Lurker > LinkMarioSamus

tcaz2 posted...

Yeah. He messed up for sure but it was no where near as bad as some things like this get. There was no actual physical component, no threats, just a dude overstepping his boundaries while talking to women online about a fetish. It was repeated and not okay to happen, but when it was brought out he genuinely seems like he's gone about getting help and apologizing and explaining his pov pretty correctly.

It's pretty clear it was just him screwing up and that there was no malicious intent, to me. Things happen, people make mistakes when dealing with the opposite sex (or whatever gender they're into). If he learns from it, doesn't do it again, and becomes a better person then I at least absolutely forgive him.

The tldr is Chugga creeped out several women by going too far with foot/shoe fetish roleplay and didn't realize they weren't into it. They cut ties with him and it eventually got out on social media, causing a big controversy.

Various bits of evidence and he said/she said things came out and caused a war online etc.

Yeah even before his response I did not think what he did deserved to tarnish him completely. I'm honestly upset at how this all played out, although I got even more upset when I found a YouTube video deeming both Lady Emily AND MasaeAnela liars and someone questioning why Chugga was asking people not to harass YouTubers who tried to take him down...because that's totally how it works.

I don't personally particularly need The Runaway Guys to keep making new Let's Plays but the fact this stupid thing potentially ended them forever sucks. That being said, Chugga also apparently hadn't even begun work on his next Let's Play due to feeling stress from a number of unrelated issues even before the misconduct allegations broke out, which is why he checked into rehab in the first place. Even if he does return to the YouTube community, he'll have to second guess everything he says (considering his tendency to say inappropriate and/or dirty crap in his video content, ESPECIALLY in TRG - see "Should we do Daisy on hard?" for instance - got him into this mess in the first place) and I don't know if he wants that. Poor guy.

Big name Let's Player, active since 2008. Also member of The Runaway Guys alongside ProtonJon and NintendoCapriSun.

Mega_Mana posted...

Though The Shining towards the top of people's lists feels kind of default judging against the rest of the list, I dare anyone who listed it as #1 to watch it again in a theatre or without any distractions (book/phone/Shining as background) and see how it holds up to you. The movie is a slog.

One of my most disappointing theatre experiences was going to watch a special showing on the big screen. I'd seen it plenty of times before, loved the book and Room 237 and had some Nostalgia Critic-induced praise for the miniseries, and was going to see it with another horror-King friend. So while The Shining has so many great moments and memorable scenes... it feels like a four or five hour slog when you're just sitting there waiting for anything at all to actually happen. It is a slow, boring movie. I am so glad it didn't take top spot and The Thing did.

It's still a great piece of cinema! I've enjoyed it again since, at home--when I can do other things during 80% of the runtime. But I completely understand it getting blasted with terrible reviews for its theatrical run. It's insane to me how opposite The Shining is to a lot of other movies where Big Screen > Small Screen.

i should straight up admit my partiality towards Kubrick. Part of me also feels like I'm generally not particularly into ghost fiction, and I view The Shining and Poltergeist more as spins on haunted house horror while Ghostbusters is more like a high-concept SNL comedy. And even then, the only good Ghostbusters movie is the first one.

Yeah maybe that's not a good description, but they have a more idealistic view than Burton's. I suck at wording evidently. I did say BY COMPARISON though.

I don't know, the movies don't come off as "grimdark" or "joyless" as people make them out to be. I was just thinking about why my favorite comic book movie is The Dark Knight even though I typically prefer more lighthearted superhero movies.

Am I the only one who feels like in hindsight the Nolan Batman movies were like the opposite of Burton's in a way? The latter present an over-the-top grotesque atmosphere but have somber and gloomy plots, while the former look like gritty crime dramas but have more optimistic and uplifting plots about the triumph of good over evil by comparison.

I personally thought Shelley Duvall was at least as good as Nicholson in The Shining if not better. At the very least, I doubt I'd react any differently.

That also makes me want to ask who else here has seen the 2000 horror movie What Lies Beneath. Some endorse it as a more faithful adaptation of The Shining than the Kubrick movie for reasons like Michelle Pfeiffer resembling the book's description of Wendy better and Harrison Ford having been considered to play Jack in the Kubrick movie. I personally thought it didn't work because the first act or so was pointless, but the two leads' performances and Zemeckis's direction helped save face somewhat. I saw the movie because I was bored, it's on Disney+ where I live (20th Century Fox was the international distributor), and Harrison Ford is my favorite actor. I will also admit I enjoyed admiring his abs.

At least The Shining doesn't (couldn't tell you exactly why) feel like stuff happens for no rhyme or reason the way Event Horizon did. To me at least.

I do respect Event Horizon's cult following, but not the movie itself.

I feel like I'd rank The Shining above but The Thing is more my kind of movie? However, like I said earlier I needed to watch The Shining twice to get into it and The Thing three times. The latter at least, feels like a movie that gets better with age.

Also huh we like snowy horror lol.

People didn't have to ask for it! James Cameron made it clear he was going to make more.

Yes, one of the best movie monsters ever. At least the first two times.

Also I can't be the only one who feels like the aliens from Independence Day are basically xenomorphs with sentience right?

If Karo thinks The Fly is too "standard" I'd hate to imagine what he'd think of Morbius. Like yeah it doesn't break much new ground story-wise, but neither did Star Wars, Alien, or Jurassic Park.

At least the two I'd rank as the top two are the top two. Neither of which were very well-received when they came out, heh.

Just to ask, has a ranking been done that includes Jurassic Park? E.T. and Close Encounters weren't in the sci-fi movies ranking, so are they being saved for a Spielberg ranking? I feel like saying that Jurassic Park is my favorite movie he directed that doesn't involve Nazis.

Heck, with it over now, is a DC Extended Universe ranking going to happen sometime?

I can't be the only one who thinks the MCU isn't in quite as much trouble as people act. Then again I also think The Marvels would have merely flopped at worst if Disney was allowed to promote it properly - the fact the movie apparently topped Disney+ streaming charts the week of its premiere there convinces me even further people who weren't paying attention to new releases didn't know the stupid movie was out. And then the following weekend saw the release of a freaking Hunger Games movie - and even if the movie in question focused on a male character, the previous movies had still skewed primarily female and I would not be the least bit surprised if that ate significantly into the female demographic that made the first Captain Marvel a hit. And data showed that the first Captain Marvel's domestic viewing audience was just under half female, whereas for comic book movies it's typically a 60-40 male-female split (and for the first Wonder Woman, the domestic viewing audience was over half female fwiw).

The MCU's current woes also strike me as peanuts compared to a lot of poorly-received comic book movies of the past, and it feels as if the only people particularly enraged by them are anti-progressives averse to so-called wokeness. Even on that front though, 5 of the 10 MCU movies released to theaters this decade had white male leads, whereas only 1 of the 8 DCEU movies released to theaters this decade had a white male lead (note that Dwayne Johnson is half-black and half-Samoan and therefore is not white, while Ezra Miller is genderqueer). Yes I'll admit I'm still bitter at the anti-progressive crowd, stupid me checking Reddit and watching a video from a YouTube channel I got most of my movie news from between 2016 and 2019 that has fallen deep into the alt-right rabbit hole to the point they think Kevin Feige is the architect of the MCU's demise because he has been infecting it with his political activism starting with Captain Marvel, and was able to get the Marvel Creative Committee canned allegedly just for disagreeing with him.

I'm amused there was once a time when Geena David was a bigger name than Alec Baldwin. Later that December Davis put on an Oscar-winning performance in Lawrence Kasdan's The Accidental Tourist, opposite the late William Hurt.

Actually these two years remind me of each other quite a bit. 2013 is like the lingering after-effects of The Avengers and Nolan's Batman movies, while 2023 is when people notice how comic book movies are just stale leftovers from the late 2010s.

Sam Neill is in Possession? Guess the movie's on my radar now.

BTW Michael Keaton's real name is Michael John Douglas. Everyone couldn't resist making the obligatory jokes when Keaton joined the MCU shortly after the other Michael Douglas did, ESPECIALLY when Michelle Pfeiffer was cast as Douglas's onscreen wife in the second Ant-Man so she managed to have both of them as onscreen romantic partners in comic book movies!

I was going to complain about Gene Siskel panning the movie because he found the title character annoying...but it looks like some here thought similarly! Me personally, I figured he's the bad guy and he's supposed to be annoying, but I've heard dumber criticisms. Honestly the main reason the movie worked for me is because I enjoyed the constant contrast between the Maitlands' tranquil, idyllic life and the whackiness of the afterlife. Roger Ebert on air characterized the movie as a Ghostbusters clone (when if anything the plot is the opposite) and said he would have preferred if the movie was about the Maitlands just cleaning up the house. Yeah, I'm sure people would be talking about it decades later if that was the case.

I also personally think it's better than both of Burton's Batman movies. For the first one Burton felt like a hired gun to me and I got the vibe of seeing a great Batman and a great Joker thrown into Lethal Weapon's hand-me-downs. I remembered not liking Returns, saw it again with my family recently hoping it would be the Tim Burton Batman movie I hoped the first one was, heck when I caught the movie while channel-surfing and saw clips on YT I got hyped...and my opinion on the movie didn't change at all. I liked the visuals and found Catwoman and The Penguin to be compelling characters, but otherwise the plot felt like a jumbled mess I had a hard time getting invested in. In hindsight I should have been alarmed by a more character-focused Burton movie. In fact, when I first saw The Last Jedi it actually reminded me of how disjoined I found Returns - and frankly Batman was worse in that department!

Put it simply: Annette Bening was originally cast as Catwoman before dropping out due to her pregnancy. She had to wait 27 years to appear in a comic book movie in Captain Marvel, and I personally think she got the better movie. Not by much though.

My personal rankings for the ones I've seen: The Shining > The Thing > Gremlins > Predator > The Fly > Poltergeist > An American Werewolf in London > Beetlejuice. However, I like all of them, but on a scale of 1-10 I'd give Beetlejuice a 7, The Shining a 9, and the rest an 8. Though all of those other than Werewolf and Poltergeist border on a 9.

Also I needed two watches to get into The Shining and The Fly (and Alien, for that matter) and three to get into The Thing.

I was going to rant about Siskel and Ebert's weird take on Beetlejuice, but I'll save that for when the movie drops. For now I'll mention more relevantly that Gene repeatedly brought up Silence of the Lambs in interviews as an instance where he knew he was in the minority in panning, and when it came out he compared it unfavorably to Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer because he insisted serial killers should be dull. Not open, much? I feel like both of them were caught off-guard by the movie to an extent since even Ebert initially "only" rated the movie 3.5/4 stars before re-rating it 4 stars when inducting it into his Great Movies list, so maybe Gene would have similarly upped his rating from 2 stars to 2.5...not that it would have mattered mind. Makes me curious what he would have thought of Hannibal or Red Dragon, yeesh. Gene did rave about Manhunter when it came out fwiw.

Also I did see James A. Janisse's Kill Counts for Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal recently, Seen the former movie once myself, almost a decade ago. I remember liking it a lot but don't feel particularly compelled to revisit it.

In addition to the MCU I also know Rooker for Tombstone, which I liked a lot.

Yeah part of the reason I liked No Way Home so much was because of how well it followed on from Far From Home. It's the very definition of a crowd-pleasing blockbuster.

Is this board generally such a big fan of (early) Tim Burton?

Ebert might have also found Evil Dead 2 much easier to understand than Hellraiser, since the former just has the simple premise of "guy gets besieged by supernatural forces in a cabin". Ebert might have simply been amazed at the artistry Raimi was able to wring out of that premise. Tbh I don't even know what Hellraiser is about.

I'm also a sillyhead who has never seen an Evil Dead movie but appreciated Raimi's work on movies like Darkman and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Fun fact: Raimi was supposed to direct both Darkman and The Guardian for Universal in 1990, but the studio gave him an ultimatum to pick one and he picked Darkman, with the late William Friedkin stepping in to direct The Guardian. That made it the latter's first horror flick since The Exorcist 17 years earlier.

I kind of wonder how Predator 2 would have done on a '90s list. I kind of like that film. Bigtime guilty pleasure.

Evillordexdeath posted...

I always found Ebert's take on Hellraiser very strange. Hellraiser 2 is probably one of his worst reviews because of the extremely condescending tone he takes toward people who liked the movie. I find it rather odd that he bemoans how the movie is "made for people with no attention span" when he gave a 3/4 to a certain other movie on the list that feels like it deserves that criticism quite a lot more

Roger admitted he found Evil Dead 2 a guilty pleasure. Likely that movie's comedic tone helped a lot. Note that on air he also admitted he got tired of the movie an hour in but still recommended it anyway. Gene didn't recommend it because he got tired even sooner but he still wasn't particularly harsh on it. Might have also been because Hellraiser has a lot more surreal and gruesome imagery?

jcgamer107 posted...

Holy hell Possession is not good guys, lol

Glad to drag Predator down, what an incredibly boring movie. An "action-horror" movie that doesn't have any action or scares, was just waiting for it to end almost as soon as it started. How they thought this was a suitable rival for 'Alien', aside from box offices numbers, I don't know.

