Sign In

Last movie seen — Page 209

Author
Time

Evil Dead (2013)

Whoa! I really enjoyed it! So many great references to the original. Really managed to keep the same spirit as the original, while at the same time being its own thing.

8 out of 10 balls

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

xhonzi said:

Bingo "I hate show tunes" wings:
I've never met anyone too old for time travel.


Unless you're Dur, apparently.


I like time travel, provided it makes some lick of sense (and incorporates parallel universes into it's method of operation).

Er... Back to the Future Pt 2?

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

The other day, I heard someone say that there were 3 types of people in the world: Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2, and Army of Darkness.  Clearly my lovely wife is none of these, but I am squarely Army of Darkness.  A little less so ED2, and even less so ED.  I don't know how the remake factors in.

Speaking of Evil Dead, I just watched Cabin in the Woods.

*Spoiler free comments*

I liked it!  I don't generally go out for horror flicks, but if it has a decent hook, then I may go in for it.  The Rubicsy Cabin on the poster had me interested and the trailer sealed the deal.  My reaction to Whedon is very mixed, so I didn't know whether this would be a hit or a miss.  But I really enjoyed it.

*Spoilers follow*

I was a little shocked how quickly the cast started to bite it.  This started to tip me off about how much of the movie would take place post-cabin.  Though I had seen the trailers and read more spoilery stuff than I should, I was still not sure how far the ending went.  Heck, they show you quite a bit of the underground stuff as the movie starts. 

I found it a delightful subversion of a genre that I don't really enjoy.  I heard Whedon call it his love/hate letter to horror and I understand exactly what that means.

*End Spoilers*

 

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

xhonzi said:



DuracellEnergizer said:



xhonzi said:
Bingo "I hate show tunes" wings:
I've never met anyone too old for time travel.



Unless you're Dur, apparently.



I like time travel, provided it makes some lick of sense (and incorporates parallel universes into it's method of operation).


Er... Back to the Future Pt 2?


BTTF2 doesn't utilize parallel timelines, Doc's "1985A" explanation notwithstanding, as all the other stuff involving paradoxes, changing timelines, etc. makes that impossible.

Religious fundamentalism and irreligious fundamentalism are two sides of the same worthless coin.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I remember seeing Evil Dead 2 in the cinema. I got the strangest looks when I laughed my head off.

You'd think they'd never seen a headless man in a nehru jacket before.

If Back To The Future 2 has a problem is that it just isn't confusing enough.

In the third film I would have had Marty have to go back to The Enchantment Under The Sea dance and try to avoid both other versions of himself, only discover almost everyone there is him a la Let's Go To Golgotha!.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Dp2OfIT_M

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

 

xhonzi said:



DuracellEnergizer said:
I like time travel, provided it makes some lick of sense (and incorporates parallel universes into it's method of operation).


Er... Back to the Future Pt 2?


BTTF2 doesn't utilize parallel timelines, Doc's "1985A" explanation notwithstanding, as all the other stuff involving paradoxes, changing timelines, etc. makes that impossible.

 

Isn't that a bit like saying "BTTF2 doesn't involve time travel, all of the time travel notwithstanding"

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

I love the whole BTTF trilogy, but the first is definitely my favorite.  There is one glaring plot hole in my mind in the second.  According to the time travel rules established in the series, if you go back in time and change the past, the future you return to follows the changes you've made.  When old Biff goes back in time to give his younger self the almanac, he then returns to the same future that was properly his without any change to the timeline just yet.  He should have returned to his own altered future rather than the future where Marty and Doc had been.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Maybe he did as in the end of the film his timeline is restored.

They go back to the altered past and then the pre-altered past and restore the BBTF1 ending present, Allowing for old Bif to back to his present (the future) bring the car so they can go back to the altered past.

The deleted scene of old Bif fading would have buggered this theory up mind you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Dp2OfIT_M

Author
Time

I don't think it's a logic hole at all, actually.  Marty travels back to 1955 and it takes a couple weeks for the changes to catch up to him.  If it were different, he would have vanished the moment he pushed his dad, dad, daddio out of the way of old man Baine's car.

The changes play out in real time.

Old Biff gives the book to young Biff, but goes back to his time before the young Biff does anything with it, before the ripple catches up to him.

And yes, there is the deleted scene that seems to fix this.

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

xhonzi said:



DuracellEnergizer said:



xhonzi said:

DuracellEnergizer said:
I like time travel, provided it makes some lick of sense (and incorporates parallel universes into it's method of operation).



Er... Back to the Future Pt 2?



BTTF2 doesn't utilize parallel timelines, Doc's "1985A" explanation notwithstanding, as all the other stuff involving paradoxes, changing timelines, etc. makes that impossible.




Isn't that a bit like saying "BTTF2 doesn't involve time travel, all of the time travel notwithstanding"


Oy ... I'll try to make my case in a far more clearer and straightforward manner.

In the first film, Marty alters the way his parents met. This initially started to cause Marty and his siblings to fade from existence - as evidenced in the Marty's changing photo of himself and his siblings (along with himself starting to fade away near the end of the film)- before he corrected the course and preserved his and his siblings' future existence. By all indications, this shows that the BTTF Universe consists of only a single, malleable timeline that can be altered by time travelling effects.

In the second film, while preparing to journey back to 1955 from 1985A to undo the tampering 2015 Biff made to the timestream, Doc Brown says that it's okay to leave Jennifer and Einstein in that ugly present, as the world around them will simple reconfigure itself into a more familiar world once they've fixed the past. More evidence that the BTTF Universe consists of a single, malleable timeline.

In the third film, we get more examples of a malleable timeline, as evidenced in the photo of Doc Brown's gravestone that keeps changing everytime he and Marty influence the world of 1885. Again, a single, malleable timeline.

Now, if time travel really did create parallel universes everytime someone travelled back in time to alter history, then there would be no changing photographs, no fading Marty, Jennifer and Einstein would be forever stuck in 1985A, etc. and all the various timelines featured throughout the trilogy would co-exist parallel to one another, completely unaffected by the time travelling events occuring within the films.

Religious fundamentalism and irreligious fundamentalism are two sides of the same worthless coin.

Author
Time

It is unlikely that, especially with such a character change in his parents they would have sex on the same nights and the same sperms would hit the same eggs and have the same success.

They would almost certainly have different sex and different children.

Also does this mean that 'their' spoiled rich kid Marty is having a divergent universe set of adventures where he accidentally turns his successful parents into a drunk and a coward???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Dp2OfIT_M

Author
Time

Bingowings said:


It is unlikely that, especially with such a character change in his parents they would have sex on the same nights and the same sperms would hit the same eggs and have the same success.

They would almost certainly have different sex and different children.


That is one of the things about BTTF that irks me. IMO, the actors who played David and Linda should have been given some makeovers to give their characters different looks in the second timeline.

Also does this mean that 'their' spoiled rich kid Marty is having a divergent universe set of adventures where he accidentally turns his successful parents into a drunk and a coward???


That would have been nice.

Religious fundamentalism and irreligious fundamentalism are two sides of the same worthless coin.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

xhonzi said:

The other day, I heard someone say that there were 3 types of people in the world: Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2, and Army of Darkness.  Clearly my lovely wife is none of these, but I am squarely Army of Darkness.  A little less so ED2, and even less so ED.  I don't know how the remake factors in.

The remake was very much along the lines of The Evil Dead, only modern day and with a big budget. If you didn't like the original, or horror films in general, avoid it. It is really gory, and had some really brutal cringe worthy moments in it. Not to say it was all serious, it was silly in a typical horror film sort of way.

I loved Evil Dead 2 and I still think it might be my favorite, but I really do love Army of Darkness. They are so different, it is almost hard to pick one over the other in a way that isn't true with most series of films. So, I am not sure if I would say I am an ED2 person or an AoD person... Ultimately I think I'd have to fall on ED2. But I'm not sure I'd love ED2 the way I do if it wasn't followed up by AoD.

<>

I watched the original last night, and the tree rape scene makes me uneasy. In fact, the tree scene and the pencil scene from the original still wig me out a bit. There was a similar tree scene in the remake, but less explicit, and not nearly as disturbing. And fortunately, the pencil bit was nowhere to be found. That part always makes my ankle hurt. The Oldsmobile makes an appearance, which made me super happy. 

<>

Sounds like Raimi is getting ready to write the script for Army of Darkness 2, which would be absolutely awesome! Seems this new Evil Dead has gotten some pretty good reviews, and that they have already green light a sequel. I won't complain about more Evil Dead. With all the crap floating around out there, and all the stupid remakes of everything and modern day sequels to everything, remaking and continuing The Evil Dead is one of the few I can totally get behind and be in full support of. With Raimi, Campbell, and the rest of the crew involved, a sequel to Army of Darkness would be hard to mess up. It is pure silly camp to begin with, and a brand of pure silly camp I'd love to see more of. The post-apocalyptic alternative ending to AOD, which Raimi has always said he prefers, would make the perfect picking up point for a sequel featuring an aged Ash Williams. If they do make it, I really hope they continue the theme of one film picking up right where the previous film left off.

Author
Time

I'll never watch the Evil Dead remake even if someone tries to force me at gunpoint to do so.

Religious fundamentalism and irreligious fundamentalism are two sides of the same worthless coin.

Author
Time

Underworld Awakening.

I kinda dug the first three as fun, if kinda dumb rides. 

Never has a film totally burnt up any good will I had towards it within the first four minutes. Awful. Boring. Confusing. And totally skipped the good idea that might have made a fun flick (the vampire/werewolf purge). 

Author
Time

2001

When I learned of Roger Ebert's death, this was an immediate gut reaction. I put on my Criterion CAV set at full blast with the original 70mm mix. The color timing is different to any to any other transfer (looks like the prints) and was directly transferred from a 35mm IP and the 70mm 6 track master under SK's supervision.

