What are you watching?

  • Welcome to the Resident Evil Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Resident Evil series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Turo602 said:
Saw It Saturday night and I thought it pretty good. I still prefer Tim Curry's take on Pennywise, but Skarsgard is definitely given tons more room and opportunity to do some really great things which I really appreciated. The overall film is a lot more darker and gruesome than the 1990's mini-series, though not quite on the book's level either. It's as a faithful of a representation of the novel as the mini-series was, but in many ways, isn't a direct copy of it either. The child actors were really great and believable in their roles and all had great chemistry. It's not as scary as people have been hyping it to be. The scary parts are just more cool and well done more than anything. My only gripes with the film is the questionable CGI in specific scenes and the pacing. Though, the pacing only bothers me due to my knowledge of the mini-series and the novel. There were some things that felt rushed and other things they just didn't touch up on. Not essential stuff to the overall narrative but still kind of irked me. Otherwise, I thought it was a very solid and unique horror film.

Also, just an observation, but damn all those kids look so goddamn weak and sickly. The original kids at least looked like they could defend themselves. Kids in general these days are just so much smaller and weaker looking than they used to be. What the hell is up that?
Click to expand...

I've read the book and seen the miniseries, but haven't seen the new film. I've heard that Mike Hanlon's interest in Derry's history was given to Ben Hanscom, meaning that 2017 Mike had little to nothing substantial to do for a great deal of the movie. Thoughts?
 
KevinStriker said:
I've read the book and seen the miniseries, but haven't seen the new film. I've heard that Mike Hanlon's interest in Derry's history was given to Ben Hanscom, meaning that 2017 Mike had little to nothing substantial to do for a great deal of the movie. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. That's one of the reasons I said the movie kind of rushed through some things. He does get a decent amount of focus and screen time, but other than that, I didn't think he felt all that connected or important to the rest of the group. I heard they wanted Mike to have a more active role in discovering It's origins in the sequel and potentially even open the film with a scene about the black spot which he is heavily connected to this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KevinStriker
Saw the new It yesterday, it was pretty good, but I hated what they did with Mike, who is one of my favourite characters in the book (tied with Richie). They completely erased his character and gave his role to Ben, and changed his backstory. And there was too much of a focus on Beverly, who I don't like and is my least favourite of the group tied with Bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KManX89 and KevinStriker
Turo602 said:
Pretty much. That's one of the reasons I said the movie kind of rushed through some things. He does get a decent amount of focus and screen time, but other than that, I didn't think he felt all that connected or important to the rest of the group. I heard they wanted Mike to have a more active role in discovering It's origins in the sequel and potentially even open the film with a scene about the black spot which he is heavily connected to this time.
Click to expand...

And since the first half is the kids only, adult Mike doesn't get to instigate everyone's return to Derry, either.
At least not yet, I hope he gets more to do in the sequel, which seems more and more inevitable.
 
One thing I thought was pretty dumb regarding Mike, is how Henry never calls him a n*gger. It's like it was such an obvious thing for a racist like Henry to say, yet he never does and you expect it and it never happens and it kind of cheapens how much of a piece of sh*t Henry is. The film had so much balls with what they showed and portrayed with children, but couldn't use a racial slur? Is it really going to offend us if a evil character is you know, evil? Speaking of evil, I was disappointed with the use of Patrick's character. I figured he was in the movie for a reason, but nope. Not important at all. Also, I hear It turns into several movie monsters in the novel and since this movie took place in the 80s, it would have been so epic if It turned into Freddy Krueger. There was even a theater that showed that they were playing A Nightmare on Elm Street 5. Would have been so perfect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KevinStriker
Oh yeah, that is a bit odd.
But on the subject of being true to Henry's character, the filmmakers managed to get away with fagg0t, that's pretty much unheard of in a mainstream picture these days, as far as I know. Period appropriate for a bully character in the new date, I guess.

The present of the novel became the past...
 
I also saw It last weekend, and my thoughts are the same as yours: damn good film with some surprisingly spooky moments. I even had myself shielding my eyes at certain parts, going "OMG I can't watch this" in fear that something was going to "jump" out. No movie since Dead Silence (still the scariest movie I've ever seen to my recollection) has made me do that (or every Saw movie post-Saw II, but for totally different reasons, and I think you know what I'm talking about).

But aside from being a good movie in general, It's (pun intended) also the perfect adaptation. It kept enough in from the book and mini-series to keep it faithful, but added enough new material to keep it interesting at the same time. I didn't want to watch an exact retelling of the mini-series, knowing exactly what to expect from start to finish, and so I'm glad I didn't get that.
 
