The Last Good Monster Movie? (1 Viewer)

[Jeffrey D]

Loved Mimic. Good catch.

A few other recent-ish films that I enjoy (hard to pick a "best"):

Dog Soldiers
Bad Moon (thin plot, but my favorite werewolf makeup ever)
Deep Rising
Pacific Rim
Eight-Legged Freaks (dumb fun, needs a blu-ray release)
Life (2017, with Jake Gyllenhaal and Ryan Reynolds)
30 Days of Night
Abominable (1998)
Jeepers Creepers
Pumpkinhead (more Stan Winston goodness)

Life is a disturbing monster film, with an unexpected ending.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I propose that the studios take a break from super hero movies and start doing monster movies, particularly giant monster movies, particularly giant bug monster movies, and even more particularly, remakes of giant bug monster movies from the ‘50s.

 

[TonyD]

I’ll take a big budget remake of The Monolith Minsters.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I’ll take a big budget remake of The Monolith Minsters.

Tarantula and Them for me.

 

[dpippel]

NOOO!!! They would just completely eff everything up. "THEM!", starring The Rock and Jason Statham! NOOOOO!!!!

 

[TonyD]

Does anybody remember 1997's Mimic, directed by Guillermo del Toro? It scared me when I saw it in the theater.

Is there a dir cut on disc?
I think that’s what I have.

 

[TonyD]

I think those old monster movies like Them and Taratula have a certain charm due to the generally outdated fx.

 

[TonyD]

Monolith Monsters, as it’s been a long time since I’ve watched it, are stop motion and animated fx and it’s pretty good.
It’s something that could be replicated decently now I think.


Btw I like the Rock and Statham. I don’t feel that their inclusion makes a movie a bad idea.

 

[Bryan^H]

I propose that the studios take a break from super hero movies and start doing monster movies, particularly giant monster movies, particularly giant bug monster movies, and even more particularly, remakes of giant bug monster movies from the ‘50s.

I'm much more keen to modern revisions of the classic Universal horror films such as Dracula, Frankenstein etc. It is a winning idea I thought...
Then I saw they tried it with The Mummy, and wow

 

[dpippel]

I'm much more keen to modern revisions of the classic Universal horror films such as Dracula, Frankenstein etc. It is a winning idea I thought...
Then I saw they tried it with The Mummy, and wow

Exactly. Today's Hollywood is almost incapable of doing these right. However, I might be interested in seeing what a director like Denis Villeneuve would do with something like THEM!.

 

[Bryan^H]

Exactly. Today's Hollywood is almost incapable of doing these right. However, I might be interested in seeing what a director like Denis Villeneuve would do with something like THEM!.

Or Quentin Tarantino making an epic Dracula movie.

 

[JohnRice]

Plus in terms of "stars" there really aren't any anymore and they hardly ever write anything that requires actors or acting of the type that gave us "movie stars" in the past. Now the pinnacle of "acting" is delivering a goofy one liner. That's it.

There are not going to be a lot of Meryl Streep type careers because the movies that made Streep, those kind of films, are no longer made or wanted in theaters.

I don't know what movies you're watching, but I see great writing, actors and drama all the time, from new and recent movies. There's a lot of crap too, and there always has, but there is every bit as much great cinematic drama as there has ever been. Filmmaking evolves, so they're different too, but that doesn't mean they can't be great.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I wouldn't say I love 2012, but for what it's intended to be, it's about as good as it gets.

Can't agree. It lacks any form of emotional impact, and even big disaster movies need characters who matter to the viewers.

"2012" is lots of sizzle and no steak!

 

[TonyD]

Pretty funny take down of 2012 in the We Hate Movies podcast

https://overcast.fm/+HmEXy9DUE

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I don't know what movies you're watching, but I see great writing, actors and drama all the time, from new and recent movies. There's a lot of crap too, and there always has, but there is every bit as much great cinematic drama as there has ever been. Filmmaking evolves, so they're different too, but that doesn't mean they can't be great.

