What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Recently viewed movie thread - Rental Edition (2 Viewers)

Masters of the Universe (1987)-I knew it wasn't going to be very good and it wasn't but I also didn't think it was horrible. :shrug: Gotta love that 80's product placement. I've seen a few episodes (of the cartoon) and I had thought it was more of a sword and sandal Medieval type fantasy thing-I don't really remember them having laser guns so I was confused but I don't know about the lore. I remember my cousin being big into He-Man and he had the playsets and toys and all.

Did you guys know that they are doing a remake?

Frank Langella went on record in an interview stating that playing Skeletor was one of his favorite roles. His young son was a huge fan and was running around the house shouting "By the power of Grayskull," so he took the role for him.
Which I think is sweet and makes me think of another movie. Raul Julia in Street Fighter

Raul Julia accepted the role of M. Bison because his children were fans of the Street Fighter games, and he wanted to participate in a film that he thought they would enjoy with him.

They are doing a remake of this too. I guess the summer of 2006 will be rise of the dead IPs.
I liked it a lot as kid even though it really wasn't a very good adaptation of the He-man cartoon. It's kind of like if whoever wrote the script had only heard about He-Man through a 10 person game of telephone.
 
Just bought and rewatched a restored bluray of Argento's masterpiece Profondo Rosso (Deep Red). What a beautiful restored print. They've lost some of the English ADR, so you can watch it either in Italian with English subtitles, or you can watched the dubbed version that has about 20% of the scenes in Italian. I'd forgotten what a sexist jerk the main character was. I'm guessing this was meant to symbolize the misogyny in Italian culture. This movie is awesome. Argento's saturated color and his camera moves are just incredible. This new bluray is worth the money of you're a fan.
 
Just watched Together.

As a fan of Plato's Symposium, someone crafting a body horror movie around it was really neat.

I enjoyed it!
 
Masters of the Universe (1987)-I knew it wasn't going to be very good and it wasn't but I also didn't think it was horrible. :shrug: Gotta love that 80's product placement. I've seen a few episodes (of the cartoon) and I had thought it was more of a sword and sandal Medieval type fantasy thing-I don't really remember them having laser guns so I was confused but I don't know about the lore. I remember my cousin being big into He-Man and he had the playsets and toys and all.

Did you guys know that they are doing a remake?

Frank Langella went on record in an interview stating that playing Skeletor was one of his favorite roles. His young son was a huge fan and was running around the house shouting "By the power of Grayskull," so he took the role for him.
Which I think is sweet and makes me think of another movie. Raul Julia in Street Fighter

Raul Julia accepted the role of M. Bison because his children were fans of the Street Fighter games, and he wanted to participate in a film that he thought they would enjoy with him.

They are doing a remake of this too. I guess the summer of 2006 will be rise of the dead IPs.
I was a huge he-man fan as a kid that movie sucked so bad, especially the stupid Gwildor character they made up for the movie
Watching this movie in a theater on opening night was when I first realized that Hollywood didn't give two ****s about what they were doing so long as they could (theoretically) make money. Later in life, my perspective has changed, and I believe that this film is a shining example of decision making on cocaine. Maximum Overdrive being the example of cocaine directing a film.
 
Big Trouble in Little China-I know you guys love this movie but it's just not that good. There were some funny bits during the final fight but I was mostly meh. Don't really watch martial arts movies so if they were parodying them then I might have missed some of the humor. It also sort of felt like a sequel in a way and the "romance" between Cartrell and Russel felt forced but it wasn't supposed to be good, so it was bad on purpose?
 
Big Trouble in Little China-I know you guys love this movie but it's just not that good. There were some funny bits during the final fight but I was mostly meh. Don't really watch martial arts movies so if they were parodying them then I might have missed some of the humor. It also sort of felt like a sequel in a way and the "romance" between Cartrell and Russel felt forced but it wasn't supposed to be good, so it was bad on purpose?
100% agree. Bad movie.
 
Big Trouble in Little China-I know you guys love this movie but it's just not that good. There were some funny bits during the final fight but I was mostly meh. Don't really watch martial arts movies so if they were parodying them then I might have missed some of the humor. It also sort of felt like a sequel in a way and the "romance" between Cartrell and Russel felt forced but it wasn't supposed to be good, so it was bad on purpose?
100% agree. Bad movie.
Is @Ilov80s agreeing with me? Dear God man, how many Negronis did you have?
 
Big Trouble in Little China-I know you guys love this movie but it's just not that good. There were some funny bits during the final fight but I was mostly meh. Don't really watch martial arts movies so if they were parodying them then I might have missed some of the humor. It also sort of felt like a sequel in a way and the "romance" between Cartrell and Russel felt forced but it wasn't supposed to be good, so it was bad on purpose?
100% agree. Bad movie.
Is @Ilov80s agreeing with me? Dear God man, how many Negronis did you have?
Just one and a glass one wine. I am not a big fan of John Carpenter. Halloween is great but in general I don't get the love for his movies.
 
I love Tubi or streaming in general or just the way Hollywood operates. So the other night I started watching Tomb Raider. Was gonna watch the rest before I went to bed (luckily I don't have to be up early since I'm too much of a cheapskate to shell out for nfl network) So anyways, I typed in tomb since I knew it would come up and then next to it is a movie called Tomb Invader which is an obvious ripoff of ^. Bunch of other low tier mummy-tomb type stuff, then I got down to Aqua League which is a gender swapped Aqua Man. I just find Hollywoods copycat system hilarious. Most of these likely suck but I might watch some for ****s and giggles.
 
Last edited:
Big Trouble in Little China-I know you guys love this movie but it's just not that good. There were some funny bits during the final fight but I was mostly meh. Don't really watch martial arts movies so if they were parodying them then I might have missed some of the humor. It also sort of felt like a sequel in a way and the "romance" between Cartrell and Russel felt forced but it wasn't supposed to be good, so it was bad on purpose?
100% agree. Bad movie.
It's no Last Dragon.
 
I love Tubi or streaming in general or just the way Hollywood opperates. So the other night I started watching Tomb Raider. Was gonna watch the rest before I went to bed (luckily I don't have to be up early since I'm too much of a cheapskate to shell out for nfl network) So anyways, I typed in tomb since I knew it would come up and then next to it is a movie called Tomb Invader which is an obvious ripoff of ^. Bunch of other low tier mummy-tomb type stuff, then I got down to Aqua League which is a gender swapped Aqua Man. I just find Hollywoods copycat system hilarious. Most of these likely suck but I might watch some for ****s and giggles.
Once in a rare while you'll find something good when flying blind like this. For me it was Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. I know it's built momentum and is liked by many now, but when I first stumbled across it I had never heard of it. Cockneys vs. Zombies is another - not as much momentum on this one, but I found it really fun.

Implementing my "no movies under IMDB 6.0" policy has stopped me from wasting a lot of time on terrible movies with good cover art and synopses that make them sound exactly like 28 Days Later or [REC]. But CvZ is 5.9 so maybe I'm missing out.
 
Big Trouble in Little China-I know you guys love this movie but it's just not that good. There were some funny bits during the final fight but I was mostly meh. Don't really watch martial arts movies so if they were parodying them then I might have missed some of the humor. It also sort of felt like a sequel in a way and the "romance" between Cartrell and Russel felt forced but it wasn't supposed to be good, so it was bad on purpose?
100% agree. Bad movie.
You’re a bad movie!
 
Big Trouble in Little China-I know you guys love this movie but it's just not that good. There were some funny bits during the final fight but I was mostly meh. Don't really watch martial arts movies so if they were parodying them then I might have missed some of the humor. It also sort of felt like a sequel in a way and the "romance" between Cartrell and Russel felt forced but it wasn't supposed to be good, so it was bad on purpose?
100% agree. Bad movie.
Your face is a bad movie!
Fyp
 
Big Trouble in Little China-I know you guys love this movie but it's just not that good. There were some funny bits during the final fight but I was mostly meh. Don't really watch martial arts movies so if they were parodying them then I might have missed some of the humor. It also sort of felt like a sequel in a way and the "romance" between Cartrell and Russel felt forced but it wasn't supposed to be good, so it was bad on purpose?

Big Trouble in Little China-I know you guys love this movie but it's just not that good. There were some funny bits during the final fight but I was mostly meh. Don't really watch martial arts movies so if they were parodying them then I might have missed some of the humor. It also sort of felt like a sequel in a way and the "romance" between Cartrell and Russel felt forced but it wasn't supposed to be good, so it was bad on purpose?
100% agree. Bad movie.

One month ban for both of you
 
Just remember what ol' Jack Burton does when the earth quakes, and the poison arrows fall from the sky, and the pillars of Heaven shake. Yeah, Jack Burton just looks that big ol' storm right square in the eye and he says, "Give me your best shot, pal. I can take it.
 
I love Tubi or streaming in general or just the way Hollywood opperates. So the other night I started watching Tomb Raider. Was gonna watch the rest before I went to bed (luckily I don't have to be up early since I'm too much of a cheapskate to shell out for nfl network) So anyways, I typed in tomb since I knew it would come up and then next to it is a movie called Tomb Invader which is an obvious ripoff of ^. Bunch of other low tier mummy-tomb type stuff, then I got down to Aqua League which is a gender swapped Aqua Man. I just find Hollywoods copycat system hilarious. Most of these likely suck but I might watch some for ****s and giggles.
Once in a rare while you'll find something good when flying blind like this. For me it was Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. I know it's built momentum and is liked by many now, but when I first stumbled across it I had never heard of it. Cockneys vs. Zombies is another - not as much momentum on this one, but I found it really fun.

Implementing my "no movies under IMDB 6.0" policy has stopped me from wasting a lot of time on terrible movies with good cover art and synopses that make them sound exactly like 28 Days Later or [REC]. But CvZ is 5.9 so maybe I'm missing out.
I think this is a good rule of thumb and I myself follow this but I'm a little more lenient especially when it comes to genres I like (sci-fi, action, comedy) or maybe a permise that sounds interesting. I skip alot of dramas though. For instance, I liked that One Shot. It has a 5.7 and it's just a generic action movie but it wasn't horrible I thought. I think its also about expectations, like id you are going in expecting a Citizen Kane or Die Hard then one could not like something since it's not as good as _________.
 
I love Tubi or streaming in general or just the way Hollywood opperates. So the other night I started watching Tomb Raider. Was gonna watch the rest before I went to bed (luckily I don't have to be up early since I'm too much of a cheapskate to shell out for nfl network) So anyways, I typed in tomb since I knew it would come up and then next to it is a movie called Tomb Invader which is an obvious ripoff of ^. Bunch of other low tier mummy-tomb type stuff, then I got down to Aqua League which is a gender swapped Aqua Man. I just find Hollywoods copycat system hilarious. Most of these likely suck but I might watch some for ****s and giggles.
Once in a rare while you'll find something good when flying blind like this. For me it was Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. I know it's built momentum and is liked by many now, but when I first stumbled across it I had never heard of it. Cockneys vs. Zombies is another - not as much momentum on this one, but I found it really fun.

Implementing my "no movies under IMDB 6.0" policy has stopped me from wasting a lot of time on terrible movies with good cover art and synopses that make them sound exactly like 28 Days Later or [REC]. But CvZ is 5.9 so maybe I'm missing out.
I think this is a good rule of thumb and I myself follow this but I'm a little more lenient especially when it comes to genres I like (sci-fi, action, comedy) or maybe a permise that sounds interesting. I skip alot of dramas though. For instance, I liked that One Shot. It has a 5.7 and it's just a generic action movie but it wasn't horrible I thought. I think its also about expectations, like id you are going in expecting a Citizen Kane or Die Hard then one could not like something since it's not as good as _________.
I think like another posted put Letterboxd is a little more forgiving for genre. The ratings seem better suited to the whole "knowing what you're getting into" element for horror, sci-fi, etc. I like their ratings as a better judge than IMDB or RT for me.
 
I love Tubi or streaming in general or just the way Hollywood opperates. So the other night I started watching Tomb Raider. Was gonna watch the rest before I went to bed (luckily I don't have to be up early since I'm too much of a cheapskate to shell out for nfl network) So anyways, I typed in tomb since I knew it would come up and then next to it is a movie called Tomb Invader which is an obvious ripoff of ^. Bunch of other low tier mummy-tomb type stuff, then I got down to Aqua League which is a gender swapped Aqua Man. I just find Hollywoods copycat system hilarious. Most of these likely suck but I might watch some for ****s and giggles.
Once in a rare while you'll find something good when flying blind like this. For me it was Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. I know it's built momentum and is liked by many now, but when I first stumbled across it I had never heard of it. Cockneys vs. Zombies is another - not as much momentum on this one, but I found it really fun.

Implementing my "no movies under IMDB 6.0" policy has stopped me from wasting a lot of time on terrible movies with good cover art and synopses that make them sound exactly like 28 Days Later or [REC]. But CvZ is 5.9 so maybe I'm missing out.
I think this is a good rule of thumb and I myself follow this but I'm a little more lenient especially when it comes to genres I like (sci-fi, action, comedy) or maybe a permise that sounds interesting. I skip alot of dramas though. For instance, I liked that One Shot. It has a 5.7 and it's just a generic action movie but it wasn't horrible I thought. I think its also about expectations, like id you are going in expecting a Citizen Kane or Die Hard then one could not like something since it's not as good as _________.
I think like another posted put Letterboxd is a little more forgiving for genre. The ratings seem better suited to the whole "knowing what you're getting into" element for horror, sci-fi, etc. I like their ratings as a better judge than IMDB or RT for me.
I'll put this to the test. I just bumped up all the movies on my list that had over a 3.0 on letterboxd. I was actually on there this week recording my first couple movies for the Oct31s!
 
I love Tubi or streaming in general or just the way Hollywood opperates. So the other night I started watching Tomb Raider. Was gonna watch the rest before I went to bed (luckily I don't have to be up early since I'm too much of a cheapskate to shell out for nfl network) So anyways, I typed in tomb since I knew it would come up and then next to it is a movie called Tomb Invader which is an obvious ripoff of ^. Bunch of other low tier mummy-tomb type stuff, then I got down to Aqua League which is a gender swapped Aqua Man. I just find Hollywoods copycat system hilarious. Most of these likely suck but I might watch some for ****s and giggles.
Once in a rare while you'll find something good when flying blind like this. For me it was Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. I know it's built momentum and is liked by many now, but when I first stumbled across it I had never heard of it. Cockneys vs. Zombies is another - not as much momentum on this one, but I found it really fun.

Implementing my "no movies under IMDB 6.0" policy has stopped me from wasting a lot of time on terrible movies with good cover art and synopses that make them sound exactly like 28 Days Later or [REC]. But CvZ is 5.9 so maybe I'm missing out.
I think this is a good rule of thumb and I myself follow this but I'm a little more lenient especially when it comes to genres I like (sci-fi, action, comedy) or maybe a permise that sounds interesting. I skip alot of dramas though. For instance, I liked that One Shot. It has a 5.7 and it's just a generic action movie but it wasn't horrible I thought. I think its also about expectations, like id you are going in expecting a Citizen Kane or Die Hard then one could not like something since it's not as good as _________.
I think like another posted put Letterboxd is a little more forgiving for genre. The ratings seem better suited to the whole "knowing what you're getting into" element for horror, sci-fi, etc. I like their ratings as a better judge than IMDB or RT for me.
What makes Letterboxd better for genre? Doesn't it mostly matter who is doing the reviews? So if a bunch of horror fans post on Letterboxd said horror movies might be higher than on there than on IMDB or metacritic. Algorithm matters as well, I know Letterboxd and metacritic uses weighted averages and RT uses a dumb one.
 
I love Tubi or streaming in general or just the way Hollywood opperates. So the other night I started watching Tomb Raider. Was gonna watch the rest before I went to bed (luckily I don't have to be up early since I'm too much of a cheapskate to shell out for nfl network) So anyways, I typed in tomb since I knew it would come up and then next to it is a movie called Tomb Invader which is an obvious ripoff of ^. Bunch of other low tier mummy-tomb type stuff, then I got down to Aqua League which is a gender swapped Aqua Man. I just find Hollywoods copycat system hilarious. Most of these likely suck but I might watch some for ****s and giggles.
Once in a rare while you'll find something good when flying blind like this. For me it was Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. I know it's built momentum and is liked by many now, but when I first stumbled across it I had never heard of it. Cockneys vs. Zombies is another - not as much momentum on this one, but I found it really fun.

Implementing my "no movies under IMDB 6.0" policy has stopped me from wasting a lot of time on terrible movies with good cover art and synopses that make them sound exactly like 28 Days Later or [REC]. But CvZ is 5.9 so maybe I'm missing out.
I think this is a good rule of thumb and I myself follow this but I'm a little more lenient especially when it comes to genres I like (sci-fi, action, comedy) or maybe a permise that sounds interesting. I skip alot of dramas though. For instance, I liked that One Shot. It has a 5.7 and it's just a generic action movie but it wasn't horrible I thought. I think its also about expectations, like id you are going in expecting a Citizen Kane or Die Hard then one could not like something since it's not as good as _________.
I think like another posted put Letterboxd is a little more forgiving for genre. The ratings seem better suited to the whole "knowing what you're getting into" element for horror, sci-fi, etc. I like their ratings as a better judge than IMDB or RT for me.
What makes Letterboxd better for genre? Doesn't it mostly matter who is doing the reviews? So if a bunch of horror fans post on Letterboxd said horror movies might be higher than on there than on IMDB or metacritic. Algorithm matters as well, I know Letterboxd and metacritic uses weighted averages and RT uses a dumb one.
I think just the sensibilities of the users rating it. It’s definitely a younger audience. And no weighting that I’m aware. Every user gets a rating and it’s an average of them all.
 
I love Tubi or streaming in general or just the way Hollywood opperates. So the other night I started watching Tomb Raider. Was gonna watch the rest before I went to bed (luckily I don't have to be up early since I'm too much of a cheapskate to shell out for nfl network) So anyways, I typed in tomb since I knew it would come up and then next to it is a movie called Tomb Invader which is an obvious ripoff of ^. Bunch of other low tier mummy-tomb type stuff, then I got down to Aqua League which is a gender swapped Aqua Man. I just find Hollywoods copycat system hilarious. Most of these likely suck but I might watch some for ****s and giggles.
Once in a rare while you'll find something good when flying blind like this. For me it was Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. I know it's built momentum and is liked by many now, but when I first stumbled across it I had never heard of it. Cockneys vs. Zombies is another - not as much momentum on this one, but I found it really fun.

Implementing my "no movies under IMDB 6.0" policy has stopped me from wasting a lot of time on terrible movies with good cover art and synopses that make them sound exactly like 28 Days Later or [REC]. But CvZ is 5.9 so maybe I'm missing out.
I think this is a good rule of thumb and I myself follow this but I'm a little more lenient especially when it comes to genres I like (sci-fi, action, comedy) or maybe a permise that sounds interesting. I skip alot of dramas though. For instance, I liked that One Shot. It has a 5.7 and it's just a generic action movie but it wasn't horrible I thought. I think its also about expectations, like id you are going in expecting a Citizen Kane or Die Hard then one could not like something since it's not as good as _________.
I think like another posted put Letterboxd is a little more forgiving for genre. The ratings seem better suited to the whole "knowing what you're getting into" element for horror, sci-fi, etc. I like their ratings as a better judge than IMDB or RT for me.
What makes Letterboxd better for genre? Doesn't it mostly matter who is doing the reviews? So if a bunch of horror fans post on Letterboxd said horror movies might be higher than on there than on IMDB or metacritic. Algorithm matters as well, I know Letterboxd and metacritic uses weighted averages and RT uses a dumb one.
I think just the sensibilities of the users rating it. It’s definitely a younger audience. And no weighting that I’m aware. Every user gets a rating and it’s an average of them all.
fair. That's the same reason I like IMDB but I guess we just all like the things we agree with.

How is the average rating calculated for a film?​

We use a weighted calculation to compute the average rating for each film, rather than using the true mean value of all the ratings cast. Only one rating is considered per member (this is the most recent rating cast by the member for the film).

The ‘weighted’ part of the calculation refers to the mechanism we use to compute the average rating. Every rating cast after a film’s release is considered, with weightings applied based on the number or ratings received for the film, and other heuristics. For example, a film with only a handful of five-star ratings has its average weighted down to account for its lower volume of ratings compared to a film with tens or hundreds of thousands of ratings. Our approach also identifies unusual patterns of rating activity, and accounts for these i
just FYI
 
I love Tubi or streaming in general or just the way Hollywood opperates. So the other night I started watching Tomb Raider. Was gonna watch the rest before I went to bed (luckily I don't have to be up early since I'm too much of a cheapskate to shell out for nfl network) So anyways, I typed in tomb since I knew it would come up and then next to it is a movie called Tomb Invader which is an obvious ripoff of ^. Bunch of other low tier mummy-tomb type stuff, then I got down to Aqua League which is a gender swapped Aqua Man. I just find Hollywoods copycat system hilarious. Most of these likely suck but I might watch some for ****s and giggles.
Once in a rare while you'll find something good when flying blind like this. For me it was Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. I know it's built momentum and is liked by many now, but when I first stumbled across it I had never heard of it. Cockneys vs. Zombies is another - not as much momentum on this one, but I found it really fun.

Implementing my "no movies under IMDB 6.0" policy has stopped me from wasting a lot of time on terrible movies with good cover art and synopses that make them sound exactly like 28 Days Later or [REC]. But CvZ is 5.9 so maybe I'm missing out.
I think this is a good rule of thumb and I myself follow this but I'm a little more lenient especially when it comes to genres I like (sci-fi, action, comedy) or maybe a permise that sounds interesting. I skip alot of dramas though. For instance, I liked that One Shot. It has a 5.7 and it's just a generic action movie but it wasn't horrible I thought. I think its also about expectations, like id you are going in expecting a Citizen Kane or Die Hard then one could not like something since it's not as good as _________.
I think like another posted put Letterboxd is a little more forgiving for genre. The ratings seem better suited to the whole "knowing what you're getting into" element for horror, sci-fi, etc. I like their ratings as a better judge than IMDB or RT for me.
What makes Letterboxd better for genre? Doesn't it mostly matter who is doing the reviews? So if a bunch of horror fans post on Letterboxd said horror movies might be higher than on there than on IMDB or metacritic. Algorithm matters as well, I know Letterboxd and metacritic uses weighted averages and RT uses a dumb one.
I think just the sensibilities of the users rating it. It’s definitely a younger audience. And no weighting that I’m aware. Every user gets a rating and it’s an average of them all.
fair. That's the same reason I like IMDB but I guess we just all like the things we agree with.

How is the average rating calculated for a film?​

We use a weighted calculation to compute the average rating for each film, rather than using the true mean value of all the ratings cast. Only one rating is considered per member (this is the most recent rating cast by the member for the film).

The ‘weighted’ part of the calculation refers to the mechanism we use to compute the average rating. Every rating cast after a film’s release is considered, with weightings applied based on the number or ratings received for the film, and other heuristics. For example, a film with only a handful of five-star ratings has its average weighted down to account for its lower volume of ratings compared to a film with tens or hundreds of thousands of ratings. Our approach also identifies unusual patterns of rating activity, and accounts for these i
just FYI

I didn't know that but it looks like IMDB does similar

IMDb publishes weighted rating averages rather than raw data averages. The simplest way to explain it is that although we accept and consider all ratings received by users, not all ratings have the same impact (or "weight") on the final rating.

When unusual rating activity is detected, a different weighting calculation may be applied in order to preserve the reliability of our system. To ensure our rating mechanism remains effective, we don't disclose the exact method used to generate the rating.
 
speaking of movies with a sub 6.0 rating....

Long Distance-Not all the humor or dialogue landed for me but this felt like a movie, while not amazing or anything, that I could just put on and relax. So I think it was pretty good.
 
And I did finish that Tomb Raider. The story was...a little wonky to me but the pay off in the end was pretty decent. Definitely Indiana Jones inspired (the whole Lara Krot thing is supposed to be a female Indy Jones so yeah, but if you watch this, I think you'll get what I mean) I like big budgets (and I cannot lie) so I tend to "like" a movie if it looks good and for 94 million I think it looks good.
 
And I did finish that Tomb Raider. The story was...a little wonky to me but the pay off in the end was pretty decent. Definitely Indiana Jones inspired (the whole Lara Krot thing is supposed to be a female Indy Jones so yeah, but if you watch this, I think you'll get what I mean) I like big budgets (and I cannot lie) so I tend to "like" a movie if it looks good and for 94 million I think it looks good.
You know this is based of a video game and was a reboot of Angelina Jolie movie.?
 
And I did finish that Tomb Raider. The story was...a little wonky to me but the pay off in the end was pretty decent. Definitely Indiana Jones inspired (the whole Lara Krot thing is supposed to be a female Indy Jones so yeah, but if you watch this, I think you'll get what I mean) I like big budgets (and I cannot lie) so I tend to "like" a movie if it looks good and for 94 million I think it looks good.
You know this is based of a video game and was a reboot of Angelina Jolie movie.?
yes
 
One of my favorite under the radar violent/revenge films is now free on Tubi: Death Sentence

Kevin Bacon goes on a rampage

The one-take chase scene @ the 41 minute mark is worth the watch alone
 
My monthly dump of movies I watched in September

The Thursday Murder Club (2025 - C. Columbus)
Tribute to a Bad Man (1956 - R. Wise)
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009 - N.A. Oplev)
Captain Sindbad (1963 - B. Haskin)
My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done (2009 - W. Herzog)
Sherlock Holmes (2009 - G. Ritchie)
Medium Cool (1969 - H. Wexler)
Thunderbolts* (2025 - J. Schreier)
The Forbidden Kingdom (2008 - R. Minkoff)
The Girl Who Played with Fire (2009 - D. Alfredson)
I Was a Male War Bride (1949 - H. Hawks)
Otley (1968 - D. Clement)
Peking Opera Blues (1986 - H. Tsui)
Double Team (1997 - H. Tsui)
The Night of the Generals (1967 - A. Litwak)
The Departed (2006 - M. Scorsese)
The Pink Panther (2006 - S. Levy)
What’s Up, Tiger Lily? (1966 - W. Allen & S. Taniguchi)
His Master's Voice (1925 - R. Hoffman)
The Taking of Tiger Mountain (2014 - H. Tsui)
M*A*S*H (1970 - R. Altman)
Havana (1990 - S. Pollack)
A Shot In the Dark (1964 - B. Edwards)
All Is Lost (2013 - J.C. Chandor)
Man of La Mancha (1972 - A. Hiller)
Sinners (2025 - R. Coogler)
The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest (2009 - D. Alfredson)
Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015 - C. McQuarrie)
Berlin Express (1948 - J. Tourneur)

29 films this month which seems a little excessive. I'm not sure I remember all of them but here goes.

