I saw Smile 2 two days ago and that was indeed way better than I expected. I think the first one was not necessarily scarier, but in general it was a bit more oppressive and miserable than the second. The second was a bit more of a fun scarefest with more crazy jumpscares (but actually GOOD jumpscares), way more gore, more wild camera work and more humor as well. Quality-wise, as a movie it was just as good as the first - even though I might personally prefer the first movie's downtrodden atmosphere. Naomi Scott does a fantastic job in this movie. I'd also like to mention Kyle Gallner who goes extremely hard in the opening.
Tonight I'm gonna watch Terrifier 3.
Be curious what your thoughts are after watching it.
Gia, did you see TERRIFIER 3 or are you planning on it?
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1102939 10/18/2406:32 PM10/18/2406:32 PM
Terrifier 3 was more of what we've come to expect from the franchise lol. It's vile nonsense, but these movies do succeed in delivering what the audience wants. The violence once again is absolutely disgustingly graphic - I actually do think one scene near the end is as bad as the infamous "bedroom scene" in the second one and it resulted in four people walking out - and the portrayal of Art the Clown is once again as hilarious as it is depraved. The added "sword and sorcery"-inspired lore actually gives the franchise some kind of geeky touch which shouldn't work, but somehow makes it stand out from your average slasher franchise. I feel the Terrifier franchise is somewhat comparable to what the Friday the 13th franchise was in the 80's - even though the Terrifier movies are better films than the Friday the 13th ones, save for maybe the first one and the fourth. I do think that they'd do best to wrap it up with a fourth movie.
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1102962 10/18/2408:04 PM10/18/2408:04 PM
Taking place between ALIEN and ALIENS, Rain (Cailee Spaeny) believes she's worked the required hours for her and her "brother" Andy (David Jonsson) to receive travel permits to leave their planet. However, the company she works for has since raised the required number of hours in order to obtain a permit and hers have since doubled, requiring another 5-6 years before she's granted a travel permit (although we're sure at that time, the required hours will be raised yet again, continuing the never ending cycle of her service). While a group of her friends discover a ship hovering above their planet, which turns out to be a space station, abandoned with fuel to get her to her desired planet (a 9 year journey), she agrees to flee her planet in order to secure her freedom. Once aboard the space station, they soon must fight for their lives against the Xenomorph. For some reason, I had a hard time getting into this from the start. It seemed to drag longer than it should have and while I'm not a huge fan of the ALIEN franchise, I had somewhat high expectations going in to this as I'd heard good things about it and I'm a big fan of Cailee Spaeny. Unfortunately, I just never connected with the film and it wasn't my cup of tea. Not as much action as I was hoping for and Cailee didn't deliver for me in a Ridley-esque type role. 5.5/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1103041 10/19/2407:53 PM10/19/2407:53 PM
Active serial killer Rodney Alcala (Daniel Zovatto) is a contestant on the popular TV show, The Dating Game. Cheryl Bradshaw (Anna Kendrick) is the unfortunate lady who happens to pick Rodney as her date, unaware of his dark side. Unfortunately based upon a true story, the film does a great job at making the audience uneasy throughout the film and Zovatto does a great job as Alcala. He's personable and doesn't come off as a creep until it's too late. I'll give Kendrick props in her directorial debut but I'll be honest, I'm not surprised in her portrayal of Bradshaw. Kendrick and a lot of feminist nowadays have to be bad a$$ b*tches in every film. Strong female characters who can do no wrong if it weren't for men. Speaking of which, there's A LOT of 1970's misogyny plus male fragility displayed. I'm tired of the messaging. I'm tired of the preaching. Just entertain me, that's all I ask. In addition, there's a ludicrous subplot involving Nicolette Robinson as Laura, an audience member for the show who recognizes Alcala as having attacked and murdered her friend (or at least she thinks it, the film never confirms if she was indeed one of his victims). The reasoning for this subplot was two fold: give a minority more screen time and also to illustrate police incompetence (especially when it's a black, female who apparently no one seems to take seriously despite her pleas). The film looked better from the trailer but being that it's a Netflix movie, I'm not surprised anymore at the wokeness. 6.5/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1103173 10/21/2407:58 PM10/21/2407:58 PM
A dead body is found in a hotel room, what do you do? You call a cleaner to clean it up discretely. The only problem is 2 cleaners arrive to the same job, unaware of the other. This is the premise for WOLFS which stars buddies George Clooney & Brad Pitt. Clooney plays the older, more wise character who's been in the game a long time; while Pitt is the thorn in his side who has his own, unique method of handling these types of situations. Throughout, the duo are constantly contradicting each other like an old married couple. The friends obviously have an affinity for each other and it comes across on screen. They're having a lot of fun with this and so is the audience (not to mention it's a pretty funny script too). The film was really great for about half of its runtime but then they introduced a third character (Austin Abrams) to this tale that changed the vibe going forward. It wasn't as funny and any steam it had built up before then quickly dissipated. Without spoiling the movie, I think if the story would have stayed on the path it was, it would have turned out even better but this surpassed my expectations and was a fun ride. 7.5/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1103409 10/24/2408:36 PM10/24/2408:36 PM
The final installment of the VENOM franchise, Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) and Venom are on the run and being hunted. Eddie for the alleged killing of Detective Patrick Mulligan (Stephen Graham) and Venom by Knull, the creator of the symbiotes. The story finds them in Mexico, the Grand Canyon, and Las Vegas before their ultimate destination of New York City. I wasn't at all excited for this and for good reason: the franchise has been average and this is no exception. There's action scenes but the story between those sequences is at times painfully dull and slow. There's a little humor mixed with a few inaudible lines spat out by Venom. The franchise should and could have been better, especially with a star such as Tom Hardy attached. The original was my favorite of the series and let's see how long it takes for Sony to once again (disappointingly) attempt to cash in on this character. 5.5/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1103500 10/25/2408:10 PM10/25/2408:10 PM
The pope has passed and the cardinals of the Catholic church meet at the Vatican to elect a new pope. Dean Lawrence's (Ralph Fiennes) job is to ensure the voting goes according to their rules, without any outside interference, cutting themselves off from the outside world until the election is over. The film shows the process as well as the politics involved in selecting who will lead the Catholic church going forward. Well, if it was unclear before, this film just reiterated Hollywood's new agenda and target: Christianity. The finale of the film is blasphemous, being nothing more than a desperate and mockingly attempt to push forward a radical, dangerous, and leftist agenda! I'm not easily offended but the way the story plays out is incredibly laughable. It's disappointing actors that I respect such as Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, and John Lithgow signed on to this spoof. With the following films such as IMMACULATE, THE FIRST OMEN, and now CONCLAVE all having been released within 2024 and their views and condemnation towards Christianity, be prepared to see more of this going forward and widely accepted by those who seek to demonize people of faith. 6/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1103756 10/28/2407:25 PM10/28/2407:25 PM
Kate Beckinsale stars as Avery Graves, an international spy who, to her husband David (Rupert Friend), has a boring day job as a risk analyst. However, when David is kidnapped, Avery is forced to betray her country by stealing canary black, a blackmail list the government has compiled to keep foreign leaders in check from doing anything the US government doesn't want them doing. On the run from her own agency and with little time, Avery must make the impossible possible in order to save David's life. Kate Beckinsale kicking ass and taking names? Yeah, that's what got me to give this a try as Kate is a bad ass action star! Unfortunately, while this film started out interestingly enough, it soon became uninteresting fairly quickly. Beckinsale is believable as Avery but isn't given much to work with here with such a lackluster script. There's a reveal at the end of the film that was predictable very early on as the cast is small so how many people could it be? This had some moments with some of the action scenes featuring Beckinsale but overall, a disappointment (especially since initially it was better than I was expecting). 5.5/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1103758 10/28/2407:40 PM10/28/2407:40 PM
Twin brothers Moke (Josh Brolin) and Jady (Peter Dinklage) have to pull off one last robbery together before they can retire and go legit. The problem is Jady was let out of prison early in exchange for completing this task and Moke doesn't want any part of it as he's since gone straight while Jady was away and also has a baby on the way. However, Jady convinces Moke to help him on this one last job. I really question Amazon Studio's production team as I've never been impressed with hardly any of their programming and this is yet another example of that. With a cast featuring Brolin, Dinklage, Glenn Close, Brendan Fraser, and Marisa Tomei you expect a better product than this. It's a comedy and what's the cardinal rule of comedies? Be funny, which this film is not. Most of the jokes fall flat and the only assumption I can make is Amazon must have thrown a lot of money at the cast because I can't see any other reason they would have signed on to this. Disappointing. 4.5/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1104056 10/31/2408:16 PM10/31/2408:16 PM