Says just about everyone else here. Including me. I'm not saying it's one of my favorite movies or anything, but it least paved the way for the director's next two movies Die Hard and The Hunt for Red October which I think are even better. However, I'll also admit I'm a huge fan of suspense in movies which is why I'm a big fan of directors like Steven Spielberg and James Cameron. John McTiernan is like that but without as distinctive a style. I would like to know what you think of his other movies or other Predator films.

Tbh I also just find the Predator a really cool movie alien, but I will admit I have a massive soft spot for a lot of the genres the movie (and subsequent franchise) meld together. So you do you.

EDIT: In hindsight I think Predator is one of my favorite premises for a movie so that probably colors a lot of my view.

MarkS2222222222 posted...

No doubt, I'm not saying it's good by any means. But I mean, MCU is intentionally silly. It's just a lower bar.

Most of the MCU has basically become a collection of "fun moments" without regard to anything else, and that's essentially what you get with TROS.

The "lower bar" thing is something I noticed at the time, since many of the people who made videos bashing TLJ when it came out moved straight onto bashing Black Panther even though that movie was obviously nowhere near as contentious. Not to mention many of them then seeming to go around specifically targeting movies with female or minority leads for criticism which is a terrible look.

On that note, navigating some of this site's other boards made it seem like many of the people who frequent them are just averse to comic book movies in general given how they seemed to crap all over even acclaimed ones like Wonder Woman, Spider-Man: Homecoming, and Thor: Ragnarok (not saying those movies are masterpieces mind, wouldn't even call any of them better than decent personally). I was especially floored to find someone who said they thought Wonder Woman was awful and they struggled to get through it, since I feel like even anti-progressives didn't tend to trash that movie. And on that note, I was very disheartened to see anti-progressive talking points regarding Brie Larson get regurgitated there even as someone who's hardly a big fan of her (only know her as Captain Marvel, I can tell she's talented but the MCU doesn't give her much opportunity to show it. Tbf I feel the same way about Scarlett Johansson except I've actually seen her in stuff where she gives good performances, though I think Captain Marvel alone demonstrates Larson is more talented because Johansson was even more stiff and wooden in a similar role as the lead in the live-action Ghost in the Shell).

ZeeksFire posted...

The problem with the 7-9 is that when compared to the series, they shrunk the idea of glorious space opera to a single planet and reused the overarching plot 4-6 again, but poorly. Not even considering the idea of just throwing around the idiot ball between the new republic, there was nothing of worth to consider plotwise that'd redeem what got destroyed, (including the demolition of the expanded universe)

Personally I had no problem with the "idiot ball" the New Republic had that caused the trilogy, and the only way I understand people having such a big problem with it is because Star Wars fans want to know how events unfold the way they do and how things work in the universe. On that level they probably find the sequel trilogy to be a neverending parade of frustration. Personally, compared to stuff like an alien somehow being onboard the ship to kickstart the events of Alien 3 despite the previous movie giving no indication how that could be the case, Terminator 3 revealing Skynet somehow rose anyway despite the previous movie without going into detail how, Blues Brothers 2000 revealing the orphanage the title characters worked so hard to save in the previous movie got torn down anyway, and Agent K being brought out of retirement for no apparent reason in MiB2, this is peanuts by Happy Ending Override standards. Even getting into Star Wars lore, the entire prequel trilogy is predicated on the government being stupid so it's not hard to believe that problem still didn't get fixed. Not to mention the New Republic technically lasted longer than the Empire. Not to mention the meta aspect that the prequel trilogy had already tainted the franchise's mainstream reputation so there was probably pressure on TFA to avoid those pitfalls. Heck, about the only creative aspect that remained consistent throughout the sequel trilogy was distancing the franchise from the prequel trilogy. The sequel trilogy is a big middle finger to George Lucas and that's both the best and worst thing about it.

Even as someone whose favorite MCU movie (and third favorite comic book movie of all time) is No Way Home, it is definitely not beyond criticism. However, it's not like any of that movie's "Ass Pulls" cheapened events in prior movies the way Palpatine's resurrection did. Though I also admit I had more of a problem with the idea that Palpatine was somehow pulling the strings of The First Order the whole time than I did with the idea of him being resurrected in and of itself, due to the whole science fantasy aspect...and I also thought Palpatine would be resurrected DURING the movie.

Most sure, 95% I don't know about.

I find it interesting the MCU is winning considering when I calculated the movies' Cinemascores, if you assign 1 point for a B, 2 for a B+, 3 for an A-, 4 for an A, and 5 for an A+, the sequel trilogy wins on average. Here's the breakdown:

A+ - Spider-Man: No Way Home
A - Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 3
A- - Black Widow
B+ - Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, Thor: Love & Thunder
B - Eternals, Ant-Man & the Wasp: Quantumania, The Marvels

Probably a case of hype powering Star Wars.