The Thursday Murder Club was an inoffensive cozy mystery that I've already written up and mostly forgotten
Tribute to a Bad Man was an interesting fifties anti-hero western with James Cagney playing a ruthless cattle baron. Cagney makes a better cowboy than you'd think.
I watched entire The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy. I think I'd seen the first one before but not the others. They feel like a TV series in pacing and production values except for the kinky violence. The narrative is weird in that the two main characters (the hacker and the journalist) are rarely in the same scenes. I liked the first one (Dragon Tattoo) the best because the conspiracy was cloaked in a mystery which the others lacked. The second (Played with Fire) was a middle child without much of a dramatic arc while the third (Hornet's Nest) landed the plane pretty well. I guess I should watch the Fincher one now.
Captain Sindbad (sic) was a cheesy German Sinbad the Sailor picture starring Guy Williams that Mrs. Eephus picked for some reason. it was laughably bad but had some great sets and costumes.
My Son, My Son What Have You Done? is a disturbing little hostage drama directed by the great Werner Herzog. The tone falls somewhere between his Stroszek and David Lynch. Michael Shannon plays a typically unhinged Michael Shannon character. Worth a watch.
I don't remember what possessed us to rewatch Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes. Mrs. Eephus liked it better than I did; I thought the storytelling wasn't good and Robert Downey Jr. wasn't right for the role.
Medium Cool is Haskell Wexler's underground classic filmed during the 1968 Democratic convention. It was probably much better in its original contemporary context but still held my interest. Robert Forster did a lot of heavy lifting as the center of the film because there wasn't much plot to speak of; just his character reacting to external events.
Thunderbolts* was another rewatch because Mrs. Eephus hadn't seen it. Its a better than average superhero film but lost a lot on the small screen.
The Forbidden Kingdom teamed Jackie Chan and Jet Li for some impressive action scenes but was weighed down by a boring hero's journey plotline involving an American teenager.
I Was a Male War Bride is a post-WWII comedy set in occupied Berlin. It's amusing enough and clips along rapidly due to Howard Hawks' usual efficient direction but it falls short of being a screwball classic in spite of the best efforts of Ann Sheridan and Cary Grant.
We love 60s spy movies and had never seen Otley before. It has Tom Courtenay and Romy Schneider and some cool location shots of swinging London but was let down by a dull and sometimes incomprehensible story line.
I watched three films directed by the Hong Kong auteur Tsui Hark. Peking Opera Blues is an early one and well worth a watch if you're interested in Hong Kong cinema. It's colorful and bursting with life and its action finale is still incredible today. Double Team is one of Tsui's few Western productions. He does his best with an extremely stupid script and the action scenes are good. It's the highlight of Dennis Rodman's movie career but Jean-Claude Van Damme has done better work. The Taking of Tiger Mountain is Tsui's take on one of the formative myths of the Communist Chinese Revolution. It doesn't come off particularly heavy on propaganda although the characters are very stereotypical. Modern Tsui loves his CGI and there's tons of it here sometimes to its detriment.
The Night of the Generals is one of those WWII movies where all the Germans speak with English accents. It's very low key without much action and was about 20 minutes too long due to an unnecessary modern framing story.
I hadn't seen The Departed since it first came out. I don't think it's one of Scorsese's stronger efforts because all the interlocking deceits sap the momentum of the story.
I'd also never seen any of the Steve Martin Pink Panther movies. His first one wasn't terrible and produced some laughs after I got used to Martin's portrayal of the character. Peter Sellers is still the best though. A Shot in the Dark is a stage play adapted to include Inspector Clouseau. I honestly don't remember who the murderer was but Sellers was hilarious.
What's Up, Tiger Lily? was the first feature directed by Woody Allen. It's just a comic English redub of a cheap Japanese spy movie. It's another one that was probably fresher and funnier when it came out but there's a lot of cringe now for multiple reasons.
His Master's Voice is a silent picture starring Thunder the Marvel Dog, a 1920s rival to Rin Tin Tin. It was kind of cool to watch a movie made a century ago even though it's far from good cinema. The story was basically Thunder's origin story implausibly narrated by the dog himself. Even Marvel Dogs can't remember things that happened a decade before.
M*A*S*H still holds up pretty well except the football game seems like a completely different movie.
I watched a couple of Robert Redford (RIP) movies and meant to get to some others so there will be more next month. Havana is a bloated romance set during Castro's revolution. Redford is the best thing about the film as sort of a cynical Bogart-like hero with a heart of gold. All Is Lost is a decidedly non-epic tale of survival with the shipwrecked Redford. It would have been intense in the theater but the claustrophobia and lack of dialog made it a tough watch at home. If it had been me on the boat, there would have been a lot more cussing and talking to myself but I also would have died in the first reel.
The Man of La Mancha is a musical adaptation of @Don Quixote. It's a transitional musical from 1970 that's more similar to modern genre than traditional Broadway and movie musicals. Peter O'Toole and Sophia Loren were dubbed but still quite good in their roles. I enjoyed this one a lot.
Sinners was a solid movie but non-horror fan me could have done without the vampires. I think there's another story in that universe that sticks to the twins returning with mob money without the supernatural elements but that's just me.
I rewatched a bunch of M:I movies recently but not Rogue Nation for some reason. It does a lot of things really well and seemed like a tighter package than the final two entries in the series.
Last but not least, Berlin Express is a noirish post-WWII thriller involving the reunification of Germany. I'm a sucker for movies set on a train and this one was pretty good even though the train wasn't really an express because it made a lengthy stop in Frankfurt.
 
My monthly dump of movies I watched in September

The Thursday Murder Club (2025 - C. Columbus)
Tribute to a Bad Man (1956 - R. Wise)
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009 - N.A. Oplev)
Captain Sindbad (1963 - B. Haskin)
My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done (2009 - W. Herzog)
Sherlock Holmes (2009 - G. Ritchie)
Medium Cool (1969 - H. Wexler)
Thunderbolts* (2025 - J. Schreier)
The Forbidden Kingdom (2008 - R. Minkoff)
The Girl Who Played with Fire (2009 - D. Alfredson)
I Was a Male War Bride (1949 - H. Hawks)
Otley (1968 - D. Clement)
Peking Opera Blues (1986 - H. Tsui)
Double Team (1997 - H. Tsui)
The Night of the Generals (1967 - A. Litwak)
The Departed (2006 - M. Scorsese)
The Pink Panther (2006 - S. Levy)
What’s Up, Tiger Lily? (1966 - W. Allen & S. Taniguchi)
His Master's Voice (1925 - R. Hoffman)
The Taking of Tiger Mountain (2014 - H. Tsui)
M*A*S*H (1970 - R. Altman)
Havana (1990 - S. Pollack)
A Shot In the Dark (1964 - B. Edwards)
All Is Lost (2013 - J.C. Chandor)
Man of La Mancha (1972 - A. Hiller)
Sinners (2025 - R. Coogler)
The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest (2009 - D. Alfredson)
Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015 - C. McQuarrie)
Berlin Express (1948 - J. Tourneur)

29 films this month which seems a little excessive. I'm not sure I remember all of them but here goes.

