigerators and the ceiling fan. I cleared my throat and said hello, but nothing. Not a single glance from either of them. As I kept walking deeper into the empty aisles, I couldn't help but think of the movie and how maybe it’s time for a remake—one where the zombies are distracted by their phone screens instead.

Careful now, you must be feeling pretty nostalgic! You can't just call it a great film without being mindful of what you're writing.

northernangler8 said:There was a time when movies actually held their own, but nowadays, you can really see how mediocre they've become. Honestly, the only people trying to force these bad films down our throats are the nostalgia seekers—people who just lie to themselves to convince themselves everything is still great. It’s frustrating when you run into someone else's opinion that goes against what you expected. 😁

Lol, what nonsense. You could say that about any older classic, and there's a good reason why they are classics. There is a legitimate reason this film is among the best Horror movies ever. You have to understand—non-horror fans don't get that we hardcore horror fans are a specific breed; we value different things. In horror, acting isn't even the priority for us; it's all about atmosphere, and if you find some social commentary like in this film, that's fantastic. The acting in this movie isn't even bad; the only weak point is the colored zombies, but that's just a minor detail.

It's the same deal with Italian Horror from Dario Argento, Fulvia, Mario Bava, and the rest. Sure, most of their films have subpar acting, but when it comes to technical direction (especially Dario Argento and Mario Bava), hardly anyone has been able to compete with them over the last half-century. Same goes for the atmosphere, which is the most important element of a horror film.

That’s why I find people like you much funnier—you base your arguments on some academic film school rules, implying a movie is only good if it has: great acting, a great script, great directing... Give me a break, lol.

No, film is way more complex than that. Horror movies often lack top-tier acting or scripts, but what they possess more than any other genre is an infectious enthusiasm and an atmosphere that gives you an inexplicable feeling—it's pure addiction. Of course, if a horror movie happens to have great acting and a great script too, then you get the absolute best, like The Exorcist or Radiation.

Take The Thing, for example; it's a chaotic film, but that chaos is exactly why it's a masterpiece. Dawn of the Dead is a top-tier film because of its atmosphere and social critique, and Night of the Living Dead is a masterpiece and one of the greatest horror films of all time—and that has nothing to do with nostalgia, lol. I don't even know how one could be nostalgic for Dawn of the Dead. It's true I saw it for the first time when I was young, but when I think of nostalgia, I think of The Goonies, Gremlins, and movies like that, not HORROR like Dawn of the Dead. Regarding The Goonies, I'll admit that as an adult, I think it's terribly overrated (on the other hand, Gremlins isn't; if anything, it's a much more fun movie to watch now).

In other words, you're talking nonsense because you didn't like it, so you search for some "logical" explanation that can't actually be logical. The film itself is as complex as the person watching it, and so much depends on the viewer's mood, the atmosphere, and how you approach it. The horror genre is full of unwritten rules, from the slasher subgenre to just the act of watching these films. Anyone who watches horror during the day or in a theater is making a huge mistake, but that's just my opinion based on my own lack of experience back when I was a kid. Still, us hardcore horror fans who hit up conventions and hang out together are a specific, slightly twisted breed, so I don't expect you to get it. Yeah, nostalgia is definitely the strongest argument out there.😵🤦🙄

Look, they exist, and that’s what matters. *The Toxic Avenger* is a classic Troma flick, and those movies are pure, unadulterated trash—you either love them or you hate them. But when it comes to zombie movies, this one is easily Troma's strongest entry: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462485/

On the other hand, you've got something like *From Beyond*, which features Jeffrey Combs and was directed by Gordon, the same guy behind *Re-Animator*. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Beyond To me, movies like that are absolute treats. Oh, and don't forget *The Stuff* https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090094/

And then there's *Fright Night*. 🙂

Patrick Martin said:The remake is actually pretty solid, though I’ve never sat down to watch the original and honestly, I probably never will. It just sort of slipped past me back in the day 🤷

Man, I remember the first time I actually checked out The Return of the Living Dead and it was a massive letdown—it had that super cheap, low-budget B-movie trash look to it. Total disaster.

If I had to pick a favorite from all those "classic" zombie flicks and old-school horror movies, it would probably have to be Lifeforce (1985) ☕

How is it that you, as a horror fan (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got), can't stand trashy horror movies, especially the stuff from the 80s? What's your take on Re-Animator?

Jessica Morris6 said:Are you sure about that? I find it hard to believe anyone would have titled it that way back then, mostly because Lucio Fulci was clearly trying to cash in on Romero's reputation by calling his flick Zombi 2.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombi_2

Some international titles were "Zombi: Dawn of the Dead" or just "Zombies." Besides that, Fulci and Romero were close friends, much like that entire classic generation of horror directors—Bava, Argento, Fulci, Romero, Carpenter, Craven, Hooper, Yuzna, Gordon, and Landis (if we're even counting him as a horror director). The only one who always seemed to keep his distance and act like he was above the rest was Cronenberg; I love his work too, but he wasn't exactly tight with the others. And then there's that legendary old guard of makeup artists and practical effects experts like Savini, Bottin, and the absolute legend, Baker.🙏

Man, the horror genre is never going to see an era like that again, where you could actually take pride in knowing the directors, the actors, and the makeup artists by name. I absolutely love the history of my favorite genre. Nowadays, everything feels curated and managed, but it just doesn't have that same soul.

Here is my little contribution to this week's film spotlight. Back in 1968—the same year audiences were treated to the genre classic 'Rosemary's Baby'—George A. Romero's horror film 'Night of the Living Dead' arrived on the scene. No one could have predicted the massive impact it would have on cinema history. It introduced audiences to a level of graphic violence that had never been seen on American screens before. Beyond that, though, it was the intense, all-encompassing terror that left a permanent mark on a generation of viewers.

Even though the movie was an unprecedented success for an independent production, the creators didn't see much of the profit. A string of box office disappointments in the following years dampened Romero's influence in Hollywood, making it a real uphill battle to fund his ambitious sequel. That’s when Italian horror maestro Dario Argento stepped in. Fresh off hits like 'Deep Red' and 'Suspiria,' Argento helped secure the financing in exchange for the rights to personally oversee the international edit. The end result was 'Dawn of the Dead,' which stands as one of the most acclaimed and sought-after horror films ever made.

The plot of 'Dawn of the Dead' is so effectively simple—and so well-known now—that it's almost hard to describe. As the world edges toward an inexplicable and relentless zombie apocalypse, four people—two soldiers, a helicopter pilot, and his girlfriend, a TV reporter—barricade themselves inside an abandoned suburban shopping mall. The mall provides more than just fuel for famous film commentary; it offers some truly gripping, if not terrifying, details. With its graphic depictions of human evisceration, exploding heads, and gruesome flesh-eating, 'Dawn of the Dead' might just be the most hardcore American film ever. Still, that didn't stop it from becoming a massive hit both here and abroad. It earned great reviews, most notably from Roger Ebert, who called it one of the best horror films of all time. It immediately became recognized not just as a genre classic, but as one of the sharpest social satires of the decade, offering biting commentary on the growing consumer culture embodied by the mall setting.

Internationally, the film's reach was even greater. It was released overseas as a special 117-minute cut (the US theatrical version ran 120 minutes) edited by Dario Argento. This version featured a more prominent soundtrack by the rock band Goblin and maintained a much faster overall pace. Released in most countries under titles like "Zombi: Dawn of the Dead" or "Zombies," it was such a phenomenon in Italy that the following year, Lucio Fulci—previously known for directing 'giallo' thrillers—helmed a bloody semi-sequel. His 'Zombi 2,' released in the US as 'Zombie,' became one of the biggest hits of the 1970s, fueling the global zombie/cannibal craze of the early 1980s and cementing Lucio Fulci's status as a horror icon.

'Dawn of the Dead' is a stunning example of how the horror genre can produce works that are as socially relevant as they are terrifying—films that break free from conventional tropes to establish themselves as truly timeless. While I might give a slight edge to 'Night of the Living Dead,' 'Dawn of the Dead' remains an extraordinary film and a nearly perfect sequel to one of the scariest movies ever made. It’s the horror film I’ve watched most often; I remember watching it for the first time on VHS with my friends, knowing we only wanted to watch it and record it over and over.

Honestly, Romero just has the two best zombie films. Even though I love modern picks like 'Shaun of the Dead,' and underrated gems like 'Let Sleeping Corpses Lie,' the Spanish 'Tombs of the Blind Dead,' or 80s flicks like 'Dead & Buried' and 'The Return of the Living Dead,' the quality of 'Night' and 'Dawn' puts them ahead of all other zombie movies.

The Uzumaki manga is the absolute peak.👍The movie isn't quite there, but as a horror buff, it’s worth a watch. We also have this coming out next year: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10905902/

On another note, I’m a massive fan of the Crows manga.https://crowsxworst.fandom.com/wiki/Crows You might dig it since it's packed with fight scenes, and since we're on this sub, 😁there are actually two movies directed by the legend Takashi Miike. Man, I could go on forever about how unique that manga is, but I'll spare you the lecture, haha.

