Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted December 13, 2011 Moderators Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) I love how those films are essentially a feature length Itchy and Scratchy cartoon. Great stuff; I need to see number 5. Edited December 13, 2011 by Chest Rockwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Astro Hollywood Posted December 13, 2011 Moderators Share Posted December 13, 2011 Rube Goldberg Horror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) The Inbetweeners Movie (Minor spoilers) Â Doesn't pack as much punch as the TV show, but still an amusing enough watch, I guess. <-- click on 'spoiler' to show/hide the spoiler It's unfortunate that some gags don't reach their potential (the random guy who keeps popping up), are just too stupid to even believe (Simon selling all his clothes and believing that the guy will be back with the money), or can be seen coming from a mile off (Simon's swimming back to shore totally failing). Â [close spoiler] ");document.close(); But there's some good laughs in there. I'd say the movie's only worthwhile if you're fan and you want something to supplement the series, though. Edited December 13, 2011 by Vice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Dent Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Whilst over in the states last week, I went to see The Muppets. I don't have to tell you it's fucking awesome. There's also a nice little Toy Story short before hand as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members GlennCullen Posted December 15, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 For reasons I can't really explain I have never seen The Thing. Now should I watch the 1982 version before the new release or the other way round? As the new one is a prologue is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted December 15, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 You'd be a retard not to watch the 1982 version first. Â The new one is basically just another shitty horror movie re-make with some bullshit "prologue" nonsense to make it sound like it's not just another shitty horror movie re-make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members GlennCullen Posted December 15, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 You'd be a retard not to watch the 1982 version first. The new one is basically just another shitty horror movie re-make with some bullshit "prologue" nonsense to make it sound like it's not just another shitty horror movie re-make.  Disappointing. 1982 version first it is then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Halitosis Romantic Posted December 15, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) The Dragon Lives Again - in which dead Bruce Lee, who is played by The Beast from Kung Fu Hustle (who looks nothing like Bruce, but that's okay, because after death, people's appearances change), travels to the underworld, befriends Popeye, Kwai Chang Caine, and the One-Armed Swordsman (known here as "one-armed"), and fights the Godfather, the Exorcist, the Man with No Name, James Bond, Emmanuelle, Dracula, and Zatoichi, for the protection of the very undeserving king of the Underworld.  <-- click on 'spoiler' to show/hide the spoiler Along the way, Bruce kicks Dracula to death with his "third leg"; Emmanuelle seduces the king and has wild sex with him; Bruce defeats Zatoichi with signature moves named for his movies; and the Exorcist gets to show off his new French accent and demonstrate wild high-kicking kung-fu  [close spoiler] ");document.close(); This film is wondrous, everyone must see it. Edited December 15, 2011 by Adam Woodyatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted December 15, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 You'd be a retard not to watch the 1982 version first. Â Sort of agreed, but I'd recommend the 1951 version first of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members GlennCullen Posted December 15, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 You'd be a retard not to watch the 1982 version first. Â Sort of agreed, but I'd recommend the 1951 version first of all. Â Incidentally ended up watching up all 3. Got a lot of time for the 1951 and 1982 versions, the new one was mediocre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted December 15, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 Good lad! The original's excellent, isn't it? I saw it years after the Carpenter version and it still stands the test of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members GlennCullen Posted December 15, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 It is indeed. Obviously very different to the other two but probably my favourite, although I love the effects in the 82 version. I definitely need to spend my days off having horror movie sessions more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted December 15, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 If you liked the original The Thing so much you should try some other 1950s horror / sci-fi. I reckon you can't go wrong with Them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members GlennCullen Posted December 15, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 15, 2011 I have watched a decent amount of films from that era, and they always do the job for me. I probably haven't watched enough 50s horror/sci fi though to be honest, so I'll give Them! a go. Cheers for the heads up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Galt Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Just watched Joyeux Noel, a fictionalised account of the 1914 Christmas ceasefire in World War I and it's pretty good. As with a lot of films that try to stick to real events, it isn't as gripping as pure fiction simply because life doesn't have a narrative arc but there's still a lot to enjoy here. There's a truly bizarre piece of casting though; take a look at the poster. On the left, there's Guillaume Canet; husband of Marion Cotillard, winner of many Cesar awards for Tell No One and probably the most prolific actor/director working today. In the middle is Daniel Bruhl; winner of best actor awards in Europe every year from 2002 to 2007, nominated for GQ's man of the year, the second (out of two) best thing about Inglorious Basterds. And then on the right, Trevor from Eastenders. Were there no other Scotch actors they could have got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts