kiddo82

I do like IV but it feels like the forgotten step child sometimes. It's attached to the first three but not entirely and it obviously came out long before the most recent sequels so it's kind of on its own island. (It does have threads that go into V and VI) But I love rewatching it because it's like rediscovering how much I enjoy it every time. I love Allison Brie's character and I howl at her demise whenever I watch. And I think the casting of the main killer is inspired. Firstly because I think this person does the heel turn really well but also, I just don't think it was a role you would expect for that person at that point in their career. It was a fantastic choice. And I agree with you that Sidney going off at the killer at the end of 3 helps to lift the film somewhat. I don't love the killer or the motive but the climax is still fun and watchable.

Scream is one of the rare long running horror franchises without a truly bad entry. That said, I think 3 is weakest of all 6. I also think 6 is surprisingly strong considering, well, that it's the sixth time this story is being told. The alley/ladder scene and the subway scene are some of the best suspense sequences of the franchise since Sid and Halle had to climb out of the cop car in Scream 2. Given that I've watched 1-3 countless times over the years I plan on doing at least 5 and 6 for Halloween this year and the others if I have time.

I've only seen Corpse Bride once or twice amd I don't really remember it. Nut the difference is I got through it both times whereas I still can't sit through Nightmare Before Christmas without taking a break. And the movie is like an hour long!

I just did Little Shop too!

Confessions of a geriatric millennial: The Nightmare Before Christmas: Great Soundtrack. so/so movie. Hocus Pocus: Even as a kid it was never a favorite. I remember renting when it was a new release and getting bored about half way through. I never really gave it much thought after that until the recent second life it's had. Casper: Never seen it. The Addams Family: probably the best watch for me of this particular era and genre and even then it's not great.. I did enjoy it as a child and now I appreciate it for the perfection of Julia, Houston, and Ricci in their respective roles. I love it when "real ACT-ors" give it their all in movies like this. You can tell both Julia and Houston were having fun and neither felt they were above the material. And Ricci gives one of the best child performances ever in The Addams Family. Dark and funny and mature beyond her then years. And speaking of Angelica Houston I have not seen the Witches in a very long time but I remember really liking it way back when. For some reason I have a feeling it's held up well enough.

I told my realization to a friend of mine and she said she flip flops between the two. I thought it was fairly common for one to prefer the first one over the second. I was the same until this latest rewatch. I do wonder how long Ralph Breaks the Internet will hold up though. It doesn't feel outdated yet but so much of the story relies on internet culture (eBay auctions, likes on YouTube, etc) and it's only a matter of time before that changes. I don't think Wreck It Ralph will have the same problem.

This isn't a great article re: the Rachel Zegler Snow White movie. It's basically a bunch of Twitter reactions and it's one of those that makes you scroll forever before you get to the point. However: “I don’t give a sh*t about the new Snow White, but Rachel Zegler is not your damn punching bag,” @JeffMovieMan wrote. “‘Oh she’s desecrating Snow White with her wokeness-“‘YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT SNOW WHITE! YOU NEVER CARED! You only started pretending to care once you had an excuse to be a d*ck.” This. This. All of this.

This was the perfect movie to A-list. I was invested enough that I'm not mad that I spent my time with it, but I'm also really happy I didn't spend any extra money on it. I haven't read any Christie so as someone going in without knowledge or expectations, I thought the movie was perfectly fine without blowing me away. The reveal wasn't the most shocking but it was still fun looking for the clues to confirm or refute my suspicions throughout. The house was cool and atmospheric. I would soft recommend this to anyone in my boat (no foreknowledge/neutral expectations) with the caveat to rent or wait for a streamer. There are worse ways to spend an evening.

Re: 2009 Last House on the Left. I went ahead and watched this and the above is a pretty fair description. It's not a baaaaad movie--for all intents and purposes it's more professionally made, and frankly, more watchable, than its predecessor. However, while I don't think the original completely succeeds in its mission statement this one feels like it exists solely for gore and exploitation. I almost wish I could combine what was good about both of them: the commentary, flawed as it was, of the original, with the production values (and some of the changes) of the remake.

Upon rewatch, I think Ralph Breaks the Internet is a better movie than Wreck It Ralph.

Yeah I struggled with that. I hear what he was trying to say but it still felt exploitative especially juxtaposed against the tonal shifts and wackedy schmackedy police officer bits. But maybe that's because I'm looking at it through a 2023 lens. That's a shame about the remake because the bones were there to turn this into something really impactful.

There is something about James Stewart that's a little too hammy for me and it takes me put of just about every movie I see him in.

Emphasis mine. That's a really good analysis of the flaws of the movie. I thought it was okay for what it was but you articulated exactly why I felt like I was at arm's length throughout. I remember a video review from when the movie first came out about the Tuk Tuk scene. I think the reviewer said something like one of the writers had said he wanted to do the Tuk Tuk chase and was happy to work on a project where he wasn't told "no." The reviewed said "Maybe someone should have told him 'no'." Obviously the flaw of the movie isn't the chase scene but it's emblematic of the bigger issue. Too much time and money spent on the sizzle when you don't have any steak. That's why these movies cost so much money and why it's so hard for them to even make their budget back.

I started my Halloween watching a little early this year. I had never seen any of these titles before: The Dead Zone (1983): (supernatural) After an accident Christopher Walken acquires the power of foresight. It's not my favorite Stephen King adaptation but I'd say it's high second tier. The second half makes up for a slow and episodic first one and I did not see the ultimate twist coming. I always go back to Aristotle saying that the best endings are surprising yet inevitable and I think this fits the bill. The Last House on the Left (1972): (horror realism) Parents seek revenge after their teenaged daughter is tortured by convicted felons. Wes Craven's first film and he makes...some choices. Not even talking about the violence or tonal shifts as much as the music cues. Wowee. And for as controversial as the scenes in the woods are--I get why there was so much hand wringing at the time--the best part of the movie is the suspense elements in the last twenty minutes. This is where the real conversation starts for me I understand that it's an influential movie but the pacing will probably prevent me from ever wanting to watch it again. Though, I am curious about the remake. The Faculty (1998): (teens/aliens) Teens discover their high school is being overrun by aliens. It's not a bad premise as high school is the perfect place for a commentary on pod people/conformity, however, it never lives up to its much better influences. It's also not entirely without its moments. (the homemade drug snorting scene being a personal favorite). As an Oregon Trail Millennial, I'm a little softer on this movie than it probably deserves because it's a perfect time capsule of my people that makes me as happy as it does embarrassed. The teen cast has a lot of names you would recognize both then and now (Elijah Wood, Josh Hartnett, Clea DuVall, Usher) but the ADULTS! The best and most random assortment of names for a middling teen horror movie ever assembled. Piper Lauire. Bebe Neuwirth (and her legs!). John Stewart. Salma Freaking Hayek. Every scene for the first 20 or so minutes I was like, "And another one!" Slice (2018): (horror/monster comedy) Someone is murdering pizza delivery people. Perfectly fine and okay for what it is. To be honest, not funny enough or hokey enough to keep me from wandering even though it's only 80 minutes long. Fun cast that is kind of wasted. I watched it on Sunday I've already forgotten a great deal of it.

"And come what may, I know the way. I am MOANA!"

Pleasantville (1998): ahead of its time and eerily prophetic in parts but also disjointed and meandering. (I kept rewinding to see if I missed important connective tissue moments.) Given the themes of political repression, censorship, and scare tactic propaganda, I wanted to like this more than I did but I almost couldn't wait for it to be over. The cinematography was pretty kick ass though.

I think both things are allowed to be true. And I think coming at things from a real world perspective helps me to enjoy these fictional outcomes even more. Stuff doesn't work out for us all the time. Doesn't mean we never venture into it in the first place and/or enjoy the ride. I think that's why Cher and Josh seemingly not being a great fit doesn't bother me. Baby and Johnny wont make it past her first semester but that doesn't negate their experience here and now. We can appreciate the stopping point of a Clueless or Dirty Dancing while at the same time being cynical about the long term. You just wish everyone well while it lasts and are pretty sure they'll come out fine on the other side anyway. Not so much with a Gone Girl, which isn't trying to tell us we're leaving things off in a good place.

I listen to a podcast with a husband and wife who review movies-- and I don't know if they came up with this themselves or if it's attributed to someone else--but they like to say "Movies don't end. They stop." Basically, just because something happens at the end of film doesn't mean it would be end game if these characters lived in the real world. And I think sometimes people, no one here in particular, just general "people", are guilty of conflating the two. Two teenagers hooking up, whether they seem like a good match or not, is hardly front page news especially if those teenagers spend a lot of time in close proximity like Cher and Josh. Is theirs a doomed relationship in the real world long term? Probably. Is it realistic in the context of the film where they as horny teens would act on their hormones? I'd argue also probably. Real world relationships develop, and then don't work out, between people who likely shouldn't have gotten together in the first place all the time. It seems some hold fictional relationships to a higher standard.

I mean, frankly, one could argue that Fabelmans had nothing at all going for it and that still go nominated. I joke. Kind of. I'm still mad that I wasted time on that movie. And in the interest of parity, I loved Banshees but I know there are those who would argue that that had nothing going for it either. I do feel you on the Maverick screenplay though. Yeesh. Prior to 2010, I don't think Top Gun Maverick gets a best picture nomination. We can squabble all day long about which specific movies deserve that honor or don't, but I do like that we are in a time where different types of movies are getting in. I like a good thinking man's movie as much as the next person but I also believe it's okay to have a movie get in primarily because of tech, especially one that is watchable and that people enjoyed, over something akin to a perfunctory neo-Merchant-Ivory film. I thought Dune was boring AF but even I couldn't deny that it was a technically superior movie to a lot of its competition and it earned its place on the list. I actually talked myself into rooting for it because at the end of the day I thought it had just as much if not more going for it than any other nominee. That, and Drive My Car was never going to win anyway. It's weird because I don't want to die on the hill specifically defending Top Gun Maverick's best picture nomination but I guess I am willing to go down fighting for its right to be nominated. I *will* die on the hill that the Fabelmans was awful. And for good measure The Irishman can catch some of my strays too.

I don't think it's that surprising that Top Gun Maverick got nominated for best picture especially considering it got 6 Oscar nominations in total. (I don't think anyone could argue the tech nominations although I'm sure some have a bone to pick with the screenplay one.) It's not much different than something like Dune being a technical juggernaut just one year prior. (and who's adapted screenplay nomination is also inexplicable to me.) Its path might even be more comparable to Ford v Ferrari. Editing, one of the awards for which Maverick was nominated, might be one of the biggest crossover categories between the undercard and best picture. Since the 82nd Awards (2010) when the field first expanded from 5 nominees to as many as ten (I think now we're up to a flat ten no matter what), only 5 times has a movie gotten an editing nom without a best picture nom. In fact, if you only count Maverick's non best picture noms (5) and compare that to the other movies since 2010 that got at least 5 without best pictute (by my count there are 7 but there could be more), Star Wars The Force Awakens was the only movie to get at least 5 nominations including editing but not best picture. That's the outlier. Maverick itself might be a lightweight, but the best picture nomination is not unprecedented. What's interesting is that the members of each branch nominate their own. So only the editors nominate the editing category, the actors nominate the acting category, etc. Everyone nominates best picture. Since the acting branch is the largest body of the academy you'd think that would boost movies that get multiple acting noms. But that didn't help movies like Foxcatcher and Ma Rainey(2 acting noms each/5 total) or Carol (2 acting noms/6 total.) No BP nom for any of those. But also no editing nominations either, which again, seems to be the key statistic.

I was just reading one of those "movies that have aged badly" lists. I don't even know why I clicked on it. It's always the same movies over and over again presented as if that particular website is the first media outlet to declare that Gone with the Wind and Breakfast at Tiffany's have issues. Now, one that I don't really have a problem with on the list is Clueless. Maybe I'm weird but I don't think it's gross that Cher and Josh start dating at the end. They're not actually related nor did they even grow up together as step siblings. That's a live and let live situation as far as I'm concerned.

Not hot people have a lot of trauma. Not that I would know anything about that. Jokes aside, I agree. Everything else ties together but there is no significant reason why Mary, who never met a man who never even existed, would have become so miserable when there is nothing to suggest that's a possible outcome in the main movie universe.

I'm head canoning that since she never had George to be hot for she was doomed to have no other prospects so she figured she'd go to college and eff around and get a masters. As you do. I don't know how knowing George would have saved her eyesight though. Maybe it's just from all those years burying herself in books and straining her eyes because without George Bailey she wouldn't have had a reason for a social life? And at least that Sam universe makes a lot more narrative sense.

Yeah but she's not hot anymore.

With glasses!