Talk about upcoming movies here.
Movie News & Trailers: the sequel
- This topic has 1,067 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 7 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
Author
-
-
-
I shouldn’t do it, but I’m starting to get proper hype for Dune.
Yep. Same here. That trailer did look incredible.
Seems like they’ve fleshed out the character of Chani and given her more agency, which would be a good thing. I like how this trailer focuses on the different characters.
A bunch of people saw the first 20 minutes or so of the movie in some IMAX events and apparently it’s great. Chani seems to be front and centre at the very beginning before the action moves to Caladan.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I was going to say that that looks proper boring and I don’t understand why anyone would be excited for it. Comer the only good thing in it, but I’ll pass.
I’ll see it on television… though I’m certain my wife will fall asleep. Though, I imagine she’ll fall asleep for DUNE as well.
Ridley Scott just produces some movies that are baffling at times. The Last Duel looks like it will fit right in with Exodus: Gods and Kings and Robin Hood.
However, it is pretty impressive that he got that cast for this – – though I have to admit they all seem a little miscast for the roles and the period.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
However, it is pretty impressive that he got that cast for this – – though I have to admit they all seem a little miscast for the roles and the period.
I assume Matt Damon and Ben Affleck got offered their roles because they wrote the screenplay. That worked out pretty well for them with GOOD WILL HUNTING.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/jul/26/the-exorcist-new-trilogy-ellen-burstyn
As much as I love Ellen Burstyns acting, I am a little saddened (but not at all surprised) that they’re going to milk this particular franchise further.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
As much as I love Ellen Burstyns acting, I am a little saddened (but not at all surprised) that they’re going to milk this particular franchise further.
I feel much the same as you, anders. The original William Friedkin film was the scariest I’d ever seen when it first came out (I still recall standing in the freezing cold in Greenwich Village waiting for the theater to open); it was a complete done-in-one film that did not warrant a sequel, but of course Hollywood thought otherwise after seeing the box office success of an intelligent horror film. I’m happy that Ellen Burstyn will get some money out of the sequels, but she and the producers probably won’t be getting any of mine.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
I can’t really remember the last movie that could successfully pull off that kind of horror comedy for an adult audience that GHOSTBUSTERS, GREMLINS and BEETLEJUICE managed to pull off and I’m not really sure there is still a market for it. It’s all pretty solidly in PG13. DEATH BECOMES HER maybe would be the most recent and calling that recent is stretching it. And it was only mildly successful and not very funny, really.
I mean, imagine something like that scene in the WEDDING CRASHERS where the protagonists crash funerals to meet girls, but that’s the premise of the movie. Only the guys end up going to a funeral at the Hollywood cemetery and meet these incredibly charming and beautiful women who actually turn out to be the ghosts of Hollywood stars from the 30’s and they’re really only going with these losers because, for some supernatural reason, they are able to make them seem alive when they are with them. Only now these glamorous ghouls won’t allow the boys to date any living women because of it and if they try then it’s poltergeist times a hundred.
Call it HOLLYWOOD FOREVER.
like an Apatow comedy definitely not for kids or teens but still broadly funny but with ghosts or monsters – what was the last movie like that?
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
that kind of horror comedy for an adult audience
Zombieland? Shaun of the dead? Cabin in the woods?
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
I can’t really remember the last movie that could successfully pull off that kind of horror comedy for an adult audience that GHOSTBUSTERS, GREMLINS and BEETLEJUICE managed to pull off and I’m not really sure there is still a market for it.
Sometime in the 1990s, I really would have liked to have seen a Ghostbusters/Gremlins/Beetlejuice crossover film. Like Beetlejuice turns a bunch of Gremlins loose, and the Ghostbusters have to stop both of them.
-
I prefer my Ghostbusters movies funny, but sure.
Yeah, that’s what I was going to say. This felt more like Stranger Things or, well, 80s Spielberg. Not much like a comedy at all.
Agree that it felt a lot like Stranger Things — and not just because one of the kids from that series is in it, either.
In some ways, it makes me think of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, where we revisit an old property after decades. It just makes me think that we should have gotten more movies in the 1990s when the casts were still young. I think I would have felt a little better about KotCS if it was the seventh or eighth Indiana Jones movies instead of the fourth one. Likewise, I think I might be more hyped for Afterlife if it was the sixth Ghostbusters film. (Not counting the atrocious 2016 remake.)
ETA: On the other hand, I think the decades-long span between Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 absolutely worked.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by . Reason: "an" not "and"
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by
-
-
The Frighteners!
Ooh, good one! (Also: We’re old.)
WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS is probably the most recent arguably successful one I can think of, it came out in 2014.
SLAXX?
TUCKER AND DALE VERSUS EVIL was very good, and much in this vein.
-
-
-
-
Well I mean, I’m not sure I’d consider GB, Gremlins and Beetlejuice as “horror” if I’m being honest… Maybe the first Gremlins but I don’t recall that one being particularly funny either.
That’s more to the point. Ghostbusters is a comedy like Caddyshack or Stripes. It’s no more a horror movie than Spies Like Us was a spy movie. Same for Beetlejuice – it’s not a ghost story. It’s a comedy – and a pretty broad one – with ghosts and the afterlife.
Happy Death Day is essentially a slasher movie with a time loop and comedy sketches. Shaun of the Dead is a parody of zombie movies. Zombieland, though, is not as much a zombie movie parody as it is a road movie comedy in a Zombie Apocalypse. These sorts of comedies were very mainstream and essentially did not use any of the elements of the other genre for their effect. In Ghostbusters, we believe that the ghosts or demons can hurt the characters, but we’re not scared of the monsters or for the characters in the same way we would be in a straight horror movie. TEEN WOLF is a comedy while a horror comedy is AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. That’s really is a horror movie with a lot of funny lines and moments. We’ll see that all the time in horror and science fiction – not so much in fantasy, or at least, doesn’t work so well in fantasy.
What I don’t see as much are comedies that use supernatural elements like Ghostbusters as much. Comedies like The Santa Clause or Bruce Almighty or Super-Ex Girlfriend will show up, but I don’t know why we don’t get more like Ghostbusters. I think it might be simply a pretty unique idea. Same for Beetlejuice – it’s about the best version of that type of story. Though I think CORPSE BRIDE and A NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS would be a good companion pieces for it.
THIS IS THE END is the one I was trying to think of – it is essentially a straightforward R-rated raunchy man-child comedy popular at that time (40 Year Old Virgin, I Love You Man, Pineapple Express, etc.) starring those actors that happened to be set during the actual Apocalypse. It’s not trying to appeal or even parody anything in the Apocalypse Genre, but threw those elements in there as part of the comedy.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
Yeah, and as a result skew much younger as far as comedy, content and script. Like Corpse Bride and Nightmare Before Christmas are certainly in the same vein as Beetlejuice, but also certainly for a “family audience” (kids). You won’t see a brothel of demons fit in to either of those.
I think it is more just marketing. The money behind the movie sees this stuff as having a broader appeal to kids so it’s smart to dumb it down and broaden it out. However, I think, as adults, we’re missing out generally on some good material that might be dumb in a different way, but a lot more fun than when it has to appeal to everyone from 8 to 68.
-
-
I think foreign films will be more likely to try unusual stuff like that. Some French, Russian and Korean movies have things that are popular all over the world but American movies would never try.
Mostly it is luck. If it had been anybody else involved, Ghostbusters probably would not have happened. Beetlejuice and The Mask were initially far more straight. One was going to be a ghost story and the other intended to be a horror movie like the Nightmare on Elm Street series. However, they really never would’ve seen production until Tim Burton and Chuck Russel got to them.
That’s the interesting thing. There are probably dozens of movies that never got made that would have turned out to be the classics everyone remembers but the right person never got attached to the project. And now the movies that did turn out to be successful by sheer luck really are often looked back on as models for how to make movies. When really the lesson maybe should be there are no rules for it. No one really knew what they were doing when they were making these, and even if they thought they knew, they sure didn’t know if it would work.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Let’s have an embedded version of the trailer:
It looks alright. Not too special. I’ll probably watch it for Winstead.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Uh-oh guys, it’s looking like bad news for superhero movies.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/aug/05/the-suicide-squad-superhero-dc-movie
James Gunn’s gory, knowing reboot of the DC antihero adventure is part of a newer revisionist trend that suggests the genre might be going the way of the western
(Summary of article for anyone who doesn’t want to click: “I’ve never read a comic and I’m mildly surprised that there are now adult-rated superhero stories, and the only cultural touchpoint I can think of is The Wild Bunch.”)
-
-
-
-
‘Tell Them to F*ck Right Off’: Alan Cumming Explains Why He Walked Away From Harry Potter
If you’re a Harry Potter fan and you happen to fall down a certain Google rabbit hole, you’ll find an entire branch of literature dedicated to the actors who almost took up roles in the now-iconic film franchise. (Based on an equally well-known series of novels, of course.) Over the years, it’s been reported that the series nearly also starred Kate Winslet, Ian McKellen, and even Robin Williams (as Hagrid, which would’ve been a trip.)
Another what if? Legendary British actor Alan Cumming, of recent The Good Wife fame, nearly played the Hogwarts professor Gilderoy Lockhart in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Warner Bros. auditioned multiple actors for the role, including Rupert Everett and Kenneth Branagh (who eventually took the part), but until now, we didn’t really know the full story of why Cumming didn’t put on his fancy wizard robes. In a new interview with The Telegraph, the actor was, well, pretty damn candid about his side of the story.
“They wanted me and Rupert Everett to do a screen test, and they said they couldn’t pay me more than a certain sum, they just didn’t have any more money in the budget,” Cumming said. “And I had the same agent as Rupert, who of course, they were going to pay more. Blatantly lying, stupidly lying, as well. Like, if you’re going to lie, be clever about it.”
Aside from the implication that we can rightfully assume that the Spy Kids franchise (which Cumming had a memorable villain role in) treated Cumming better than Harry Potter, it’s a bummer that the actor never graced the wizarding world with his particular brand of hilarity, chaos, and charm. Plus, we can safely rule out Cumming appearing in any Harry Potter IP down the road. Just look at what he told the producers.
“I said, tell them to f*ck right off,” he added. “And thought, well Rupert’s going to get the part. They made him screen test, and I remember he brought his own wig. And then they f*cking gave it to Kenneth Branagh, came out of the shadows.”
-
-
-
As far as the role of Gilderoy Lockheart is concerned though, casting Brannagh was a stroke of genius. He was fantastic in that role.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
In 2020, he played in Endgame at the Old Vic co-starring with Daniel Radcliffe.
Good for them. MCU trumps Potterverse any day of the week!
-
As far as the role of Gilderoy Lockheart is concerned though, casting Brannagh was a stroke of genius. He was fantastic in that role.
He really was. I can’t imagine Cumming in the role at all. Or Everett, for that matter.
The casting for the Harry Potter films was really great… Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, Maggie Smith, Kenneth Branagh, Robbie Coltrane, Helena Bonham Carter, Jason Isaacs, Julie Walters, Imelda Staunton, John Hurt, John Cleese, David Bradley, Ralph Fiennes, David Thewlis, Emma Thompson, Brendan Gleeson, Jim Broadbent… all of them gave faces to their characters and owned the roles.
I think the only real mis-step was Richard Harris as Dumbledore. He sounded good on paper, but in the two films he was in he, he seemed rather feeble. I think Michael Gambon acquitted himself well in the role, feeling old but still hale.
My dream pick for Dumbledore probably would have been Tom Baker. As Doctor Who he came off as wise and powerful, while also being silly and a bit mad. Would have loved to see him introduced to a whole new generation of kids.
-
I think the only real mis-step was Richard Harris as Dumbledore. He sounded good on paper, but in the two films he was in he, he seemed rather feeble. I think Michael Gambon acquitted himself well in the role, feeling old but still hale.
I agree. We’ve been rewatching them again recently and Harris weirdly doesn’t have much presence in the first two movies. Gambon was a much more three-dimensional performance. I can’t imagine Harris handling the more intense moments later on.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
I think that most of the core seven kids in the movie acquitted themselves at least adequately.
Radcliffe was kind of a weak link, but, damn, it’s one hell of an ask to take a ten year-old and expect him to carry an entire eight-movie franchise until he’s twenty. Especially when he’s up against people like Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, and Robbie Coltrane.
I do think that most of them grew into their roles over the course of the series; they really grew up on the screen. Emma Watson’s Hermione went from a little know-it-all snot to a more thoughtful and nuanced character, Tom Felton’s Draco went from a spoiled little jerk to a tortured, remorseful villain, Matthew Lewis’ Neville Longbottom actually inspired a verb, etc.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bernard Rose, the director of the first CANDYMAN, is an interesting director – sort of a laid back Werner Herzog who can convince Philip Glass to compose the score to a 90’s horror movie but can’t keep it from becoming a Nightmare on Elm Street knock-off. His idea of a series of Clive Barker inspired horror film adaptations around the concept of “Candyman” (boogeyman) dealing with a different subject – race, gender, sexual orientation – actually seems more relevant today than in the 90’s.
Original Candyman Director Reveals the Sequel He Never Made (movieweb.com)
And whereas the first Candyman was about race, the idea was to make the second Candyman about gender. It was to be about the idea of this faceless, brutal killer who only attacked women, in a horrific sexual manner. And whose primary objective was to stop ‘whores’ – his weird, moralistic take to it. That’s also very perverse, at the same time.”
I can see how a producer would say “hunh?
” at the end of the pitch back then, but it would not have been worse than Candyman 2.1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I didn’t like TENET very much, but this is an interesting point.
Chris Nolan’s Tenet was a pretty big miss in terms of raw theatrical earnings versus production budget. $363.7 million worldwide on a $200 million budget is a poor result, just as it was for the likes of Battleship ($303 million/$209 million), Prince of Persia ($336 million/$200 million) or Robin Hood ($321 million/$200 million) in the early 2010s. Yet, a year later, there is a skewed kind of irony in that the film’s comparatively inferior theatrical result (even if it would have been pretty great for an original movie directed by anyone other than Chris Nolan) now stands as an aspirational box office benchmark. As summer winds down with Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, there have been almost no theatrical releases in 2020 and 2021 that have gotten anywhere near Tenet.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Yeah, I think that is exactly it. And a movie with a likable protagonist with clearly good intentions fighting an antagonist everyone can boo.
Which should be good news for Marvel movies IF they emphasize the fun in the movies. Shang Chi and Eternals probably have plenty of comic relief but it would nice to see more of it in the promotional material. Also, I’m not sure the filmmakers behind the cameras have a great sense of comic timing (unlike Ragnarok).
SHAZAM might’ve done better if it came out now and it’s sequel probably will. Also, it would be a good idea to get the next DEADPOOL moving, of course. That seems obvious.
Though it doesn’t necessarily bode well for more serious and dour movies on the horizon. Controversial films as well at least in the theater. We see enough of that for free in the news at home every day. No reason to risk infection to see it in the local multiplex.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
It is weird.
seriously though, I do wonder how flops that made $300 plus can be considered all that bad. They just cost too much, but a lot of people still paid to see them.
Like JOHN CARTER. It wasn’t a terrible movie and eventually broke even at least. If it hadn’t cost so much, with exactly the same performance, it would have been considered a big hit. However, because it didn’t make much of a profit, it was treated as a big failure in the news.
Was it all just marketing?
Essentially, the way JOHN CARTER was reported in the press was the way everyone was getting ready to report James Cameron’s TITANIC. Just the latter film was such a smash hit, everyone had to reluctantly change their tune when, really, TITANIC isn’t a much better story than any of those mega-flops.
-
I didn’t like TENET very much, but this is an interesting point.
Chris Nolan’s Tenet was a pretty big miss in terms of raw theatrical earnings versus production budget. $363.7 million worldwide on a $200 million budget is a poor result, just as it was for the likes of Battleship ($303 million/$209 million), Prince of Persia ($336 million/$200 million) or Robin Hood ($321 million/$200 million) in the early 2010s. Yet, a year later, there is a skewed kind of irony in that the film’s comparatively inferior theatrical result (even if it would have been pretty great for an original movie directed by anyone other than Chris Nolan) now stands as an aspirational box office benchmark. As summer winds down with Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, there have been almost no theatrical releases in 2020 and 2021 that have gotten anywhere near Tenet.
I think it’s all entirely irrelevant to be honest. Box office since March 2020 is enormously affected by Covid, sometimes theatres are closed, sometimes open but under restrictions, sometimes people don’t want to go regardless as case levels are high or vaccinations low.
This situation is continuously varying country to country and even state to state.
I saw Tenet and Wonder Woman 84 in the cinema as we were under low case loads. I didn’t see Black Widow and Suicide Squad because they rose and they locked down again. That’s before you get into the vagaries of streaming where Tenet wasn’t, WW was as part of the normal HBO Max package and Black Widow was as a $30 pay per view (not all of these internationally).
Until we reach a period of at least semi-normalcy globally it’s a waste of time analysing comparative box office.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
. They aren’t in stasis until some theoretical stability arises if it ever actually does.
They are though. Everything we have done in the last 18 months has been predicated on the idea this will end.
In April 2020 bands and comedians were booking venues in December for benefit gigs to thank health workers, with no concept that by December it would actually be worse. Then knowing a vaccine was on the way booked them again for the summer, which this time worked a lot better.
Whether it will work out that way or not rests on the most hated phrase in column writing, wait and see. It’s ok to speculate it may not but things like comparing Battleship to Tenet box office is asinine rubbish.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
Matrix 4 Is Repeating What Helped Make The Original So Groundbreaking (screenrant.com)
I have to admit that I’m more interested in Matrix 4 than I expected to be.
I’m reminded of one of the many conversations I had after the last movie in the series (which didn’t hold up well for me). After it ended, a friend of mine — we saw all three movies in the theater together — said “well, that’s gonna go to hell pretty fast.”
The way he saw it, at the end of the Matrix Revolutions, the programs essentially turned the Matrix over to the humans. He said, sure, there would be some good people there, but 90% of the people that “woke up” would choose to be like Cypher and want to manipulate the Matrix for their own desires. And they’d have a ready underground of rogue programs like the Merovingian to help them do it.
So without the order enforcing Agents to keep the Matrix in line or a near-omnipotent Neo to stop them, they’d end up with a bunch of privileged “woke” people running things and keeping the sleeping people enslaved only now to other humans instead of to the machines. Meanwhile, the machines would be fine siphoning off their ration of electricity from the system with the Architect telling the Oracle, “Hey, why didn’t I think of this? We knew what humans were like. Why bother with all this complicated system of oppression when no one’s better at enslaving humans than humans are enslaving each other.”
Meanwhile, since “the One” is an intrinsic part of the Matrix program, these new Masters of the Matrix would have to spend some of their resources identifying him and making sure that he doesn’t wake up. They can’t kill him or he would just pop up somewhere else in the system or possibly wake up.
It would be interesting if that turns out to be the story they use.
Directed by Lana Wachowski, The Matrix 4 (likely to be officially titled The Matrix Resurrections) will see the return of franchise veterans Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, and Jada Pinkett Smith. One of the film’s new faces will be Aquaman and Candyman actor Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, who is rumored to be playing a young Morpheus. In a recent interview with THR, Mateen spoke about his experience on the set, expressing in his statements his amazement with the “technology that Lana incorporated and the filmmaking, camera rigs that I’ve never seen before. It’s so ambitious.”
Interesting idea, but hope they don’t mean this is some kind of prequel. Maybe Morpheus, like Neo, has become a program in the Matrix.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
The Watchowskis ended up being a one-trick pony
Nah, they’ve done other good movies. Bound, for example, which is very different to the Matrix.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
True, Bound is good… the only thing they did pre-Matrix, but if memory serves well it’s got a lof of Matrix in it… or rather Matrix has a lot of Bound in it I should say, so to me Bound is part of that same one-trick pony…
The next best thing they were involved with was V for Vendetta and they just produced that…
-
-
-
-
Don’t forget Speed Racer, which is the cinematic equivalent of having your eyes replaced by two big bowls of Skittles.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Ok, I’m in.
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Trying not to get my hopes up, but that does look very exciting.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I’m sure I’ll watch it at some point but I can’t think of any franchises that have come back after decades of nothing and been any good – except, bizarrely, for the Sylvester Stallone ones.
Blade Runner 2049 I thought was great.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
I still haven’t seen that one, to be fair. I did see Ghostbusters 2016, though. Questionable life choices, people.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
It looks okay… lots of rehashed sequences it would seem… I dunno… I guess we can just hope.
Btw, I don’t know if you guys caught it, but it would seem the machines re-plugged Neo at the end of Revolutions… and it would also seem they did the same for Trinity, somehow saving her? huh….
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
As far as the Matrix franchise today, other than the original fans, does it still appeal and find new fans who find it on home viewing or is more something younger people recognize but haven’t really seen or care about?
It’s a popular watch on those “reaction” channels… And I reckon it’s getting a lot more play these days… I’m expecting the Lynch Dune to also start doing the rounds of those channels.
I’m sure I’ll watch it at some point but I can’t think of any franchises that have come back after decades of nothing and been any good – except, bizarrely, for the Sylvester Stallone ones.
It’s true, not a lot of those, but there’s a couple here and there… Jumanji comes to mind… and I dunno, the Jurassic World movies were… okay I guess? I didn’t see too much hate towards those, at least… And of course, there’s the Bond movies which usually do rather well, but then again they never really go on long hiatus.
The new Ghostbusters looks like it could be one of those, except for the fact that they already shit the bed with that horrible ’16 version, so I don’t know if that’ll count…
-