Back in 2014, they were just as close before hitting the finals, and honestly, this Argentina squad looks like a stronger group to me. I agree they aren't the clear favorites—they might not even crack the top five contenders for the World Cup—but I’d slot them somewhere between 6th and 10th. If a team like Switzerland can knock out France, there’s no reason why Argentina couldn't make another run to the final.

Regarding my point about gematria: that's a different rabbit hole entirely. It’s all about who has the numbers on their side. That’s how you get miracles like Leicester City winning the Premier League. But gematria touches on those Kabbalistic conspiracy theories about people controlling the world. For them, numbers carry massive weight, much like how certain deaths or sacrifices seem timed to specific dates—take Princess Diana as the classic example. Anyway, I realize I'm stepping into conspiracy territory here.

Since this is the first time we've had a chat on this subforum, I expect some pretty interesting discussions to come up.

SOCCER =36
NUMBER 10 =36
HEART ATTACK =36

Soccer Legend #DiegoMaradona Passes from Heart Attack
on the day leaving 36 Days left in the Year ⚽️

36yr Anniversary of @Argentina Win
Qatar World Cup 2022 =630
Diego A Maradona =63
World Cup 2022 =630
MARADONA =63 🇦🇷

https://gematrinator.com/blog/index....adona-dies-60/

Gematria is a real phenomenon. Understanding how the world operates because of it is worth looking into deeper, though I mostly just find it fun. There are plenty of fascinating connections out there, especially regarding US Presidents.https://i.pinimg.com/originals/92/fa...785eaefbea.jpg

Since we can talk about anything here, here’s a little trivia for you.

Messi secured his first trophy with the national team on July 10th against Brazil—right there in Brazil, just after Maradona passed away.

Ronaldo picked up his first international title on July 10th against France, played in France following the passing of Eusebio.

By the way, I read somewhere that Messi is set to win the World Cup in gematria next year because all the numbers line up perfectly. I’ll have to dig into the math and check those figures myself.

Nicole Martin14 said:Why was Wilder the first one to break eye contact during the face-off? That’s a dead giveaway of who’s dominant. When two guys are staring each other down, the one who looks away first is basically handing over the win. For example, whenever a guy tries to stare me down, I never blink or look away until he's the one who breaks.

Fury deals with bipolar disorder, which makes him a pretty complex guy. He can spiral into that deep depression he went through back in 2016. But there's another side to it too; it can act like a drug and throw you into pure euphoria. People with anxiety need a goal and a laser focus, otherwise, they start drifting. Fury explained it exactly like that.

Check out this video (subtitles are available if you need them):

Actually, that’s not quite right. Put the textbook away and focus on gaining real-world experience—trust me on this one. There are times when certain tactics involve Person A intentionally breaking eye contact first. This makes Person B feel overly confident, which actually increases the likelihood of mistakes because they suddenly lose sight of what’s right under their nose. It’s like how a seasoned pro knows exactly when to look away first to study their opponent, only to offer a handshake while keeping their eyes down.

Fedor was the most famous fighter when it comes to this. When he stepped into the ring, he would never look his opponent in the eye during the stare-down. In his own words, doing that just drains his energy because making eye contact is such an emotional act. Fedor also struggled with anxiety. It’s a real thing—highly empathetic people often find it difficult to maintain eye contact. It isn't necessarily a sign of insecurity; rather, it's simply a way to preserve their energy since they tend to be introverted by nature. Of course, there are people who avoid eye contact due to a lack of confidence, but nothing is ever black and white. Just because someone won't look you in the eye doesn't mean they're insecure; it could be something else entirely.

Nicole Martin14 said:Why was Wilder the first one to break eye contact during the face-off? That’s a dead giveaway of who’s dominant. When two guys are staring each other down, the one who looks away first is basically handing over the win. For example, whenever a guy tries to stare me down, I never blink or look away until he's the one who breaks.

Fury deals with bipolar disorder, which makes him a pretty complex guy. He can spiral into that deep depression he went through back in 2016. But there's another side to it too; it can act like a drug and throw you into pure euphoria. People with anxiety need a goal and a laser focus, otherwise, they start drifting. Fury explained it exactly like that.

Check out this video (subtitles are available if you need them):

[/I]

Look, I’ve completed my studies in clinical psychology, so I’m intimately familiar with various neurodivergent disorders. Take OCD, for example—it’s something we really need to discuss more openly because Hollywood completely misrepresents it. Movies and TV shows constantly frame it as this extreme obsession with cleaning, which is honestly just a side effect. The core issue is the intrusive, obsessive thoughts that drive the compulsions. Actions like cleaning or pacing in specific patterns are just tools used to cope with those thoughts. Media almost never touches the actual obsessive mental state because it's incredibly difficult to explain to an audience, so they take the easy way out by focusing on germophobia. It’s a bit sad, really. Among my colleagues, I actively advocate for more honest conversations about OCD to shift how the general public perceives it. On another note, many people living with these conditions are exceptionally intelligent. There was actually a study conducted a few years back finding that a high concentration of geniuses can be found among individuals on the autism spectrum and those with OCD—for autistics, that isn't surprising at all. I’ve crossed paths with these individuals many times, and it’s truly fascinating how far ahead of the curve they often are. However, because they sometimes struggle with emotional intelligence—which is arguably the most vital skill—they often find it hard to build the types of relationships their subconscious craves. In their case, things tend to be a bit inverted. Of course, I’m referring specifically to those on the full spectrum, not those with milder presentations.

By the way, bipolar disorder is closely linked to OCD. It doesn't seem like Fury has full-blown OCD, though there might be some mild traces—you can see it in how he talks and mentions his brain racing at high speeds. When Fury hits his stride, his level of focus makes a typical focused person look distracted. That’s a massive advantage for him. And when his confidence is up? He believes in himself more than 99% of people ever will. But when that self-doubt creeps in, you see that sharp decline that often comes with these types of conditions.

That’s why I say he operates on instinct. He waits for the moment where everything aligns perfectly, and he’ll know exactly when that happens. Clearly, he just wasn't feeling that certainty right now.

He didn't catch him because if you watch the video, Fury spends about five seconds looking totally lost in thought. Then later on, he’s swaying, which is a classic sign of nerves—not to mention keeping his hands behind his back during the staredown. It’s all subtle body language.

Anyway, this

dmw said:Tyson Fury title defenses:
* June 24, 2016 - pulls out with an ankle injury for the Klitschko rematch on July 9th.
* September 24, 2016 - pulls out of the October 29 Klitschko rematch AGAIN, declaring himself "medically unfit."
* June 8th - pulls out due to "COVID-19."

You know that injury was a fake. Fury admitted later that he faked an injury just to avoid fighting Wladimir again. Just stop and think about that for a second. If a champion fakes an injury once, why wouldn't it be hard to imagine him doing it now?

Now, panther, you definitely make a solid point when you say he’s three classes better. I don't necessarily agree that he's three classes superior, but I do agree he's better by at least one class. So, your logic holds up, but you know me—I like to dig a little deeper. Watching Fury over the years, I've noticed one recurring pattern: he needs massive motivation and absolute focus. He’s one of those fighters who beats champions simply by being in the right place at the right time. How does he know when that is? He just feels it.

Fury has openly admitted to struggling with anxiety and believes he's bipolar, and honestly, he shouldn't mess around with that. He has to wear an invisible mask constantly when he's in the public eye, which is a very real struggle for millions of people across America. But when he's locked in, he is truly locked in. Personally, I respect him for coming out as a public figure; not everyone is brave enough to admit things they view as weaknesses. That’s why he has these peaks and valleys, waiting for the perfect moment for the big fights. That’s also why I could see him taking this third fight against Wilder, even though Fury is the technically superior boxer. In my opinion, George Foreman would have beaten Ali 9 out of 10 times, but Ali found that one specific moment where he could pull it off. Right place, right time, combined with all those psychological games Ali played outside the ring leading up to the fight.

Thomas Hayes said:Silvio is easily the most intense character in the whole series.
He’s smart, cold-blooded, and completely loyal to Tony. A perfect right-hand man—he could have been the lead if he had actually wanted that. Paulie, on the other hand, just can't help making a mess of things, from that unnecessary hit on Russ to leaking info to the crew back in New York.

I think you're looking at it wrong. You're talking about how things work in the real world—loyalty and trust—and while Paulie has been by Tony's side longer because they grew up together, that's not my point. If Silvio were a real person, sure, you'd want him in your corner. But I'm not talking about reality; I'm talking about TV. Silvio isn't a great TELEVISION character. He’s not the kind of character you obsess over or really fall in love with. Paulie is a fantastic television character because he’s unpredictable and hilarious. All that paranoia of his—this mobster acting like a hypochondriac—is funny in its own right. I never knew where I stood with Paulie. One minute he’s the worst guy for getting a job done, and the next, he’s the best once he finally snaps and gets serious.

Silvio was good to me at first, but as the show progressed, he stopped offering anything new. He actually dropped to the very bottom of my list regarding the characters surrounding Tony. It's better to stick with Springsteen😁; he’s much better in this series. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1958961/

And btw, this one for Furio was the most reliable guy whenever you actually needed a job done.

So, this is probably going to be the same disaster we've seen with all the previous Thor movies. It’ll likely end up being the worst series in the entire Marvel lineup.

I thought my bio was pretty solid at first, but as the series progressed, he became the least compelling character among those surrounding Tony Soprano. I can always get a laugh out of Paulie, though—his paranoia, his sense of humor, or just some crazy joke he tells. In my eyes, he’s easily the best character next to Tony. He’s technically the only one who survived, but if you take that cat as a metaphor for death, he’s really gone.

It’s pretty clear that Paulie couldn't care less about what anyone else thinks. To be honest, I always found Silvio to be such a stereotypical, uninspired character. Give me more Paulie any day—I just want him to sit down and tell us one of his jokes, haha!

Beyond the deep, underlying themes of this movie, I really felt like Hopper knew exactly what he was doing behind the lens. His direction was subtle, the music was loud and symbolic, and the setting told the whole story. I loved that we weren't given much backstory regarding the Foundation characters or Hopper's protagonists. It allowed us to actually connect with them. You can easily project your own experiences onto their lives. Hopper successfully transformed this from a simple drug movie into a profound study of humanity.

Nicholson represented all of us—our love for booze, sports, and white lies. To me, Nicholson felt like your quintessential American. He drank too much, came from a privileged background, but lacked real-world experience. He’d never touched weed (he didn't even know what it was when it was offered), he never left the states, and he hadn't truly lived. He kept repeating the phrase: "I've always wanted to...". How often do you hear that from a family member or a coworker? If you've always wanted it, why haven't you done it? So, here we have Hanson, someone chasing a dream he never pursues, traveling with two guys who live life on the edge and follow their own rules. They are total opposites, yet Hanson's words stuck with me long after the credits rolled. It's tragic what happens to Harmon, because he unfortunately experienced the dark side of freedom... the hatred and the fear of the unknown.

It's a highly symbolic film and likely one of the most influential movies of its era. Hopper knew his craft perfectly; an average viewer might think the film is just ordinary or that the scenes are randomly strung together.

Olivia Lopez78 said:Does that actually work with water?

Man, you wouldn't believe the absolute disaster happening at my office right now. The AC unit just completely crapped out on us. It’s been weeks since anyone's actually bothered to come out and fix it, so basically, everyone inside is just slowly roasting alive. It's getting ridiculous.

I usually head out to work early in the morning, and by then, it’s already hitting about 78 or 80 degrees out there. I can't stand running the AC; I'd much rather just crack a window open, at least during those early morning hours or maybe later in the afternoon when things settle down.

It works. I just shut all the windows to get the room nice and cool, then I can switch off the fan for a while.

Down South, I'm strictly an autumn and winter person. Give me the mountains and the hills, and I'm happy.😁

How are you all surviving this heatwave?

My AC just died on me, so I’m basically playing the lottery right now hoping someone can come fix it soon. For now, it’s just me, a desk fan, and a glass of ice water.

I haven't had any ice cream yet, but you know, maybe next time 😁

You've got a great piece here https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion...-small-moments

Good catch on that metaphor for Christian faith. The only other film that hits that same level regarding that theme is Roman Polanski's Knife in Water. It's packed with just as much Christian allegory.

I used to go more often, but nowadays I just go whenever I can manage to plan it out, though I still make several trips a year. It’s pretty easy to get there, and I actually met some people there who used to post here 👍

Balthazar is a pure emotional experience. It’s a bold idea executed with incredible discretion and skill. Perhaps only Bresson, among all filmmakers, could have made this concept work; he alone mastered the art of portraying existence in an almost abstract way while simultaneously achieving such powerful emotional impact. If the film were merely symbolic, it would feel irrelevant—and of course, Balthazar can be viewed as a symbol for many things. But Balthazar is, first and foremost, a character, the central figure of the drama. Then again, with Bresson, you never get that sense of conventional drama or cheap sentimentality. The film's very pacing helps convey Balthazar's sanctity and his persistence. It is a work that is simultaneously daring, enigmatic, and profoundly human.