Told from the same singular perspective within a house, it follows the multiple generations of residents residing there. A FORREST GUMP reunion staring Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, and director Robert Zemeckis. It's an original and ambitious film but one that ultimately for me, wanted to seek another viewpoint at some point during the film. Being stuck in the same spot for almost an hour and 45 minutes got to be a little monotonous sooner rather than later. However, the de-aging technology used on both Hanks and Wright is the best I've ever seen to this point. It actually enhanced rather than took away due to it's awkward appearance. The story leads the audiences through a laundry list of emotions as well as historical events. There was one rather shoehorned message Zemeckis just "had" to get out there which I'll refer to as "the talk" (eye roll). Other than that, it appears Zemeckis swung for the fences with this attempt and while it may not even make it out of the infield, I applaud the effort. 6/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1104167 11/02/2403:09 AM11/02/2403:09 AM
John (Scott Speedman) and Sera (Jordana Brewster) have been trying to conceive for a long time, even going so far as trying IVF that ultimately assists them in their journey to become parents. Unfortunately, Sera has a miscarriage and for some reason, feels they need to move out of their apartment and into a home for a "fresh start." They are soon turned onto Emmett (Laurence Fishburne) who they are told will assist them in their search. After getting to know the couple for an evening of conversation, dinner, and drinks, Emmett decides to give his lovely home to the couple with only one condition: they are never to look in the cellar door. It's an intriguing enough hook that got me to view it and I understand many people didn't like it. I can understand if they were expecting the film to predicate itself on the reveal of what exactly is inside the cellar but it's not. It's a journey not a destination film. Speedman and Brewster don't really mesh together onscreen, which, if it was made for that purpose as the rest of the movie plays out, than good casting. Otherwise, I didn't buy them as this happily married couple anxiously awaiting a child. In addition, the reasoning given for them moving into the home I found to be incredibly flimsy. A lot of the "surprises" along the way were predictable too save for the ending, which wasn't a bad twist I didn't see coming. Overall, not a bad way to spend an hour and a half. For those fans who are interested in seeking this out solely for Fishburne, be warned, as if you blink you'll miss him. 6/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: Irishman12]
#1104223 11/03/2405:13 AM11/03/2405:13 AM
In a post-Rapture world, language is considered a sin. As such, no one (save for one character with only a handful of lines) speaks, with their only mode of communication being nonverbal. Azrael (Samara Weaving) and her partner Kenan (Nathan Stewart-Jarrett) live in the wilderness by themselves, or so they thought. They're both soon abducted by a cult who strap Azrael into a makeshift chair carved out of a tree stump. They're offering her as a sacrifice to the zombie like burned creatures who live in the woods and are drawn to blood. Azrael escapes and begins a path of destroying the entire cult. For all intents and purposes, this is a silent film. As stated previously, there is only one character who speaks and he only has a few lines. Other than that, there's cue cards in between a few scenes but other than sound effects, this isn't anything else. And while that wasn't an issue for me, in fact I applaud the bold choice of choosing that route, the film leaves you with more questions than answers. Hardly any to no backstory is given to the audience in terms of who these creatures are, why they're doing what they're doing, etc. There's a lot of religious themes here and the ending will keep audiences guessing for years to come. The only reason I viewed this was because of recent scream queen Samara Weaving who's awesome as usual and carries the film with his bad ass portrayal of Azrael. Be warned going in to this as this film could prove to be divisive with audiences. 5/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1104288 11/03/2408:41 PM11/03/2408:41 PM
10-year-old Charlotte (Ducky Cash) is abducted while playing in the park with her family. Jaq (Hayden Panettiere) is ride sharing to a local event by her driver Shane (Tyler James Williams). They soon come across a vehicle that fits the description from the amber alert that abducted Charlotte and decide to follow it in hopes of rescuing her. The film attempts to present itself as a high speed cat-and-mouse game but its not. Cat-and-mouse? Yes, at times but definitely not a high speed pursuit film other than a few loud honks and cuts to jolt the audience, which failed on me. The film as a whole doesn't work but I do appreciate this topic being given the attention it deserves as it's an important one (not the mention the house of horrors we're shown in the third act for where the abductor calls home). A forgettable film but still a subject that should be discussed more. 5.5/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1104597 11/08/2411:28 AM11/08/2411:28 AM
