Leaderboard

My god it's hypnotizing!

Off-topic: Amazon Prime stinks. I browse to find movies to watch andfound one from 2020. Pull it up on IMDB and it was released in 2011!!!

Maybe it's just me, but from what I can see, wrinkled uniforms = cute

If a devastatingly handsome guy, with piercing blue eyes, shows up at your door around Halloween and says he knew your soldier son, RUN!!!!! We watched (I got this off Pinterest so I assume it's fan art. I loved it anyway.)

This movie made me physically ill. (Not joking.)

100% I had the time of my life. When June had her earbud stuck in her earring I truly thought it was a Choice and was like "Wow what a visionary!". I loved it. Didn't *love* the event thing we used. The chat literally moved so fast it made me feel sick but what can I expect from my fellow Balcony Monsters?

So technically it would be legal for Gabby ( Gabbi?) To run for governor as California is one of the few states with an age requirement of only 18. HOWEVER in 2010 Proposition 14 passed which prohibits write in candidates in the general election. According to the Wikipedia " It was a constitutional amendment that effectively transformed California's non-Presidential elections from first-past-the-post to a nonpartisan blanket primary (similar to a two-round system). This had the unforeseen consequence of effectively eliminating third party candidates from the final ballots. " Therefore its my understanding that it would have been impossible for Gabby to have been elected as she was never a part of the primary and had no party. She would be seen as a write in candidate. Regardless wouldn't it just be seen as a typo? Why couldn't they have another emergency election ? I'm sure that could have happened as soon as she was decided the winning candidate.

I'm not convinced this movie is more deserving than Alien, even though it is quite good. And Ripley isn't the only woman onboard the Nostromo: Veronica Cartwright played Lambert. I don't believe this movie is about A.I.D.S. I usually hear that line about Cronenberg's remake of The Fly, even though he stated explicitly that his film was inspired by seeing his parents age. Carpenter's film is a quite faithful adaptation of the source material from 1938 (prior to the Cold War, and thus less likely to be an allegory for communism). Even 1982 strikes me as a bit early for that much awareness of AIDS.

I did just that, and I have to say that movie is abysmally entertaining in that wearing-an-old-comfy-sneaker-from-the-1990's way.

Yes, please. Very much so!

Lily James in Baby Driver had a uniform but I wouldn't call it cute. Maybe uniforms are making a comeback? If so they're going in the wrong direction.

I thought this movie was pretty great. Darkly funny in the right spots and Dan Stevens was perfect for the role. Liked that they didn't hold back once he finally went on his rampage. Also that final shot made me bust up!

Its dumb but I really liked the sister's diner outfit. I know that's weird but no diners near me have cute uniforms ( that probably itch and are awful but let me have the fantasy!) And frankly after years of tv and film telling me they would I feel a bit sad. I liked the color combo! Very peppy. Also sidenote on the topic if costumes no woman I know sleeps in underwear and thigh highs. That's... Not a thing. Sure sleep in underwear I guess but unless those are the socks you wore that day and you were exhausted and just passed out I don't know anyone who's rocking bedtime thigh highs. I myself now have a good sized collection of very cute (very pricey) pj sets. Because pandemic. Can I go outside? No but I cam wear shorts with beach dogs

Absolutely

It worked for me. He's pretty good looking. I think the initial point of the movie is a weird take on how veterans and families of veterans are screwed over. Dave is their son and they are his family since he can't return home. It's not that Dave is charming, it's that Dave fills the void of the dead son. So, they accept him regardless of logical response to a stranger or his charisma. They kind of dump that idea after half an hour (at least for the audience) because we know he's evil once the father's coworker dies and he attacked the kids in the bar. By then, I think the movie wants us to think of Dave as this weird, programmed weapon in a Rambo First Blood "look what they did to me" way. I don't think the movie accomplishes either of these goals, but I think that's what they are aiming for. I think they were trying to elevate an action thriller as opposed to, again, First Blood with is trying to make a action thriller out of a drama on vets returning home (although, I don't think First Blood totally accomplished it's goal either).

I absolutely hated how quickly the parents believed "David" over their own daughter. They've known him for a minute, and they immediately side with him. In fact, their entire attitude with him is nuts. They have them picking up their son from school after knowing him for less than a day; they invite him to come to the principle's office when the kid is about to be expelled. I'm sorry, none of this would happen. Ever. No way. And if the movie was trying to make a point of saying, "yes, this is unusual, but they were disarmed by his charm," it needed to do a much better job explaining why they felt so comfortable trusting him so completely so quickly. In fact, that's a big problem I had with it. I think the movie fails for me because it shows the family trusting him so readily, but it also needs to convince the audience that he's trustworthy too. It's tell not show writing. They trust him because the movie says they do, but they never really make a convincing argument why they should.

I especially want it if it’s a holiday movie and St. Clair is joining them

I get your points. My take on this movie —which is the follow-up from the guys who made You’re Next—is that it’s subverting where you think it’s going from the jump (similar to you’re Next, but I actually like this film more). The key to the film to me is how Dan Stevens plays this character. I probably revealed too much last week saying he was psycho. When I saw it on the theater, part of the fun is you’re never QUITE sure where he’s coming from. Does he intend to harm the family? Or is he there because he legitimately wants to pay his respects but still has a screw loose? The fun of the film is that there’s no way to know for sure. Personally, I think he legitimately wants to help this family, not victimize them, but he is insane. In his head, breaking bullies’ arms, killing the dad’s boss, teaching the son to stick up for himself by giving him psychotic motivational lectures is all things that his “friend” would have wanted. In his mind, he is genuinely being a good guy to them. He offers to leave at the beginning when he sees he’s upset the mom and I think he genuinely means it. Her taking him in is a combination of her neediness (and even the husband’s although he won’t admit it initially) and his twisted moral compass. He’s happy to stay there while he does shady shit to earn money to pay for a plastic surgeon to escape Lance Reddick. It’s a twisted two-way street. When the daughter reveals that she’s onto him, he could simply kill the whole family, but he doesn’t want to do that. He even tells her to give him time and he’ll leave and I think that is his plan. It’s only when Lance shows up that things spiral out of control. Even at the end, when everyone’s been slaughtered, I believe him when he says he forgives the son. In Dan’s fucked-up worldview, the son has done the right thing by literally stabbing the bully (which is Dan) in the back. since this earns Dan’s respect, he will let them slide and just go on to kill anyone else who gets in his way.

I don't understand why those kids didn't just drink the cosmos. I would have.

Honestly, I don’t mind. We’ve done non-Musicals before (Baby Driver, The Long Dumb Road).

Also, to clarify, when I initially joined the group, I was told that any type of film COULD be picked, not just traditional musicals/music-related movies (I remember because I asked if there were any ground rules and was told no). Not trying to be confrontational in any way, shape or form, but if people would prefer more traditional films, that would be good to know.

This movie was released in 2014, but was it supposed to be set in 2014? Did I miss something? There were so many weird anachronisms? Burned CDs and boom boxes? Really?

To be honest, I enjoy those posters more than I enjoyed the movie.

Usually I have a hard time finding alternative posters. This one had several. Here are the other three I like. (The first two are fan art and not official.)

Alternative poster (Graham said he picked this movie because it's set around Halloween.)