Well, chances are I am watching a lot of stuff that you are watching based on conversations we've had. I think you and I probably seek out those smaller films, independent pictures, because we are looking for stories and acting. What the point in my post really was though is that the big pictures now, those that a studio would consider their 'A' films, are now all what would have been B pictures in the past. What they want to show in a cinema is big effects movies and children's films. These 'A' pictures do not require great actors or acting. They are not created to present performances they are about the effects, costumes, and gags.

I think this is a big reason why the "movie star" has become a thing of the past. The last great period for actors was the 1970s. Following that, the chances for an actor to get a chance to act in something with a great script began to dwindle.

Sure, we got good performances in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s but there were less of them and this is because fewer films were about a good script and giving an actor a chance to inhabit a character. You have to consider the financial backers of a picture probably love where motion picture making has gone the last 10 years. Their big films are comic book pictures and animation those don't require a "star" because the star is the costume or a drawing. Stars in the past just cost them a bunch of money and some of them could be a pain in the ass. Now, if you have an issue with the guy or gal playing the part just fire them and put somebody else in the suit.

Yes, in the B pictures now, which would be anything that is not a comic book, animation or Star Wars film, you can find actors and acting. There are actors working today I love. I love Brendan Gleeson, I will watch anything he is in.

If you want to look around, or watch Netflix, sure you'll find it. But not in the 'A' pictures playing in theaters. Today's 'A' list actors, meaning the people they are putting in those big films, typically all come from the Arnold Schwarzenegger school of acting. Deliver the one liner, look good in the suit, be goofy.

So what I am saying is not that there is no good acting or actors, but rather good acting and actors just have far less value today to the people that back a picture.

 

[Ross Gowland]

I'd call The Meg a good monster movie.

 

[JohnRice]

I still mostly disagree with your conclusion, Reggie. Your argument seems to be "Once you eliminate all the good movies, you're left with nothing but garbage." Of course. I'm sick of superhero movies, and I've only seen maybe 1/3 of them. As popular as they are, they're still far from all there is.

The movie system has changed. There is good and bad in that. it's not all bad. There are movie stars who can act. There are movie stars who can't act. That has always been the case. There are a lot of lesser known actors who are great actors. That has always been the case. In my book, there is nothing to wax poetic about the old movie system. It chewed people up and spit them out as much, and probably more than today. Where the best movies are found has changed somewhat. So what? If you want good movies, with good writing, with good directing, with good acting, there are plenty to choose from coming out all the time. And, movies are 10,000 times more accessible today than in the good old days. It's a win, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

 

[TravisR]

One of the Hollywood rags recently wrote an article called "The Last Movie Star" where the writer made the case that Leo DiCaprio is it...the last actual "movie star."

The theory behind this was that DiCaprio is the last actor than can open a film that is not a super hero or Star Wars film and he does not rely on any popularity from these type of films or any franchise for his "stardom."

Basically, this appears to be true as DiCaprio seems to have completely avoided all the franchise or comic book stuff and his pictures do well. He seems more interested in directors or certain projects than he is in the "fast buck" approach that most of Hollywood follows.

I believe that article said that DiCaprio's "franchise" was quality. I agree with that.

 

[JohnRice]

Who would you call a movie star these days, John?

I don't care what others call a "Star" or what the old definition is. but I'll try to answer your question the best I can. I look at someone like Oscar Isaac. He can star in Star Wars movies, and in artsy movies by Alex Garland and the Coen Brothers. Someone like Felicity Jones can star in huge blockbusters, and intimate little dramas, simultaneously. "Stardom" is often such a vapid concept. My "stars" are actors who stretch themselves and have some guts in the roles they choose. In the old system, someone like Jennifer Lawrence would never have been allowed to star in the Hunger Games movies, and choose something like mother!. I think this is far better than the old limitations.

BTW, I almost never watch movies in the theater anymore. I have my HT for a reason. I know it's not the same. In some ways it's better, especially for my preferences. I have also been watching a lot of the new, streaming TV shows, which truly are where a lot of the best cinema is being made lately.