Never been interested in Hellraiser and the first thing that comes to mind about the movie is Roger Ebert giving it 0.5/4 stars. He gave the same rating to the sequel and inducted it into his Most Hated Films list...which also includes stuff like The Usual Suspects and Stargate alongside more "conventionally" bad movies like Battlefield Earth, Catwoman, and North. Whatever I guess?

It was jarring to see Hellraiser ahead of Gremlins given that movie is generally given far more recognition plus Siskel & Ebert recommended it even at the time, but again I definitely get it. I'm a big fan of Gremlins myself but I'm also just generally into those Spielberg kind of movies. Albeit my favorite movie of his is actually Schindler's List.

Was not expecting Con Air to win this easily...then again for some reason I was under the impression this board was generally into newer movies than older ones.

I also only realized when making this topic that both movies star Oscar winners.

Espeon posted...

Im genuinely worried for Predator at this point, because I look at the remaining 11 movies, and its the only one that doesnt feel like it has either a deep, mature tone (Shining, Possession, Henry, Hellraiser) or a very strong and distinctive directorial vision (Thing, Videodrome, Nightmare, Fly, Evil Dead, Beetlejuice).

Im gonna hope for the best and predict that Evil Dead II is similar enough to Re-Animator to end up just one point higher.

I'm tempted to defend Predator on that vibe...because it paved the way for the director's next two even better films, Die Hard and The Hunt for Red October.

Seginustemple posted...

The fun police can't let Henry keep getting away with this!

This also reminds me, how was Manhunter not chosen? It's heck of a lot more of a horror flick than Beetlejuice! Could have also been chosen over something like The Dead Zone or Predator.

Speaking of Tim Burton, I was thinking about what it would be like if Michael Keaton was in a horror movie...then remembered Beetlejuice still hasn't dropped has it? I'm honestly surprised it's so well-liked, but it could be since the first thing that comes to mind about the movie is Siskel & Ebert both panning it. I do genuinely like the movie but mostly on the level of a live-action cartoon than anything. For me it would be like a 7/10 while Poltergeist is an 8/10 and Gremlins is 8-9/10. And maybe I'm thinking of Gremlins positively because Siskel & Ebert both recommended it, but Gremlins and Poltergeist also seem to make best-of lists more often to me.

Also frankly Beetlejuice doesn't belong here. It's at best as much a horror movie as Ghostbusters. Okay, it does follow a lot of horror movie conventions, but they both still operate on the rule of subverting every scare into a farce. An American Werewolf in London is kind of that too but it tries to be scary a lot more than those two.

Blaziken posted...

Jesus absolute Christ you guys.

I'm a big fan of the movie (though I've only seen it once and don't feel particularly compelled to revisit it) but many of those complaints were levelled at the movie right from the get-go. There's a reason Leonard Maltin had a cameo in the sequel where he read his actual (negative) review of the movie, though it also helped Dante and Maltin were good friends.

Never seen The Dead Zone, might have been better if The Fog was there but I guess didn't want four John Carpenter movies here? I know Christopher Walken is primarily associated with memes but it is primarily serious roles (or at least roles in movies that aren't comedies) that come to mind, e.g. Batman Returns, Pulp Fiction, Catch Me if You Can, heck even Dune Part 2 recently. Then again I wasn't even aware of a lot of these movie guys growing up, e.g. not even having heard of Pulp Fiction until 2013.

Speaking of which, not terribly relevant to this topic, but I do not like Batman Returns (wouldn't say it's a bad movie though) or Walken's character in the movie. Now, it's not because Walken's character is a caricature of Trump - if anything that's the one aspect that does work because it was dead on about the kind of person Trump is (apologies for going political) - but because his character is there just to tie Catwoman and The Penguin together and if anything he's emblematic of the problems I have with the movie. The whole thing just feels too disjointed, like Burton or writer Daniel "Hudson Hawk" Waters just came up with ideas for scenes and they struggled to put them together in a coherent fashion. HOWEVER, it's certainly memorable.

Since it's tangentially relevant to this topic, anyone else here know of 1984's "The Devil's Gift"? It's a movie that can be watched free on YT. Basically a rip-off of Stephen King's short story "The Monkey", about a demonic cymbal-banging monkey toy that kills a living thing every time it claps its cymbals. Best known for having footage from it stitched into the director's only other film, 1996's "Merlin's Shop of Mystical Wonders" starring Ernest Borgnine. That movie was eventually featured on MST3K only three years after its release.