Last edited:
Watched Terminator Salvation and I have to say that I really did enjoy this movie so much more after a second viewing and appreciate the creative story that takes place during Judgment Day. Christian Bale did well but did feel a bit out of place or maybe stiff at times. Actually he reminded me a lot of Chris Redfield in this movie. 6.5/10

On a side note: I think that Leonardo DiCaprio would make an amazing John Connor if he would take on a role like that under the right circumstances.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Turo602
So, I saw Blade Runner 2 this afternoon... and even after seeing it I almost think it's too early to tell exactly what I think. I can already tell it's going to need multiple viewings. Blade Runner didn't become my favourite after one watch at 13. And just like the first film, it doesn't really drag, it's very deliberately paced. At 163 minutes, it's certainly to be expected.
The one thing I know for sure is the score doesn't hold a candle to Vangelis. When it isn't homaging the original film's music, it's forgettable and the synthesizer is very aggressive (like so many of Hans Zimmer's other scores). It's lacking in quieter, more poignant pieces like Memories of Green, the tender moments in the film are mostly silent, which can work too, but it distracts a fan like me.
On the other hand, the thing I appreciate the very most about Blade Runner 2049, is they didn't answer The Question. Deckard's true nature is still ambiguous, and thank god they kept that promise.
I know Ridley Scott must be disappointed, but I wouldn't be able to look at this movie if they flat out said Deckard is a Replicant like Ridley in interviews.
Definitely a Day One purchase on Blu-ray (seeing it in the cinema more than once is expensive).
 
Last edited:
KevinStriker said:
So, I saw Blade Runner 2 this afternoon... and even after seeing it I almost think it's too early to tell exactly what I think. I can already tell it's going to need multiple viewings. Blade Runner didn't become my favourite after one watch at 13. And just like the first film, it doesn't really drag, it's very deliberately paced. At 163 minutes, it's certainly to be expected.
The one thing I know for sure is the score doesn't hold a candle to Vangelis. When it isn't homaging the original film's music, it's forgettable and the synthesizer is very aggressive (like so many of Hans Zimmer's other scores). It's lacking in quieter, more poignant pieces like Memories of Green, the tender moments in the film are mostly silent, which can work too, but it distracts a fan like me.
On the other hand, the thing I appreciate the very most about Blade Runner 2049, is they didn't answer The Question. Deckard's true nature is still ambiguous, and thank god they kept that promise.
I know Ridley Scott must be disappointed, but I wouldn't be able to look at this movie if they flat out said Deckard is a Replicant like Ridley in interviews.
Definitely a Day One purchase on Blu-ray (seeing it in the cinema more than once is expensive).
Click to expand...

I saw Blade Runner 2049 last weekend, and my thoughts echo yours.

I'm finally watching Baby Driver. I stupidly passed on it in the theaters and picked up the Redbox yesterday to see what I missed out on. Really enjoying it so far.
 
While some watch the NFL, i watch the GSL :smile: All seasons are over now, there´s no more till next year.

 
I recently rewatched the Austin Powers trilogy for the first time in a few years. The first one is great but the second and third ones have a very noticeable decline in quality.
 
I rented and watched a few Redbox movies:

  • Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales-I watched this yesterday and had a good time. I know it's received mixed word-of-mouth, but I quite enjoyed it myself. It was easily better than the last two Pirates movies, but of course it can't compare in quality to the first two films. Plus, the new female lead, Kaya Scodelario (the chick who plays Carina) is quite attractive if I do say so myself.
  • Wish Upon-About what you'd expect from a modern-day horror film. Interesting premise that gets wasted on predictable deaths with little-to-no build-up and not a lot of character development. It might be worth a watch on Redbox or Netflix, but that's about it.
  • The Mummy (2017)-Sucked. I came in expecting sh!t after seeing the reviews, and that's exactly what I ended up getting. Sh!t fight scenes, dragging plot, and poor acting. Oh, and Tom Cruise getting a little kinky foreplay with an attractive woman half his age, as usual. Yeah, the plane scene was cool, but they already gave you by far the most interesting scene in the trailer, so you don't need to sit through the rest. It's too bad because I liked the first two Mummy movies with Brendan Fraser (the third one sucked) and the first Scorpion King (the prequel to the first Mummy).
 
Last edited:
I went and saw Jigsaw last night in light of the holiday season. Lemme tell you, the trailers are a total farce, it basically pulls the rug from underneath you and slaps you right in the face. Without going directly into spoilers (though I think you KNOW what I'm talking about), it's NOT what they advertised. Every predictable plot twist and trope you'd come to expect from the Saw franchise is still very much alive and well in this movie.

Hell, a part of me would've settled for:

some batsh!t crazy explanation for Jigsaw being back like the trailers led you to believe. Sadly, that's NOT what ended up happening, all scenes featuring him are from ten years ago. TLDR: he's still dead, sorry to disappoint.

Now that I mention it, I think I might've saved some people the time and money on this movie.
 
Watched The Green Mile the other day.

Still just as emotionally resonating as the first time I saw it. It's three hours long, but doesn't feel like it at all, and every minute is necessary for that ending, just piling on the FEELS

Good movie. 9/10
 
As you might've guessed, I'm watching the 'Linkin Park & Friends Celebrate Life in Honor of Chester Bennington' live-stream on YouTube right now.

Love the hashtag #MakeChesterProud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom