• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Movies Rate and Discuss the Last Movie You Saw v.16

Unthinkable (2010) 10/10. This movie is a fucking masterpiece. Samuel L Jackson should have won the Oscar for this. I can only imagine it got snubbed because it's so ludicrously un-PC. This movie is right up there with Silence of the Lambs as one of the best thrillers of the modern era.
 
Licorice Pizza (USA, 2021)

Rom-com/drama written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. It stars Alana Haim and Cooper Hoffman. The supporting cast includes a lot of actors who you will recognize including Sean Penn, Tom Waits, and Bradley Cooper.

The plot follows teenager Gary Valentine (Hoffman) and 25 year old Alana Kane (Haim) as they navigate life and love in the Valley in the early 1970's.

Gary is a cocky actor/entrepreneur/hustler/huckster who comes on to the decade older Alana during picture day at his high school. Alana, working as the photographer's assistant, initially dismisses Gary's flirtations but nevertheless joins him for dinner that night. The two go on to become friends, business partners, and, at times,"romantically curious".

Anderson presents SoCal in the 1970's as a place of wonder and opportunity. Gary starts a waterbed business before turning to running a pinball arcade. Alana is often at his side and tries acting herself. Gary does not consider limitations and he brings the audience along for the ride. Anderson is clearly in love with this time and place from his childhood. He creates a beautiful and nostalgic world for this characters to grow up, fall in and out of love, and experience life.

It is a sweet story. The plot often (usually) meanders, but this feels like a feature, not a bug. Anderson is in no hurry to get to the end and soon, neither are we.

Rating: 8.5/10




I loved this quirky movie. It has a very real feel to it. None of the leads are particularly attractive, and the feel and look of the era really hits.
 
10/10 legendary movie about grafitti culture when and where it was born in NYC in the 70s.

Good look into a very particular and unique subculture that may still exist, it def was on a completley different level at the time this was filmed.

 
Decided to rewatch the omen trilogy and then watch the other 3 finishing with First Omen.

What I like most about The Omen is how well it sneaks into an adventure film, even though the film is mostly horror. It is creepy and fun at the same time. Gregory Peck is great and the scary scenes still hold up very well.

To be honest I think I was most surprised at how well Damien: Omen 2 held up. The actor who plays him as a teen (Jonathon Scott Taylor) does a really good job, especially in one scene in which I wonder how many takes were needed to get it right.

While in Omen 1 he was pretty much just a creepy kid, in Damien he is pretty much the protagonist...and goes through a pretty interesting internal struggle to figure out who he is and his destiny.

I was actually kinda surprised. Any other Omen 2 fans here?.

The Final Conflict (omen 3) was pretty much exactly how I remember it. Sam Niell is great as adult Damien and the film is a pretty campy fun threequel but the ending isnt great and feels very anticlimactic especially if you consider the story unfolding as a trilogy.

Omen 4 is where I start with the films I haven't seen yet. It was pretty bad but also kinda dumb fun. I didnt hate it in that regard.

The Omen 2006 remake wasnt bad, since it is pretty much the exact movie as the 76 original. It is just hard for Shrieber and co to compete with the likes of Gregory Peck. I also dont think the 2000s visual style for horror captured the creepiness of the story the same way. I thought it was a solid remake by most standards though.

Finally is First Omen. I have to say that there are plenty of things I really liked about this one, like a lot of good, creepy mood building. It felt like the attempt was to take what Ari Aster does with his creepification of paganism and apply it to Catholicism. I thought those aspects worked fairly well inbetween the jump horror stuff in which they used way more than they needed.

On the negative I really didnt like a certain retcon that was made, if you saw the movie you know. They did stuff with it to not make it feel like such a useless change, but for me it kind of ruins the effect of a scene from the original and it just plain bothered me

Overall it was a fun marathon to get into the mood for October.
 
Last edited:
Decided to rewatch the omen trilogy and then watch the other 3 finishing with First Omen.

What I like most about The Omen is how well it sneaks into an adventure film, even though the film is mostly horror. It is creepy and fun at the same time. Gregory Peck is great and the scary scenes still hold up very well.

To be honest I think I was most surprised at how well Damien: Omen 2 held up. The actor who plays him as a teen (Jonathon Scott Taylor) does a really good job, especially in one scene in which I wonder how many takes were needed to get it right.

While in Omen 1 he was pretty much just a creepy kid, in Damien he is pretty much the protagonist...and goes through a pretty interesting internal struggle to figure out who he is and his destiny.

I was actually kinda surprised. Any other Omen 2 fans here?.

The Final Conflict (omen 3) was pretty much exactly how I remember it. Sam Niell is great as adult Damien and the film is a pretty campy fun threequel but the ending isnt great and feels very anticlimactic especially if you consider the story unfolding as a trilogy.

Omen 4 is where I start with the films I haven't seen yet. It was pretty bad but also kinda dumb fun. I didnt hate it in that regard.

The Omen 2006 remake wasnt bad, since it is pretty much the exact movie as the 76 original. It is just hard for Shrieber and co to compete with the likes of Gregory Peck. I also dont think the 2000s visual style for horror captured the creepiness of the story the same way. I thought it was a solid remake by most standards though.

Finally is First Omen. I have to say that there are plenty of things I really liked about this one, like a lot of good, creepy mood building. It felt like the attempt was to take what Ari Aster does with his creepification of paganism and apply it to Catholicism. I thought those aspects worked fairly well inbetween the jump horror stuff in which they used way more than they needed.

On the negative I really didnt like a certain retcon that was made, if you saw the movie you know. They did stuff with it to not make it feel like such a useless change, but for me it kind of ruins the affect of a scene from the original and it just plain bothered me

Overall it was a fun marathon to get into the mood for October.
The first one is fuckin great.

I should watch the sequels, esp considering Sam Neil is in the third one
 
The first one is fuckin great.

I should watch the sequels, esp considering Sam Neil is in the third one

I would recommend it if you want to see the story continued too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HHJ
Tetsuo: The Iron Man showed up on one of my streaming services and accidentally autoplayed for a few seconds.

I have cancelled that streamer. I just got back from the ocean where I dumped the tv, just to be safe. On my way to the airport tomorrow morning to move to Tibet.
 
Been rewatching the first three Pirates Of The Caribbean movies over the last few days, and I know the common opinion is "the first one is the best" but I don't detect much of a drop-off in quality in comparison to most sequels in a series.

In fact, I consider them to be almost equal quality.

And its astounding how great the CGI work is for 2003, 2006, & 2007 movies. They put everything else of that era to shame, and MOST of todays CGI examples.
Very surprising when you compare todays computer technology to the computers of that era.
(Compare Grand Theft Auto 3 to Cyberpunk2077)
 
Dragonlord’s Review of JOKER: FOLIE A DEUX (No Spoilers)

Bottom Line: Despite another stellar performance by Joaquin Phoenix, some beautiful cinematography and imagery, Joker: Folie a Deux bombs due to the thin plot with little to no payoff and a quasi-musical experiment that felt flat and intrusive.

zUrXNg5.jpeg


Joker (2019) was originally planned as a standalone movie with no sequels. After the film became a smash hit, reaching $1 billion worldwide, Warner Bros. offered a ton of money to writer-director Todd Phillips and star Joaquin Phoenix to come back. Unfortunately, Phillips didn’t really have a good vision for the sequel. He only had concepts of a plan.

One of the major problems with Joker: Folie a Deux was that it felt like Phillips didn’t really have a good story to tell for the sequel. The first Joker movie was modeled for the most part after Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, which meant the story had a template to fall back on. It had a beginning, middle and a clear ending. This Joker sequel had no template to follow. It’s similar to how the first Wonder Woman movie (2017) adapted George Perez’s 1987 seminal comic book run on the character as well as taking inspirations from the 2009 animated movie and Captain America: The First Avenger. But when the filmmakers were given free rein for Wonder Woman 1984 with no established story to copy, the result was a disaster.