Great LD title. Not just a film but a work of art and a statement on man's place in the universe whatever it may be.

The Caine Mutiny

I'm sure this is a great novel, but they must have cut out 90% of the book. This film is horridly underdeveloped and the only thing of interest must wait until the 80 minute mark. Bogie is wonderful in his last big important role, but is terribly underused, even his big courtroom scene is drastically reduced to a small bit. Way way way too much fat around little to no meat.

2.5 balls out of 4.

Invisible Stripes

Another late WB gangster film, this time more of a crossover with one of their 30's social dramas. Raft and Bogie are getting out of the joint, Raft wants to go straight-Bogie back to the high life.

The film plays everything straightforward, and Raft is at his best when playing the regretful man trying to do right. The supporting characters for once are written with some intelligence and do not become grating. Bogie is as always in these films the second-rate player who is expendable but absolutely mesmerizing. And Raft's younger brother in the film is played by a fresh young face that takes you five minutes to realize it's actually a very very young Bill Holden.

3 balls out of 4.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.

“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford

My review blog: thehificelluloidmonster.wordpress.com

Author
Time

Anastasia (1997)

Was watching the DVD after having a long afternoon of talking about musical animated features. Hadn't seen it in a while and the internet wasn't co-operating, so I popped it in. Great film, especially given that I had just read about the actually historic event and knew how inaccurate the film was. I actually remembered a lot of the scenes, better than I usually remember movies.

Author
Time

CP3S said:


Why?


Because The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Amityville Horror have taught me never to give any remake the benefit of the doubt.

Religious fundamentalism and irreligious fundamentalism are two sides of the same worthless coin.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

What about Dawn of the Dead and The Thing? Those were great.

Actually IMO the original versions of Day the Earth Stood Still and Amityville Horror bored me so much I didn't even want to see the remakes in the first place.

The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!

"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."

--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010

Author
Time
 (Edited)

zombie84 said:


What about Dawn of the Dead and The Thing? Those were great.


I haven't seen the Dawn of the Dead remake nor the original The Thing from Another World, so I can't say how they compare with their respective predecessors/successors. I was never a fan of the original Dawn of the Dead anyway, though, so I honestly couldn't care less about its remake (plus I just don't enjoy the whole zombie apocalypse subgenre, anyway).

Actually IMO the original versions of Day the Earth Stood Still and Amityville Horror bored me so much I didn't even want to see the remakes in the first place.


Truth be told, I'm not a big fan of the originals myself. Still, they did have their good qualities - qualities which the remakes tore apart and wiped their asses with.

Religious fundamentalism and irreligious fundamentalism are two sides of the same worthless coin.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mimic 2 (2001)

An incredibly weak, pointless sequel. Even if the chockful of discrepancies with the original film hadn't served to alienate me, the whole idea that a giant insect would want to mate with a human female would have.

What Lies Beneath (2000)

Not a bad movie, but it was just too slow-moving for my tastes. It was interesting to see Harrison Ford play a villain for a change.

Bad Moon (1996)

It wasn't stellar, but I liked it. The dog was a pretty good actor, and the werewolf design was - if a little stiff moving - still pretty awesome.

Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure (1984)

I remember the first and last time I saw this movie was back in the summer of '96. I hadn't yet seen ROTJ, so I didn't know this took place in the SW Universe. I found it an alright movie at the time, though it wasn't something I would have filed away in my category of "Awesome Movies I'd Love to See Again & Again & Again". Having watched it now, again, my feelings haven't changed all that much; it's well made for a TV film, and a decent time-waster, but nothing more than that.

Buried Alive (1990)

Not to be confused with the TV movie of the same name released in the same year. Though it claims to be based on something by Edgar Allan Poe, there's nothing to tie the film to any of the works he's done beyond the presence of a black cat and the villain's motif of walling his victims up alive behind brick walls. The story, while showing some promise, just wasn't that well written; few if any of the victims who die are even remotely likeable, so I felt nothing but satisfaction when they kicked the bucket; and Donald Pleasance gives one of the worst performances of his career playing an irritating ex-nutcase with a German accent and bad toupee. I will say in the film's favour, though, that the atmosphere and cinematography was pretty good.

Religious fundamentalism and irreligious fundamentalism are two sides of the same worthless coin.

Author
Time

I generally loathe remakes. But, there is wiggle room when a film is based on a book or story. And a remake goes back to that source material instead of merely aping the previous adaptation.

Starlog reprinted "Who Goes There?" around the time John Carpenter's film came out, and he was able to get closer to that source material than Howard Hawks ever could have in the '50's. Carpenter did pay homage to the original film, but was subtle about it.

On the flip side of the coin, I've never been able to watch more than a few minutes of the 1999 version of The Haunting. You can't top Robert Wise's version with a lot CGI spooks. ;)

I have very mixed feelings about The Shining prequel Warner is scheming to make. Especially if it's going to be the backstory to Kubrick's film.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?