Posts by Anthony Smith3

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.

New trailer just dropped...

trailer 2

briskbison41 said:It’s all great😉
I don't think I've actually seen the ''Evil Dead'' series before🙂

You definitely need to check it out... it's basically essential viewing, haha😁👍

The second one is the best, but the third is easily the funniest lol👍

briskbison41 said:Not yet, but it could happen😉
The clothes remind me of him. It's the exact same look as Duke😁

Maybe they modeled the Duke character after Dolph when they made the game😁

Could be... though I bet Arnold was in there too. Honestly, the whole game is packed with movie nods. Like that iconic one-liner "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum." which originally came from Carpenter's "They Live". Then you've got the legendary "I'm back"... a nod to "Terminator". And we can't forget "Groovy!" and "Hail to the king, baby!" from the "Evil Dead" series...👍

briskbison41 said:Looking at that first picture in the OP, Dolph kind of gives off major Duke Nukem vibes to me.😁

People always brought him up whenever there was talk about turning that video game into a movie... but unfortunately, it never actually happened. Honestly though, he would've been way too hot to play Duke Nukem.😁😁

Supposedly from some Thai magazine cover...😁

briskbison41 said:Dwayne Johnson always seems like a blast to watch, but honestly, his attempt at being funny sometimes just misses the mark for me.😁

Yeah, right. Heh.😁😁Like it ever suited him?🙂

And honestly... it's just a Disney movie, but Dwayne Johnson always looks like he's having a blast... so if I ever get around to watching it, I'm doing it strictly for him... that guy is hilarious hehe😁

Super Bowl trailer 3D HD

And two quick shots...

crimsontrucker4 said:Fast camera work, a weird chase scene, the usual beatdown... but the absolute strangest part is, The Audi tore through walls, train cars, and thick woods, and honestly? The only thing broken was a window after that insane mid-air jump back into the car.
And that idiot with the car recovery from the river. LOL
Regarding that thing—there’s so much air in those tires the car could basically float.
Yeah, I gotta admit, she caught my eye... I’ve always had a massive weakness for redheads. 😁

Look, I expected this kind of mindless "game movie" garbage, but you could tell from the trailers and clips alone that the editing, camerawork, and action direction were going to be a mess. I don't get why every action director these days is obsessed with rapid-fire cuts, millisecond shots, and shaky handheld camera work during fights. Bourne 3 was actually difficult to follow because of that, and even the new James Bond is heading down that path. It’s getting ridiculous.🤷😠🙄

Ronald Reyes18 said:Caught this one recently.
Tense enough to keep me hooked until the end.
My rating, if you even care, is like a 7/10.

Exactly...it's definitely not his worst work...not quite top-tier either, but it's fine. Plus, David Fincher's cinematography is always flawless...👍

Chris Hall47 said:Is it actually true that this movie is total garbage? I'm hearing it doesn't even come close to the first two and is just straight-up trash. I already bought it, but I can't bring myself to even give it a look...

People say it's weaker than the first two... even though most audiences think it's decent... but yeah, it's definitely a step down from the previous ones...🤷

Here’s something pretty relevant to the movie...

Audi Superbowl Commercial - starring Jason Statham... 😁

coastalhawk14 said:Jean-Claude Van Damme!🙏👋

You didn't vote... cast your ballot... I think even Steven Seagal gets two votes LOL😁

Got two more recent dates for you... I'll mention them in the other thread...

One Russian Sci-Fi...The Inhabited Island...and one Swedish Sci-Fi parody...Kenny Begins

goldenhound32 said:Don't you see the inherent inconsistency in that statement?
Either you should be surprised, or you shouldn't.
My take is that you shouldn't.

Nah... because they're saying you shouldn't be surprised, even though it's basically impossible not to be...😉

It's like saying you shouldn't eat sweets because they make you gain weight, but still... sometimes it's just impossible to resist when, say, those cheesecake slices are that good...😁👍

goldenhound32 said:Reviews are secondary when you're actually talking about the cinema experience. Haven't we already moved past that stage of the debate?
I honestly don't know why you're surprised.

By the way, since we're on the subject of critics, Outlander has a 4.7 on Rotten Tomatoes, and Ebert only gave it two stars.

You've got a point...you shouldn't be shocked by how our distributors act...but still...it's impossible not to be. I mean, they'll put garbage like "My Best Friend's Wedding" or "Big Stan" straight to DVD here in the USA, but they won't even give a shot to something like "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford".

Anyway, when I was writing this, if I recall correctly, the movie had only played at the Cannes Film Festival, where it mostly picked up positive reviews...and Rotten...well, Rotten is Rotten...only a few films actually do well there...but clearly the audience likes it, because a 7.1/10 on IMDb isn't bad. True, not many people have seen it yet, but if it were actually that terrible...it wouldn't even hit a 5...at least that's my take. We'll see...😁

Adam Moore said:Man, where are Bruce Willis, Don "The Dragon" Wilson, Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee, and those newer guys? Huh?

Yeah... Willis and Chuck Norris definitely belong in this poll. Not so sure about Don "The Dragon" Wilson, though... he was always a tier below. Maybe I'd toss Dolph Lundgren in there too, since he was tearing it up in the 80s and doing his thing through the 90s...

And obviously, we can't ignore the modern heavy hitters like Jason Statham, Vin Diesel, and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson... even if the others don't even come close to the old legends, and the last guy spends more time doing comedies and dramas than actual action now.

Anyway, back to the main point... who's actually the best? Honestly, I was obsessed with Jean-Claude Van Damme when I was a kid... and I still love watching his flicks. So, Jean-Claude Van Damme is my No1... then Arnold Schwarzenegger, followed by Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis...👍

rustywalker42 said:Back to the main point. This whole debate is pointless to me. Film is art, plain and simple, and art demands creative freedom. It’s not some scientific research project where everything needs to be clinically precise.
In those early Dirty Harry movies, the guy takes a bullet right to the forehead and all you see is a tiny little dot, maybe 3 cm wide. Am I saying the movie is bad? No. Did it bother me? Not at all. In fact, it's one of the best films ever made, if you ask me.
And why? Because it's obvious that insisting on total realism would be completely mindless. What do they actually gain from that—the audience or the movie itself? Nothing. The movie would just end up censored, and what does the viewer get out of it? The point is the victim was shot; the exact diameter of the entry wound is totally irrelevant.
On the flip side, when they make something like Rambo IV where everything is depicted with sickening realism, people complain about the excessive brutality. So, who's actually crazy here?
Anyway, my advice? Just relax and enjoy the movie instead of nitpicking every stupid detail. It's also interesting how much it depends on the genre; plenty of Steven Seagal movies have these kinds of blunders that people love to mock, but when it comes to a cult classic, nobody says a word. That's just how it goes.
I once watched this Lebanese film—set during the start of the war in Lebanon back in 1982. They film a street scene, and there's a Mercedes parked right there that wouldn't even hit production for another three and a half years.
Honestly, there are so many ridiculous things you could focus on that you'd lose the plot entirely. What if I spent the whole time staring at the cars like I did with that one? Or looking at the trees and realizing that specific species doesn't even grow in the setting? Or if some expert in another field notices something isn't quite right?
But I wanted to focus on the bullet wounds specifically, because that's the very last thing anyone should be obsessing over for the sake of realism.

I'm with you on this... at the end of the day, it's just a movie, a scripted flick, not some documentary. Some get it right, some don't. Some people will spot every little error or logic gap, while others won't even blink.

Honestly, I highly recommend everyone check out this documentary series. MythBusters Since 2003, Discovery Channel has been airing that show where a bunch of wild characters—who I'm pretty sure actually work in the film industry—test out all those ridiculous movie stunts for real. You know, like seeing if a car actually explodes when you hit the gas tank, if escaping Alcatraz is even possible, or if the shark from Jaws could really bite through a steel cable like in a Bond movie. There are tons of clips on YouTube if you want to binge them.👍