Set two years after the first film, Joker: Folie a Deux starts off with Arthur Fleck wallowing in Arkham State Hospital. He gets a spark in his life when he meets Harleen “Lee” Quinzel (Lady Gaga), an obsessed fan of the Joker, and the two form a romantic relationship. Arthur finds a new way to express himself through singing and fantasizing musical scenarios to convey his emotions. But his newfound happiness might be short-lived as Arthur goes to trial facing the death penalty.

Phoenix once again gives a magnificent performance. His physical and emotional transformation of the character is just astounding. The film is a character study of Arthur Fleck and dives further into his psyche, which at times felt derivative especially at the trial scenes since a lot of the aspects were already tackled in the first film.

Lady Gaga’s acting was good and her singing was even better but she was not properly utilized as her version of Harley Quinn lacked a little depth and a few scenes to flesh out the character. There are a few set photos and footage of Harley that were in promotions that didn’t make the final cut of the film, suggesting Harley had a lot more scenes.

The rest of the supporting cast was solid which included Brendan Gleeson as an abusive guard at Arkham, Catherine Keener as Arthur’s lawyer, Steve Coogan as a TV journalist and Leigh Gill as Arthur’s former co-worker. The one cast that really didn’t work was Harry Lawtey as Harvey Dent. They chose an actor that looked very young to play Dent in an attempt to align his age with the young Bruce Wayne in case there’s more sequels to this Elseworld universe.

I have a suspicion that Todd Phillips didn’t like that Arthur Fleck was inadvertently glamorized and idolized in real life. It feels like Phillips made the sequel to tear down the character, to humanize him further without sensationalizing it, to show the harsh consequences of his actions. I’ll post more in the spoiler box below on why it felt like Arthur Fleck was intentionally knocked down several pegs. I didn’t like the ending which I will also address in the spoiler box.

Another problem with the film is the musical aspect. I understand it’s a way for Arthur to express himself and to show his fantasies in a musical format but it just didn’t work in so many ways. At first, the singing was tolerable but it just would incessantly pop up all throughout the film that it became annoying. I don’t mind musicals but Folie a Deux’s musical are not original songs and just covers that aren't even well done despite Gaga’s fantastic vocals. These musical moments also disrupt the flow of the film and the film would have been better if they took them out.

Lee tells Arthur at one point in the film, “Let’s give the people what they want.” If only Todd Phillips applied this to his script as well instead of doing the exact opposite of what the fans wanted.

PRELIMINARY RATING: 5.5/10

Expounding on my opinion that writer-director Todd Phillips intentionally dismantled Arthur Fleck. He is rejected by Lee at the end, mirroring real life situations where sometimes spurned people grow to hate the opposite sex or society in general. Arthur goes back to Arkham and unceremoniously shivved to death. He doesn’t even get to exact retribution on his Arkham tormenters, which I didn’t mind though as it avoided the standard revenge trope.

As for the ending where Arthur’s killer uses a blade to carve his own mouth, similar to Heath Ledger’s Joker, I don’t like it because it devalues Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker as some sort Joker beta version. I’m fine with Phoenix’s Joker not being the notorious clown prince of crime since this is a different universe. But the filmmakers (and studio?) are trying so hard to force the stereotypical Joker into this Elseworld universe and thereby potentially setting up a Batman-Joker thing in the far future. This reminds me of the Gotham TV series where they introduce their version of Joker, only to be revealed later on that this is not THE Joker and is just a precursor to the real Joker in the future. It feels cheap.
 
Been rewatching the first three Pirates Of The Caribbean movies over the last few days, and I know the common opinion is "the first one is the best" but I don't detect much of a drop-off in quality in comparison to most sequels in a series.

In fact, I consider them to be almost equal quality.

And its astounding how great the CGI work is for 2003, 2006, & 2007 movies. They put everything else of that era to shame, and MOST of todays CGI examples.
Very surprising when you compare todays computer technology to the computers of that era.
(Compare Grand Theft Auto 3 to Cyberpunk2077)

Pirates is a very solid trilogy. I rewatched it myself not long ago.
 
Dragonlord’s Review of JOKER: FOLIE A DEUX (No Spoilers)

Bottom Line: Despite another stellar performance by Joaquin Phoenix, some beautiful cinematography and imagery, Joker: Folie a Deux bombs due to the thin plot with little to no payoff and a quasi-musical experiment that felt flat and intrusive.

zUrXNg5.jpeg


Joker (2019) was originally planned as a standalone movie with no sequels. After the film became a smash hit, reaching $1 billion worldwide, Warner Bros. offered a ton of money to writer-director Todd Phillips and star Joaquin Phoenix to come back. Unfortunately, Phillips didn’t really have a good vision for the sequel. He only had concepts of a plan.

One of the major problems with Joker: Folie a Deux was that it felt like Phillips didn’t really have a good story to tell for the sequel. The first Joker movie was modeled for the most part after Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, which meant the story had a template to fall back on. It had a beginning, middle and a clear ending. This Joker sequel had no template to follow. It’s similar to how the first Wonder Woman movie (2017) adapted George Perez’s 1987 seminal comic book run on the character as well as taking inspirations from the 2009 animated movie and Captain America: The First Avenger. But when the filmmakers were given free rein for Wonder Woman 1984 with no established story to copy, the result was a disaster.

Set two years after the first film, Joker: Folie a Deux starts off with Arthur Fleck wallowing in Arkham State Hospital. He gets a spark in his life when he meets Harleen “Lee” Quinzel (Lady Gaga), an obsessed fan of the Joker, and the two form a romantic relationship. Arthur finds a new way to express himself through singing and fantasizing musical scenarios to convey his emotions. But his newfound happiness might be short-lived as Arthur goes to trial facing the death penalty.

Phoenix once again gives a magnificent performance. His physical and emotional transformation of the character is just astounding. The film is a character study of Arthur Fleck and dives further into his psyche, which at times felt derivative especially at the trial scenes since a lot of the aspects were already tackled in the first film.

Lady Gaga’s acting was good and her singing was even better but she was not properly utilized as her version of Harley Quinn lacked a little depth and a few scenes to flesh out the character. There are a few set photos and footage of Harley that were in promotions that didn’t make the final cut of the film, suggesting Harley had a lot more scenes.

The rest of the supporting cast was solid which included Brendan Gleeson as an abusive guard at Arkham, Catherine Keener as Arthur’s lawyer, Steve Coogan as a TV journalist and Leigh Gill as Arthur’s former co-worker. The one cast that really didn’t work was Harry Lawtey as Harvey Dent. They chose an actor that looked very young to play Dent in an attempt to align his age with the young Bruce Wayne in case there’s more sequels to this Elseworld universe.

I have a suspicion that Todd Phillips didn’t like that Arthur Fleck was inadvertently glamorized and idolized in real life. It feels like Phillips made the sequel to tear down the character, to humanize him further without sensationalizing it, to show the harsh consequences of his actions. I’ll post more in the spoiler box below on why it felt like Arthur Fleck was intentionally knocked down several pegs. I didn’t like the ending which I will also address in the spoiler box.

Another problem with the film is the musical aspect. I understand it’s a way for Arthur to express himself and to show his fantasies in a musical format but it just didn’t work in so many ways. At first, the singing was tolerable but it just would incessantly pop up all throughout the film that it became annoying. I don’t mind musicals but Folie a Deux’s musical are not original songs and just covers that aren't even well done despite Gaga’s fantastic vocals. These musical moments also disrupt the flow of the film and the film would have been better if they took them out.

Lee tells Arthur at one point in the film, “Let’s give the people what they want.” If only Todd Phillips applied this to his script as well.

PRELIMINARY RATING: 5.5/10

Expounding on my opinion that writer-director Todd Phillips intentionally dismantled Arthur Fleck. He is rejected by Lee at the end, mirroring real life situations where sometimes spurned people grow to hate the opposite sex or society in general. Arthur goes back to Arkham and unceremoniously shivved to death. He doesn’t even get to exact retribution on his Arkham tormenters, which I didn’t mind though as it avoided the standard revenge trope.

As for the ending where Arthur’s killer uses a blade to carve his own mouth, similar to Heath Ledger’s Joker, I don’t like it because it devalues Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker as some sort Joker beta version. I’m fine with Phoenix’s Joker not being the notorious clown prince of crime since this is a different universe. But the filmmakers (and studio?) are trying so hard to force the stereotypical Joker into this Elseworld universe and thereby potentially setting up a Batman-Joker thing in the far future. This reminds me of the Gotham TV series where they introduce their version of Joker, only to be revealed later on that this is not THE Joker and is just a precursor to the real Joker in the future. It feels cheap.



I genuinely cannot think of anything worse than the idea of this movie, it's like it's been designed to be the worst thing I've ever seen.
 
Tetsuo: The Iron Man showed up on one of my streaming services and accidentally autoplayed for a few seconds.

I have cancelled that streamer. I just got back from the ocean where I dumped the tv, just to be safe. On my way to the airport tomorrow morning to move to Tibet.
one of the greatest films of all time??????
 
Psycho (1960)
I've been watching (mostly re-watching) a bunch of horror movies/thrillers on the verge of the genre because it's a good time of year to do so. Psycho is a true classic film from Hitchcock and I was really taken with just how impacting it is, even when you remember all the major plot beats. I think that it fits the mold of all the best Hitchcock films, which is to say that aside from the technical mastery that is obviously on display, there is fundamentally a sound, coherent plot that adds to the effectiveness of the whole experience. The setup with Leigh and Gavin at the hotel is very good. The viewer can tell right from the start that these characters love one another and are enjoying their time together but Marion's dissatisfaction with the furtive nature of their relationship is palpable as well. From there, everything unfolds in an ideally tense manner, Marion stealing the client's money, trading in her car, battling with nervous ideations of what will happen when her actions are discovered all build suspense as Marion's ill-fated journey ultimately leads to Norman Bates' secluded motel.

To its credit, the film's most notorious and frightening scene, rather than rendering the remainder of the film anticlimactic, serves as an effective segue into the latter half of the film, where Vera Miles and Gavin team up with Martin Balsam's private investigator to locate Marion. The cast is uniformly good. Leigh impressively conveys the angst, regret, and empathy of her character . Perkins is terrific. He gives a subtle, nuanced and unsettling performance in a role that could have easily been one-note. Miles, Balsam, and Gavin all shine in their supporting roles as well. The scene between the private investigator and Perkins is, in my opinion, one of the best in the film. I love the way that Balsam gradually finds flaws and inconsistencies in Norman's story. Norman, in turn, plays it relatively cool and calm early on but gets very flustered when Arbogast suggests that he might be harboring Marion out of some misguided sense of chivalry, when really he was just being made a fool of. It's a well-constructed scene that showcases the acting chops of both. Props to Gavin and Miles, too, as they make their characters sympathetic and easy to root for.

As for the technical elements, they are stellar across the board. Hitchcock's intricate direction, the cinematography, the tremendously memorable score, the editing all come together in a masterful manner. Along with Rosemary's Baby, this is probably my favorite horror film ever.

All-timer/10
 
The Innocents (1961)

An adaptation of Henry James' famous work, "The Turn of the Screw," this is an early 60s horror film that is creepy purely because of performances and atmosphere. One thing that I respect about a lot of the horror films of this era is that they, by necessity, had to rely on atmosphere, acting, and implication to unnerve and frighten, as opposed to the modern overreliance on graphic gore. Great actress Deborah Kerr plays a woman hired as a governess for two wealthy orphans. When she arrives at the remote country estate where she and the staff live with the two children, she quickly begins to notice unusual tendencies in the youths' behavior. When she presses the head of household staff about the now deceased groundskeeper and her predecessor, she begins to believe that their souls haunt the premises and the children, able to see them, are being lured in and manipulated by them. There is a great scene where Kerr and the head of the staff interact. The latter defends the children when Kerr seems to be critical of them. Kerr, in turn, points out that their behavior is not bad. They are easy to live with, she says, but that's because they are not with us. It's a compelling premise that definitely did not go in the direction that I expected. The ending is very unsettling.

My only real criticism is that the film has a lot of slow-burn buildup, only for the resolution to be a mad dash to the final scene.

7.8/10
 
The Exorcist (1973)

This is another one of those horror films that have achieved a transcendent sort of state, whereby even people who never saw the film are well aware of some of the most striking scenes and lines. In recent decades, there have been a plethora of possession/exorcism type horror films. Back then, however, this was novel and, highly shocking. The plot is relatively simple. A young girl, daughter of a successful actress, is possessed by an evil force, her mother desperately tries to find someone to help, and a young priest in a crisis of faith, ultimately teams up with an old priest, well-versed in this sort of situation, to exorcise the demon and save the child.

The actual exorcism is actually a far smaller portion of the runtime than I remembered it being. The film builds up to that climactic sequence effectively. Jason Miller and Ellen Burstyn give among the best horror-film performances that I've seen. Burstyn's pure emotion- anger, desperation, anguish- over the situation feels very palpable and authentic. Miller's stoic priest is a likable sort who is dealing with the pain of his mother's death and the sense that he did not help her in her time of need. It is a quiet and stoic performance that is central to the success of the film. Blair and Mercedes McCambridge (doing the voice work) have a very tough task in this film. They obviously deserve credit for the striking, disturbing performance. Throw in the legend Von Sydow (RIP) for good measure. He is barely in the movie and yet you absolutely feel his contribution to the film. It was also great to see great actor Lee J. Cobb in one of his final films.

Frankly, this film is still quite disturbing, even by today's standards (though obviously far less gory and violent than some modern horrors). Ultimately, I do not rate this one quite as high as Rosemary's Baby or Psycho but it's on the top tier of the genre precisely because it combines great production values, a talented filmmaker in Friedkin, and strong performances from very good actors.

8.3/10
 
Last edited:
Fright Night (2011)

Charlie Brewster is a high school senior who has made a concerted effort to become cooler and more popular than his younger self. This effort appears to have been rewarded by his starting a relationship with a popular and attractive classmate. But Charlie's former buddy Ed, is persistently trying to get back in contact with him because he suspects that Charlie's new neighbor, a brash, charismatic guy named Jerry is, in reality, a vampire. Though Charlie quickly dismisses his friend's concerns, he soon comes to realize that Ed was spot on. Worse yet, Jerry knows that he knows, which endangers Charlie and all those close to him. Desperate for assistance, Charlie seeks out the aid of Peter Vincent, a Vegas stage showman whose act is about battling vampires and the occult.

I am a big fan of the original Fright Night film with Chris Sarandon, William Ragsdale, and Roddy McDowall. It's a slick, stylish type of horror film that makes up for some deficits in plotting with some genuinely memorable scenes and a lot of fun performances. I had dragged my feet on seeing this one, precisely because I expected it to be unnecessary, at best, and a pale attempt to recapture the 80s magic of that film, at worst. Surprisingly, I thought this was very entertaining. The cast was on point. Farrell was a great successor to Sarandon. He had the charm and the menace down. Moreover, I think you can make the case that as good as Ragsdale and McDowall were in their roles, Yelchin and David Tenant were even better. The McDowall comparison is tougher to make because Tenant's version of Peter Vincent is so different. While McDowall was more of a milquetoast type guy posing as a bold hunter of demons, Tenant is more like a drunken misanthrope with an interesting backstory.

I always have a lot of positive things to say about Yelchin. But, just like when I re-watched Alpha Dog a couple of years ago, I found myself saddened just watching this because he died far too young and in such a random, tragic way. I really liked his performance here, though. Again, just a great young actor who could operate in any genre. I also thought Christopher Mintz-Plasse was sort of a spot-on successor for the Ed character.

Ultimately, I'd say this is a very fun horror film and the rare remake that is, if not better than the original, on par with it.

7/10
 
Last edited:
Death Race 2000–1975 (6/10)
This is a bad movie in the best possible way. Violent, exploitive, campy, and fun. I hadn’t watched it in years and it’s still a riot. Bad acting, directing, and cheap six can’t stop the fun. I love the way they try to make the future look in 1970s movies. Everything is orange rugs and white plastic chairs and lots of glass and mirrors. This movie is about a dystopian future where there is a transcontinental race where drivers and their navigators get points for running people over in their death cars. Lots of t&a and blood and gore.one of Sly’s first movies.
 
Back
Top