grudlian.

I don't think Travis is dead. Paul Schrader has talked about the woman who attempted to kill Gerald Ford was on the cover of Newsweek. I think he meant the ending to be a critique of American values. There was an episode of Inside The Actors Studio with either Scorsese or DeNiro where they mentioned discussions of a sequel at one point (that I assume never left the idea stage). Can't do a sequel if he's dead. I might believe Travis died except the very last shot of him reacting to something in the rearview mirror. If the movie ended with nothing but praise, I might go with it. But that reaction to whatever Travis saw implies to me that even though he "accomplished" what he wanted, he's still unwell. He's not fixed. Whether that means he kills again, I don't know.

So long as regular Pepsi is Joan Crawford, we're all good.

It's A Wonderful Life, E. T., To Kill A Mockingbird, Jaws, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, 2001, Rocky

This is my question for myself. I've given just under 1% of all movies I've seen according to Letterboxd a 5 star rating. I haven't seen the entire AFI list, but of the 95 I have seen, only 7 got 5 stars. Am I just to hard of a critic?

Finding out Tarantino loves this movie is not a surprise at all. When I watched it again this week, the scene with Martin Scorsese cameo made me think this of Tarantino because it's a director giving himself a cameo so he can use racist language and fetishize misogynist violence. Of the three Scorsese/De Niro movies, I'd definitely keep this on here. If I had to choose one to remove, I might remove Goodfellas.

How could anyone argue? Josie and the Pussycats is the most jerkin movie ever!

Since I haven't watched this since theatres, I don't feel super qualified to say if this belongs but I definitely lean hard to not including it. Based on my last viewing of it, it was well crafted but not great. There are better horror, thriller, suspense movies that could be included in my mind if it needs to be replaced with a similar genre film. As for movies on the AFI list, I don't rank many 5 stars but I think I rank movies differently from others. 4.5 is, for all intents, perfection or near enough. 5 stars is for movies that have a profound personal effect on my even if they aren't flawless movies. I'm pretty sure I rated Josie And The Pussycats 5 stars and I can maybe admit it's not technically perfect.

Just change all the guns to walkie talkies.

Yeah, when I saw a picture of a male anglerfish, I laughed. I didn't even think they were the same species.

NO!!!! WE CAN'T BE INCLUSIVE!!! ANYONE WHO IS TEAM ANGLERFISH IS DEAD TO ME!!!!!!

So, I've been listening to a bunch of old episodes and got up to Sharknado. At the end, Jason comes up with the movie Dinocano where dinosaurs have been around forever living underground and escape through a volcano opening. This is extremely close to The Meg where a shark that co-existed with dinosaurs is kept deep underwater and escapes through a heated vent. I don't want to say Jason is the reason The Meg made it out of development hell, but I can't prove he wasn't the reason either.

If your library lets you use hoopla digital, it's on there for free. This looks like an interesting movie I've never heard of.

Yeah. It's pretty baffling. In looking into the book a little bit, my understanding is that the revised and expanded edition which I read is pretty different from the original version. I haven't found out what's different but the author's forward talks about fixing story stuff to fit into the series as it is now. I assume it's like Stephen King rewriting the first Dark Tower book. So, I'm not sure but it might be significantly different. I assume they've had scripts going around for years then someone said to add in bits of the expanded book. Then those parts don't quite make sense together. And everyone remembers this is a high budget SyFy channel movie and decides finding it doesn't matter.

This makes me wonder if Shark Attack 3 is basically stolen from The Meg or attempting to be a mockbuster thing like Asylum does. The Meg movie was in development since the late 1990s by big studios with big name actors. It's been over a decade since I watched the Shark Attack movies but isn't 3 way way sillier than and totally unrelated to the first 2 which are pretty grounded? Shark Attack 3 could have been ther next step in escalating the series the sharks but I wouldn't be surprised finding out the studio said "Disney is doing a megalodon movie with George Clooney! Just find the book and change enough to legally keep us out of court."

This bugged me so much too. Why is he internationally infamous for two people dying and not having saved 10 people? I assume this is in part because the book had a different reason for the mission altogether, but also from different scripts being married together unsuccessfully from 20 years of development hell.

Also, can you imagine going to watch this movie just for live show then Jason and Nicole are watching the in same theater for the same reason?

Were both Emma Stone and Scarlett Johansson too busy to be in a movie this month?

Now with Searching in theaters, is this the only time in American theaters where there have been three movies at one time with Asians in leading roles? Not to say the isn't a long long way to go but I realized this is the third movie in two weeks I've seen where an Asian person isn't just "doctor" or "extra in crowd".

The version I read is the revised and expanded version (now with pictures!). He apparently felt it didn't fit with the what the book series became. That's makes me ask two questions: 1. How terrible was the original version of this turd? 2. Did he add this sequence just for the new edition? Since it doesn't really fit in with the book, it's plausible.

I *think* that's supposed to be a nickname or an abbreviation. Pronounced "kels" Like if Dylan's nickname was "Dyl" but he spelled it "Dill" I wouldn't guarantee it though because this is never explained. These characters never show up before or after this competition which is maybe 10 pages of the book. So, introducing a nickname in their only exchange in the book in their final line doesn't make sense.

This kind of stuff why I thought Syncasey was arguing horror movies have supernatural stuff. So many people think that having a monster automatically makes it a horror movie. What We Do In The Shadows is most definitely not a horror movie.

I don't want to go into the all the differences between the book and movie because they are barely similar. I'll address a few things brought up on the podcast. They talk about Rainn Wilson's motivations never being clear. He's not even in the book. The research is funded by the Asian grandfather. It's also not a multi-billion dollar station. They do all their dives off of a boat. Jason brings up Jason Statham having a death wish. In the book, he has premonitions and dreams that he's going to die from the shark. When he finally does kill the shark, he basically says that it's like his dream and knows he's going to die even though he doesn't. The way Statham kills the shark is even crazier than Paul describes. He pilots a submersible into the shark's stomach where he recognizes the face of someone who was eaten. The book claims sharks can vomit by sticking their entire stomach out of their mouth which I assume is not true (right? that sounds crazy). The shark tries to do this and Statham gets out of the sub and uses a megalodon tooth to cut open the shark's stomach. Then gets back in the submersible and survives. They mention this movie feeling like a Chinese import. In the book, the Asian characters all have Japanese names (Masao Tanaka instead of Shuyin and Zhang) instead of Chinese names. None of the movie takes place near a Chinese beach. I think they changed all this to get a bigger financial gross in China. And here's just a sequence from the book that made me laugh. The Meg attacks a surfing competition. One surfer outsurfs the shark. He makes it to land, gets handed a trophy immediately for best surfing of the day and asks his crush on a date. This is only two pages of the book.

So, I read the book this week. I spoil it for you: don't read it. It's really badly written and misogynist. The only real similarities are that a megalodon is kept in deep underwater with the hydrothermal plume then causes mass killings when it escapes into cold water when dives interrupt its habitat. Everything else is pretty different. But the current edition of the comes with the prequel (yes, this is a series of books). The prequel is all about Jason Statham's origin story about the mission from the first few minutes of the movie. It explains why people claimed he was "crazy" according to everyone else in the movie. In the prequel, Jason Statham is a deep sea diver for the navy. He's been diving too deep, too often too recently (four times in nine days or something). This is causing him to experience vertigo, hallucinations and general craziness. Despite knowing he's unfit to dive, Doctor Heller from the movie gives him the medical clearance to dive again. Some admiral basically forces Statham to dive. During the dive, Statham has an attack from underwater dementia which coincides with a megalodon attack. He surfaces without authorization. The meg attack and Statham's actions causes everyone on board to die during the ascent. Jason blames the shark attack but Dr. Heller and the admiral start a smear campaign against Statham to cover their own negligence in letting him dive. Statham is given a dishonerable discharge and put in a mental health facility for three months as part of the smear campaign. Some major differences are that Statham wasn't diving to rescue anyone on the mission. They are diving to get minerals. There are multiple parties who witness evidence of the megalodon. Statham physically sees it. The admiral sees the tooth stuck in the submersible. There's some non-navy boat that picks up a huge blip on sonar that they rule out being a whale (and theorize it's a giant shark). So, the book proper opens seven years later with Statham now a shark expert trying to prove megalodons still exist to clear his name.

Ok. My bad. I definitely misread what you meant then. Although this does bring up something I've never been able to verbalize: what is everyone's take on the difference between a horror film and a thriller? I've held for a long time that a horror film intends to scare the viewer and a thriller intends to make them tense or maybe suspenseful. In some cases this is a really nebulous line like Silence Of The Lambs or The Game or Funny Games.

T-T-Triple post. I'm blaming all these on a spotty internet connection.