Mikey Madison plays Anora, an exotic dancer from Brooklyn who meets Ivan (Mark Eydelshteyn), the son of a Russian billionaire by chance at her place of employment because she's the only person in the place who can speak his native tongue. The young man throws money around like he's allergic to it and Anora, a working girl, is only too happy to pick up what he's throwing down. When Ivan decides to propose to Anora, she somewhat hesitantly accepts his offer. However, once married, Ivan's parents (who were not informed until after the ceremony) do not recognize the marriage and go to extreme lengths to end it sooner rather than later. I had heard a lot of positive buzz about this and unfortunately, I don't believe it's going to get a very wide release but if you have the opportunity, I highly recommend checking this out. Mikey Madison carries this film by herself. She's a powerhouse, gladly showing her range and (at least in my humble opinion) an Oscar nomination worthy role. Eydelshteyn also does a wonderful job as Ivan, the spoiled brat son of a Russian oligarch who's English isn't the best and wants to experience as much of America as he can. The first third of the film sets up their marriage while the rest of the film shows its destruction. I'll also point out that during the destruction, the film really gets hilarious which I was not expecting but very much appreciated. I can't wait to check this out again, hopefully soon and definitely a top 5 film of 2024! 8.5/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1104736 11/10/2408:05 PM11/10/2408:05 PM
2 Mormon missionaries, Sister Paxton (Chloe East) and Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) visit the home of Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant) in order to convert him to the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He invites them into his home in order to engage in a theological discussion although the 2 missionaries soon begin to fear for their safety and attempt to leave. Upon their attempt, they realize the only way out is through and must indulge Mr. Reed in his game with the 2 women. The main reason I'm sure many people, including myself, saw this was for Grant's villainous turn as the intellectual and spiritually curious Mr. Reed. It's always great to see typecast characters break the mold and branch out into something they're not known for and Grant excels here in perhaps his finest role ever. He's direct, smart, and astute making both the women and audience uncomfortable at all times. And while there is a lot of dialogue going back-and-forth between Grant and the women, it's intoxicating and never dull (save for the second act which considerably slowed the pacing of the film down unfortunately). In addition, East and Thatcher are wonderful as the missionaries, 2 women who soon get in over their heads and are desperately attempting to escape with their lives. They're innocent, crafty, and smart but also don't just roll over when Mr. Reed's game unfolds but rather push back. The film doesn't so much poke fun at religion, which is a refreshing change, but rather questions it. At times it does inspire thought provoking questions to the audience or at least provide enough intrigue to research some of these topics in greater detail. The film and script are meticulous. Every line, every movement, every set piece has a purpose to it. Nothing is wasted here. A deliciously entertaining game of cat-and-mouse! 7/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1105117 11/16/2407:03 AM11/16/2407:03 AM
Underboss
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,792 Larry's Bar
Heretic is worth seeing. One of Hugh Grants best performances.
"I have this Nightmare. I'm on 5th avenue watching the St. Patrick's Day parade and I have a coronary and nine thousand cops march happily over my body." Chief Sidney Green
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: Giacomo_Vacari]
#1105133 11/16/2411:05 AM11/16/2411:05 AM
Annette (Daisy Ridley) and Ben (Shazad Latif) are raising child actress Matilda (Hiba Ahmed). When Matilda earns a spot in a film with renown actress Alicia (Matilda Lutz), Annette and Ben's already crumbling marriage is put to the ultimate test. A study in the disintegration of a marriage. Annette stops working for marriage and children, moving out of London and into a countryside home to support her author husband Ben, who is the sole breadwinner. However, Annette soon becomes disenchanted with being a stay-at-home mom, meeting with a former coworker to catch up while simultaneously and deliberately hurting/punishing herself in order to feel something other than the mundane tasks of caring for 2 young children. Meanwhile, Ben is smitten with the well-known Alicia, who he confides in, hoping to find in her what Annette cannot provide at home. I'd heard the term magpie before but didn't know it was a bird and one that's quite intellectual, which is appropriate for this film as there's quite more to Annette than meets the eye. Neither Annette or Ben are blameless as Annette can be seen at times as a neglectful mother while Ben is an emotionally infidelity husband. And while the audience is well ahead by the time the third act plays out, it's still fun to watch it all unfold nevertheless. Nothing outstanding or particularly memorable from this but one that's decent enough to earn 90 minutes of your time. 6.5/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1105679 11/21/2408:45 PM11/21/2408:45 PM
While it isn't clearly established in the film, the sequel takes place about 15-20 years after the original when young Lucius, who's no longer living in Rome but rather on the continent of Africa, is taken prisoner and must fight as a gladiator to win his freedom. Meanwhile, his mother Lucilla (Connie Nielsen) is still trying to fulfill her fathers dream of giving Rome back to the people. However, there are now 2 Caesar's in the form of Emperor Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Emperor Caracalla (Fred Hechinger), making her attempts even more difficult with 2 men on the throne rather than one. To be honest, I was against this idea when I originally heard about it. The first was a favorite of mine for years and going back 24 years later for a sequel not many people (outside of the studio of course) asked for seemed like nothing short of another money grab. I can confidently put your fears to rest as this is a worthy follow-up, although I still debate the necessity of it even after viewing it. Lucius' journey is a carbon copy of Maximus'. Lost family member, imprisonment, turn gladiator to fight for his freedom. Nothing new here. The continuing story of Lucilla is what pushes the story forward as well as the introduction of Macrinus, played smoothly as always by 2-time Academy Award winner Denzel Washington (who for my money, steals the show but that shouldn't be any big surprise). He doesn't stick out as some New Yorkers do in period pieces but adapts to this world effortlessly. In addition, Joseph Quinn continues to pad an impressive resume as the alpha of the 2 Caesar's who are both fun playing young, spoiled brats responsible for the empire. I've heard whispers of a 3rd Gladiator and the story leaves plenty of room for it but as always, it'll depend upon the box office receipts. I would most definitely be down for another run around The Coliseum with Ridley Scott and company in tow. 7/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1107254 12/06/2408:18 PM12/06/2408:18 PM
Based on true events and taking place between Idaho and Washington in 1983-84, FBI agent Terry Husk (Jude Law) begins to see a pattern of a string of crimes he believes are linked and the work of a white nationalist group called The Order, lead by Bob Mathews (Nicholas Hoult). From there, Husk focuses his investigation on this group and attempts to stop their future attempts, which he believes include 6 steps from a book entitled THE TURNER DIARIES. The story alone intrigued me enough to check it out. Add in both Law & Hoult, how could you go wrong? I'll tell you. Other than an opening scene bank robbery, the film slithers along at a sluggish pace. The script, and director Justin Kurzel, do a poor job maintaining the cat-and-mouse game between Husk and Mathews. In addition, Hoult plays Mathews as a puppy dog. He, and the entire film, are watered down and he's not believable as this character but rather sticks out as a sore thumb. Which somewhat pains me to say as I am a fan of his work and he's shown he's got acting chops in the past, but just not here. Jude Law is the only one here who has any passion and fire for his character and brings the energy. May be worth a single view but go in with managed expectations. 6.5/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1107260 12/06/2408:44 PM12/06/2408:44 PM
Taking place on New Year's Eve 1999, this comedy/horror film shows what happens when the Y2K bug actually affected the world and the ramifications of it. The story starts out as a comedy, establishing the small group of high schoolers who'll soon be fighting for their lives for the rest of the night; however, the jokes are flat, dated, and cringe worthy. Yes, I understand they're poking fun at the time period but how could they miss the mark that badly? In addition, the horror portion of the film is absolutely ludicrous and eyebrow squintingly bad also. Maybe this was also an attempt at comedy, which if it was, fell incredibly flat as well. I'm surprised Rachel Zegler decided to sign on to this trainwreck because there are no redeeming qualities about it and I couldn't wait for the final credits to roll as I was finished with this not even halfway through. Once the Y2K bug went into effect, it all unraveled for me. No amount of nostalgia, 90's soundtrack, or 90's costumes could save this abomination. Hard pass for anyone even remotely pondering subjecting themselves to this. 3/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1107353 12/07/2404:52 PM12/07/2404:52 PM