The Thursday Murder Club was an inoffensive cozy mystery that I've already written up and mostly forgotten
Tribute to a Bad Man was an interesting fifties anti-hero western with James Cagney playing a ruthless cattle baron. Cagney makes a better cowboy than you'd think.
I watched entire The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy. I think I'd seen the first one before but not the others. They feel like a TV series in pacing and production values except for the kinky violence. The narrative is weird in that the two main characters (the hacker and the journalist) are rarely in the same scenes. I liked the first one (Dragon Tattoo) the best because the conspiracy was cloaked in a mystery which the others lacked. The second (Played with Fire) was a middle child without much of a dramatic arc while the third (Hornet's Nest) landed the plane pretty well. I guess I should watch the Fincher one now.
Captain Sindbad (sic) was a cheesy German Sinbad the Sailor picture starring Guy Williams that Mrs. Eephus picked for some reason. it was laughably bad but had some great sets and costumes.
My Son, My Son What Have You Done? is a disturbing little hostage drama directed by the great Werner Herzog. The tone falls somewhere between his Stroszek and David Lynch. Michael Shannon plays a typically unhinged Michael Shannon character. Worth a watch.
I don't remember what possessed us to rewatch Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes. Mrs. Eephus liked it better than I did; I thought the storytelling wasn't good and Robert Downey Jr. wasn't right for the role.
Medium Cool is Haskell Wexler's underground classic filmed during the 1968 Democratic convention. It was probably much better in its original contemporary context but still held my interest. Robert Forster did a lot of heavy lifting as the center of the film because there wasn't much plot to speak of; just his character reacting to external events.
Thunderbolts* was another rewatch because Mrs. Eephus hadn't seen it. Its a better than average superhero film but lost a lot on the small screen.
The Forbidden Kingdom teamed Jackie Chan and Jet Li for some impressive action scenes but was weighed down by a boring hero's journey plotline involving an American teenager.
I Was a Male War Bride is a post-WWII comedy set in occupied Berlin. It's amusing enough and clips along rapidly due to Howard Hawks' usual efficient direction but it falls short of being a screwball classic in spite of the best efforts of Ann Sheridan and Cary Grant.
We love 60s spy movies and had never seen Otley before. It has Tom Courtenay and Romy Schneider and some cool location shots of swinging London but was let down by a dull and sometimes incomprehensible story line.
I watched three films directed by the Hong Kong auteur Tsui Hark. Peking Opera Blues is an early one and well worth a watch if you're interested in Hong Kong cinema. It's colorful and bursting with life and its action finale is still incredible today. Double Team is one of Tsui's few Western productions. He does his best with an extremely stupid script and the action scenes are good. It's the highlight of Dennis Rodman's movie career but Jean-Claude Van Damme has done better work. The Taking of Tiger Mountain is Tsui's take on one of the formative myths of the Communist Chinese Revolution. It doesn't come off particularly heavy on propaganda although the characters are very stereotypical. Modern Tsui loves his CGI and there's tons of it here sometimes to its detriment.
The Night of the Generals is one of those WWII movies where all the Germans speak with English accents. It's very low key without much action and was about 20 minutes too long due to an unnecessary modern framing story.
I hadn't seen The Departed since it first came out. I don't think it's one of Scorsese's stronger efforts because all the interlocking deceits sap the momentum of the story.
I'd also never seen any of the Steve Martin Pink Panther movies. His first one wasn't terrible and produced some laughs after I got used to Martin's portrayal of the character. Peter Sellers is still the best though. A Shot in the Dark is a stage play adapted to include Inspector Clouseau. I honestly don't remember who the murderer was but Sellers was hilarious.
What's Up, Tiger Lily? was the first feature directed by Woody Allen. It's just a comic English redub of a cheap Japanese spy movie. It's another one that was probably fresher and funnier when it came out but there's a lot of cringe now for multiple reasons.
His Master's Voice is a silent picture starring Thunder the Marvel Dog, a 1920s rival to Rin Tin Tin. It was kind of cool to watch a movie made a century ago even though it's far from good cinema. The story was basically Thunder's origin story implausibly narrated by the dog himself. Even Marvel Dogs can't remember things that happened a decade before.
M*A*S*H still holds up pretty well except the football game seems like a completely different movie.
I watched a couple of Robert Redford (RIP) movies and meant to get to some others so there will be more next month. Havana is a bloated romance set during Castro's revolution. Redford is the best thing about the film as sort of a cynical Bogart-like hero with a heart of gold. All Is Lost is a decidedly non-epic tale of survival with the shipwrecked Redford. It would have been intense in the theater but the claustrophobia and lack of dialog made it a tough watch at home. If it had been me on the boat, there would have been a lot more cussing and talking to myself but I also would have died in the first reel.
The Man of La Mancha is a musical adaptation of @Don Quixote. It's a transitional musical from 1970 that's more similar to modern genre than traditional Broadway and movie musicals. Peter O'Toole and Sophia Loren were dubbed but still quite good in their roles. I enjoyed this one a lot.
Sinners was a solid movie but non-horror fan me could have done without the vampires. I think there's another story in that universe that sticks to the twins returning with mob money without the supernatural elements but that's just me.
I rewatched a bunch of M:I movies recently but not Rogue Nation for some reason. It does a lot of things really well and seemed like a tighter package than the final two entries in the series.
Last but not least, Berlin Express is a noirish post-WWII thriller involving the reunification of Germany. I'm a sucker for movies set on a train and this one was pretty good even though the train wasn't really an express because it made a lengthy stop in Frankfurt.
Love the variety
 
The Naked Gun (2025) had some laughs but I thought the tempo of gags really tailed off in the second half as it became a more conventional action movie. Liam Neeson was good but I didn't love how Frank Drebbin Jr. was written.
 
Last edited:
What's Up, Tiger Lily? was the first feature directed by Woody Allen. It's just a comic English redub of a cheap Japanese spy movie. It's another one that was probably fresher and funnier when it came out but there's a lot of cringe now for multiple reasons.
Ive been thinking about that one lately, so im glad to see that you watched it. I remember loving it as a kid in the 70s. And I haven't seen it since then so I've been wondering how it might have held up both from the perspective of '70s sensibilities and the sensibilities of a young floppo. I can fully imagine some pretty cringy moments.
 
Play Dirty (2025) is a new action comedy on Amazon written and directed by Shane Black of Lethal Weapon and The Nice Guys fame. Mark Wahlberg stars as Parker, the archetypal anti-hero of Donald E. Westlake's crime novels, who plays scenes straight while surrounded by a bunch of comic supporting characters. It's an unlikely combination but it mostly works.

Black helped to define the genre and understands the importance of keeping things moving even when they don't make sense. So you get a couple of heists, some chases, a bunch of gun fights, absolutely horrendous CGI, a high body count and a higher number of F-bombs. I was entertained even though the film's aesthetic is awful. Everything just looks ugly and cheap.
 