Needless to say, I was so caught off-guard by how, uh, "scary" it was for something clearly meant to be whimsical (it was meant to be a horror movie but then retooled into a family film due to meddlesome executives) when I saw the MST3K episode I checked out the original movie myself. What a thing.

It's kind of interesting Christine has fallen by the wayside in discussions on Carpenter's movies given it was probably his biggest hit that decade (and from there likely second biggest after Halloween). Also huh The Fog is not on this list. I appreciated its craft but wasn't a fan.

Honestly not only am I "fine" with the sequel trilogy on the basis that we probably wouldn't have gotten the (admittedly still hit-and-miss) Disney+ series without it, but there have been plenty of worse franchise revivals this past decade.

I'll admit this was inspired by a YouTuber I follow putting out a short video responding to a question which trilogy was worse between the SW sequel trilogy and the Jurassic World trilogy. I was personally shocked how many in the comments were saying Star Wars until I realized a number of them admitted to having higher hopes for it. Honestly it feels like anyone who had any expectations for the ST higher than "don't be like the prequels" was going to be disappointed, but conversely it also feels like most didn't walk in with any higher expectations to begin with. That was also about the only creative aspect of the trilogy that stayed consistent throughout. Heck, the only other thing that stayed consistent about the trilogy was all three movies generally being aimed at the same people.

I feel like even now the prequel trilogy is more widely-derided than the sequel trilogy, and it's mostly within concentrated spaces (who are more likely to be very devoted to the lore) that the ST gets especially bashed.

Doesn't help that if you take Cinemascores into account, the sequel trilogy had better audience reception than the prequel trilogy.

I like Poltergeist a lot but it probably works as least as well as a Spielberg thrill ride as it does a horror flick if not better so I guess I understand the criticisms. I remember Gene Siskel panning the movie because he couldn't bear to see kids in danger for so long.

About the movie itself, not so much. I wasn't a fan but it felt like just another Star Wars movie to me. Rogue One wasn't really any different.

Didn't like Rogue One, didn't bother with Solo.

Interestingly, Roger Ebert gave the movie only 2 stars out of 4 and called the movie "unfinished" because of seemingly not having much to the plot. Having seen the movie, I understand where he was coming from but I don't really agree. I think it had as much plot as it needed to have at least.

On a scale of 1-10 I give it a low 8 or a high 7. I liked it but wasn't particularly impressed. I do not remember finding the middle of the movie to be a drag like some do. I'm honestly amazed Beetlejuice ranks higher on this list, especially since An American Werewolf at least tries to be scary while Beetlejuice doesn't bother (still like it overall, at least on the level of a Tim Burton live-action cartoon), but eh.

Only George C. Scott movie I've seen is Doctor Strangelove, which I did like a lot.

What movies on this list have I seen? Hmm, The Shining, Poltergeist, The Fly, Predator, Beetlejuice, that it? Oh, An American Werewolf in London and The Thing.

Did we ever do a '90s action movie ranking by chance? If we haven't it would be a nice excuse to see what you guys think of movies like Point Break, The Last Boy Scout, Passenger 57, Under Siege 1 & 2, Cliffhanger, The Fugitive, Demolition Man, Speed (and maybe its ill-fated sequel also), Blown Away, True Lies, The Specialist, Sudden Death, Broken Arrow, Executive Decision, Eraser, The Rock, Con Air, Face/Off, Air Force One, Hard Rain, The Replacement Killers, Rush Hour, and uh End of Days? Assuming we discount movies that are part of long-running franchises, so no RoboCop, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, or Matrix movies.

Inviso posted...

I just think "scientist trying to make a groundbreaking invention" is much more of a straightforward and standard character than "asshole TV executive is trying to find the most violent and/or softcore porn programming possible to get ratings". The former makes for a much more rational and sensical storyline, whereas the latter has to jump through so many hoops to get from point A to B to C. It works in Scrooged because the plot is that this asshole is meant to become a better person over the course of the film. But here, Woods' character arc isn't him really changing so much as multiple people are using him as a conduit for their ideological battle.

More for the sake of discussion than trying to defend a movie I haven't even seen (but which I am curious about), but I get the feeling Videodrome isn't really a movie about character. That could admittedly be seen as a problem though.

I thought Fright Night has a Rotten Tomatoes score in the 90s? I know Gene Siskel didn't recommend it but still.