Clint Eastwood's swan song is a bit of a conundrum: Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult) is selected as a juror for a vehicular manslaughter trial. But there's one problem: he's the person who killed the young victim, Kendall Carter (Francesca Eastwood), and not her boyfriend James Michael Sythe (Gabriel Basso), who's on trial for her murder. Throw in Justin's fresh marriage to his wife Allison (Zoey Deutch) and his first born on the way and you've got a mix between TWELVE ANGRY MEN and Alfred Hitchcock. The story is incredibly interesting as the story unfolds within the confines of the courtroom, the audience eagerly anticipating how this'll end. However, the trial is over rather quickly and the juror deliberation becomes the focus for the rest of the film, with Justin obviously the hold out on the panel. Will he do the right thing and save James' life or will he remain silent to save his own? For starters, I love the moral dichotomy of the story. I was invested in the film until the trial ended and then the juror deliberated as that seemed to slow the pacing down for me. I was a bit surprised at the outcome but loved the final shot Eastwood leaves us with as it is powerful. If this is indeed his final film, I'm glad he was able to go out on this note rather than on CRY MACHO; however, I disappointingly didn't enjoy this as much as others have. 6/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1107361 12/07/2406:27 PM12/07/2406:27 PM
Oh damn, sad to hear you didn’t enjoy it as much as I did. Movies are a bit like food—everyone’s taste buds are different. I really liked how they handled the jury deliberations, especially the part where JK’s character was kicked off the jury. Still, I’m almost certain I wouldn’t have enjoyed this movie if I had seen it 20 years ago. There are films I cherish today that I couldn’t sit through in my younger years. I hold hope that maybe someday you’ll warm up to this one lol
But you had to play it cool, had to do it your way Had to be a fool, had to throw it all away
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: Giacalone]
#1107388 12/07/2408:42 PM12/07/2408:42 PM
Oh damn, sad to hear you didn’t enjoy it as much as I did. Movies are a bit like food—everyone’s taste buds are different. I really liked how they handled the jury deliberations, especially the part where JK’s character was kicked off the jury. Still, I’m almost certain I wouldn’t have enjoyed this movie if I had seen it 20 years ago. There are films I cherish today that I couldn’t sit through in my younger years. I hold hope that maybe someday you’ll warm up to this one lol
Irish is pretty tough with a 6 I would be happy at school.
"The king is dead, long live the king!"
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1107938 12/12/2408:26 PM12/12/2408:26 PM
Eva (Lucy Hale) recently got out of an 8-year relationship and has done nothing with her life during that time. In order to gain her "independence" she goes on a Tinder-type based dating app, looking to hook up with guys. However, during her hook up phase, there's a serial killer on the loose who's killing girls on the same dating app, leading her and her friends to question if any one of the 3 guys she's currently dating could be the killer. I like Lucy Hale. She's a beautiful woman and her trailers do just enough to spark my interest in her films. But after watching this along with others such as TRUTH OR DARE and FANTASY ISLAND, going forward, I'm going to have to pass as all 3 of these have been terrible. The film seems to be targeting a younger demographic with this unfunny, obvious, and thin script. The reveal of who the killer is was a surprise and I thought it was someone else but the reason given for the killing spree comes up limp. Not to mention the many questionable actions of Eva and how quickly she is to hook up with men and treat them as disposable commodities. 4/10
Re: Movies You Just Watched Discussion, Part III
[Re: J Geoff]
#1107940 12/12/2408:40 PM12/12/2408:40 PM
Based on the Marvel comic book character, Aaron Taylor-Johnson stars as Sergei Kravinoff aka Kraven. Having been raised alongside his brother Dmitri (Fred Hechinger) by their father Nikolai (Russell Crowe) to be fearless hunters, Sergei heeds his fathers words while Dmitri buckles under the weight of his fathers expectations. Sergei and Nikolai are similar yet butt heads with Sergei refusing to believe he's anything like his father. When Dmitri gets kidnapped, Kraven goes on a hunting spree to rescue his brother. Another comic book villain Sony is trying to spin off in their "Spider-Man less" universe and while the other entries have not been to my liking, this surprisingly was. I was expecting the worse but I'm glad Sony had the stones to go ahead and make this a R-rated film because if this was watered down to a PG-13, it would have been even worse. I actually wouldn't mind seeing a sequel for this but that'll ultimately depend upon the box office receipts and I've already heard rumors that Sony is going to take a break in an attempt to reboot their efforts in the future with their non-Spider-Man characters. Taylor-Johnson does a great job as the fan favorite hunter. He's believable, vicious, and powerful although I could easily see how any number of critics will cry foul that this film promotes "toxic masculinity." These are the same individuals who won't perform a simple Google search in order to research the time period the character was created or the fact he's Russian, which spoiler alert, they're not as PC as we are here. I had been wanting to see more of The Rhino as the character hasn't gotten much screen time previously and here, he sadly doesn't get his proper time to shine either but Alessandro Nivola makes the best with what he's given. This was definitely better than MORBIUS, MADAME WEB, and at least the last 2 VENOM movies so again, I'd be happy to watch Kraven go on another hunt in the near future. 6/10