Finally got around to the new The Naked Gun. It's not as funny as the original but as good as the sequel and totally nails the spirit of the original movies, updated just enough for 2025. Well worth watching for a laugh on Paramount.
 
Finally got around to the new The Naked Gun. It's not as funny as the original but as good as the sequel and totally nails the spirit of the original movies, updated just enough for 2025. Well worth watching for a laugh on Paramount.
Meh. I’d put it 4th in the franchise
 
Finally got around to the new The Naked Gun. It's not as funny as the original but as good as the sequel and totally nails the spirit of the original movies, updated just enough for 2025. Well worth watching for a laugh on Paramount.
Meh. I’d put it 4th in the franchise

Same
Yeah I mean Naked Gun 2 and 3 are kind of meh as well. Fun but forgettable is kind of how I think about the series outside of the original. The series is smart to keep the movies short and never get into any thing remotely serious. It’s all a gag so I enjoy that.
 
Finally got around to the new The Naked Gun. It's not as funny as the original but as good as the sequel and totally nails the spirit of the original movies, updated just enough for 2025. Well worth watching for a laugh on Paramount.
Meh. I’d put it 4th in the franchise

Same
Yeah I mean Naked Gun 2 and 3 are kind of meh as well. Fun but forgettable is kind of how I think about the series outside of the original. The series is smart to keep the movies short and never get into any thing remotely serious. It’s all a gag so I enjoy that.

I think it just comes down to Nielsen being perfect for that role, just didn’t really buy into Neeson as the lead. The thermal camera part was really the only LOL moment for me.

2 has the iconic Raw Sewage scene and the whole boxing exchange cracks me up.

All I really remember from 3 is the Oscar’s scene but that one cracks me up too “it’s the bomb” and then the cast of the crappy movie gets to go accept their award
 
Finally got around to the new The Naked Gun. It's not as funny as the original but as good as the sequel and totally nails the spirit of the original movies, updated just enough for 2025. Well worth watching for a laugh on Paramount.
Meh. I’d put it 4th in the franchise

Same
Yeah I mean Naked Gun 2 and 3 are kind of meh as well. Fun but forgettable is kind of how I think about the series outside of the original. The series is smart to keep the movies short and never get into any thing remotely serious. It’s all a gag so I enjoy that.
The Naked Gun 33 1/3 has one of the the funniest scenes ever. It's during the prison riot when the guards are getting beat up and they eventually force feed a large spoon of Lima Beans to one of the guards. I had tears in my eyes I was laughing so hard. :lol: :clap:
 
Finally got around to the new The Naked Gun. It's not as funny as the original but as good as the sequel and totally nails the spirit of the original movies, updated just enough for 2025. Well worth watching for a laugh on Paramount.
Meh. I’d put it 4th in the franchise

Same
Yeah I mean Naked Gun 2 and 3 are kind of meh as well. Fun but forgettable is kind of how I think about the series outside of the original. The series is smart to keep the movies short and never get into any thing remotely serious. It’s all a gag so I enjoy that.

I think it just comes down to Nielsen being perfect for that role, just didn’t really buy into Neeson as the lead. The thermal camera part was really the only LOL moment for me.

2 has the iconic Raw Sewage scene and the whole boxing exchange cracks me up.

All I really remember from 3 is the Oscar’s scene but that one cracks me up too “it’s the bomb” and then the cast of the crappy movie gets to go accept their award
Nobody can be deliver it like Nielsen but I thought Neeson did an admirable job. He was a good casting choice being a serious actor asked to just play it straight like Nielsen. I think they should have done more with Paul Walter Hauser, he can be really funny (I, Tonya or I Think You Should Leave). There was some good classic Abrams-Zucker word play jokes.

I've been drawn to the Hills since I moved here for college.
U.C.L.A?
I see it every day! I live here!

Haven't you ever heard of Miranda rights?
What? I'm pretty sure it's Carrie that writes. Miranda is a lawyer, Charlotte's an art dealer, and Samantha is a whore.

I remember when the only things that were electric were eels, chairs and Catherine Zeta Jones in Chicago
 
Finally got around to the new The Naked Gun. It's not as funny as the original but as good as the sequel and totally nails the spirit of the original movies, updated just enough for 2025. Well worth watching for a laugh on Paramount.
Meh. I’d put it 4th in the franchise

Same
Yeah I mean Naked Gun 2 and 3 are kind of meh as well. Fun but forgettable is kind of how I think about the series outside of the original. The series is smart to keep the movies short and never get into any thing remotely serious. It’s all a gag so I enjoy that.

I think it just comes down to Nielsen being perfect for that role, just didn’t really buy into Neeson as the lead. The thermal camera part was really the only LOL moment for me.

2 has the iconic Raw Sewage scene and the whole boxing exchange cracks me up.

All I really remember from 3 is the Oscar’s scene but that one cracks me up too “it’s the bomb” and then the cast of the crappy movie gets to go accept their award
Nobody can be deliver it like Nielsen but I thought Neeson did an admirable job. He was a good casting choice being a serious actor asked to just play it straight like Nielsen. I think they should have done more with Paul Walter Hauser, he can be really funny (I, Tonya or I Think You Should Leave). There was some good classic Abrams-Zucker word play jokes.

I've been drawn to the Hills since I moved here for college.
U.C.L.A?
I see it every day! I live here!

Haven't you ever heard of Miranda rights?
What? I'm pretty sure it's Carrie that writes. Miranda is a lawyer, Charlotte's an art dealer, and Samantha is a whore.

I remember when the only things that were electric were eels, chairs and Catherine Zeta Jones in Chicago
Yeah those are good. Felt like they tried too hard with callbacks
I certainly didn’t hate it and I’d watch a sequel. Pam Anderson was good.

That reminds me I need to add Barbed Wire to my rankings list
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top