AndyDursin wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 5:47 pm Listen, I know people think it's remarkable Ridley Scott keeps churning out movies at his age, but he was NEVER that prolific a director early in his career -- because, back then, he used to take his time choosing projects, resulting in a level of detail that, if nothing else, always made each picture he produced visually enthralling (even if the scripts sometimes didn't measure up).

Yeah, when you look at one of his more uneven films like 1492, he still took pains with the visuals. This is the difference between the old Ridley...



...and the new Ridley...




Another element which I felt was missing from Gladiator II was -- believe it or not -- Hans Zimmer & Lisa Gerrard.

I'm not Zimmer's biggest fan, but do I think he's done a number of good scores, and the Gladiator score he did in collaboration with Gerrard was a fine effort. Moreover it is a significant part of that movie's identity.

Harry Gregson-Williams' score for the sequel didn't add much to it. In fact the only moments where I felt the score made much of a contribution was when it quoted Zimmer's and Gerrard's music.

I downloaded a couple movies from Prime and converted them to Blu-Ray to give them a first time look.

Blue Steel (1990) 2 of 10
-Yikes. Jamie Lee Curtis looks terrific and has a certain appeal but this movie is a train wreck of epic proportions with the most brain-dead script I have ever seen in a movie. Curtis plays a new rookie NY cop who on her first night out while her partner is on a bathroom break sees a robbery in progress at a supermarket where a crazed guy is holding a gun on the cashier. Without getting her partner (okay I can write that off to a rookie mistake) she handles the emergency herself, tells the holdup man who is terrorizing the cashier with his 44 for over FIVE MINUTES (because Jamie Lee takes her time sneaking through the back to get into position) to DROP HIS GUN, and when he laughs and refuses she empties her gun into him whereupon he drops his gun to the floor and crashes through the front window. Remember all this because it was clear as day and makes ludicrous EVERYTHING that happens after this.

You see, Ron Silver, is this uptight commodities broker doing his shopping at this hour and he is among the five people in the market who must drop to the ground when the holdup man PULLS OUT HIS GUN. When Jamie Lee shoots him dead, the gun drops in front of him, and in his catatonic trauma he TAKES THE GUN and hides it under his suit which no one seems to notice, not the other witnesses, not Jamie Lee etc. Then we see him later walking back to his ritzy home in a dazed shock WITH THE GUN. Right off the bat, I am wondering, "Hello? How did he get away with this gun when its so obvious he would have been questioned at the scene with the other witnesses?" But we're just getting started with brain dead plot holes that I was seeing right away as they unfolded. You see, Jamie Lee is in trouble with her superiors because "We can't find a weapon" and NONE of the witnesses say they saw a gun. I'm going, "HUH?" The cashier had a gun pointed in his face for five minutes but we get some throwaway line that he wasn't sure if he had a knife or a gun and Jamie Lee said he's too traumatized to remember. Come on, NO ONE would forget something like that. And none of the other witnesses who dropped to the floor backed up the story? And what did Silver say and how did they miss his theft of the gun from the scene? As it turned out, much later we're going to learn that Silver slipped out of the market and was never interviewed at the scene which is even more ludicrous to imagine. Why has this idiotic development taken place? All to justify the smelly plot cliche of, "Turn in your badge and gun!" on Jamie Lee. THe fact that this plot device was totally unworkable and ridiculous based on the scenario they created is where this movie lost me completely just ten minutes into it.

And it got worse from there. You see, Silver, for reasons that are never made clear, suddenly turns into a murderous psychotic now that he has this gun he managed to swipe without anyone noticing and he starts killing people with it. And he starts to develop an obsession with Jamie Lee because of how she handled herself in the supermarket situation so he starts writing her name on the shell casings of the bullets before he uses the gun to commit murders. But wait there's more. When Jamie Lee gets suspended and is angrily walking away in the rain looking for a cab, Silver JUST HAPPENS to be there and naive Jamie Lee, not recognizing this guy who was there at the time (and Silver with his beard and dressed in a well-tailored suit would have been IMPOSSIBLE not to remember which can also be said of the other witnesses who were there) accepts his offer and soon they're in a relationship (which makes Jamie Lee the stupidest person on the face of the Earth). But then of course when she realizes who he is and what he's done (not through brilliance on her part but only because his psycho tendencies start to slip through and he basically confesses to her) things get even more bizarre and wacko that it would be pointless to go any further (only to say that the final climactic face-off between Jamie Lee and Silver is even more idiotic than anything I have described up to this point).

-The authors of this script should have had their Writer's Guild membership revoked for writing a story like this with zero conception of logical cause and effect. I have never seen a script incapable of logically going from Point A to Point B at every step of the way until I saw this film and while it was nice to see Jamie Lee in her prime (one of the rare few who shine with a short hairstyle) this film is a mess no one should subject themselves to.


No Way Out (1987) 7 of 10.
-I'd never seen this film before. And consequently, the film's twist ending really caught me by surprise because I am familiar with the original source work that this movie is loosely based on, "The Big Clock" which was first made into a movie of the same name in 1948 and was also adapted for radio in the mid-1970s. That story was set in a high-rise Manhattan skyscraper that housed a publishing Empire. This version takes a loose outline of the story and transfers it to the Pentagon in the 80s Cold War era. There is no counterpart to the "twist" in the original version of the story so that's why I wasn't expecting it since I was spending much of the film looking for the parallels to the original. (High profile figure kills his mistress by accident in a rage; the protagonist who works for him witnesses the killing and the high profile figure knows there is a witness but he doesn't know who it is.....he marshals the resources of his empire to control the investigation and unwittingly places the man he's looking for and wants to frame for the murder in charge of it.) One of the parallels falls flat because in the original, a witness who can identify our protagonist and thus implicate him as the killer instead of the higher-up is conducted on a search through the different room of a high rise skyscraper. Transferring that plot device to the Pentagon, which consists of 17 miles of corridors makes no sense whatsoever. But aside from that, the paralleling works reasonably well and again, left me unprepared for that final twist that forces you to reevaluate what you were thinking about Kevin Costner's lead character up to that moment. After the badness of "Blue Steel" this one was better by contrast (though the subplot involving Iman which was used to justify a big chase scene midway through the film ends abruptly and goes nowhere without repercussions that should have taken place) and I was glad I finally saw it (though the hot sex scene between Costner and Sean Young in the back of the limo I felt wasn't needed)

Totally agree Eric! BLUE STEEL is rancid. I watched it again a couple of years ago, I thought it was just dreadful given the cast involved. Like a slasher movie with a cop, capped by a terrible script. Woefully bad.

NO WAY OUT I always felt was solid but wrecked by the twist at the end. That didn't work for me. Sean Young in the back of the limo did though!!

BTW, here's a footnote about "Blue Steel" I can't resist sharing with you, Andy. The prostitute that Silver kills during the film and then smears her blood over himself afterwards in some bizarre ritual way? That was Toni Darling, former wife of a certain New York Mets pitcher from 1986! (She was a model with one other non-acting credit, the 1979 TV movie "SOS Titanic").

I almost think the twist end of "No Way Out" was a way of telling those like me who knew the original story and were looking for the parallels, "You didn't think *that* was going to happen, did you?" I guess I was impressed simply because all these years I had managed to avoid learning that twist before seeing the film which is something that can't be said of a lot of other films.

Brainstorm (8/10)

This is the first time I've sat down to watch this film since 1984. As a teenager I thought it was most amazing movie I'd ever seen. Viewing it today, its imperfections are more obvious -- however, it remains a very impressive stab at the science fiction genre, and holds-up incredibly well.

The premise is fascinating: scientists at a research institute have perfected a device that can record a person's experiences, memories and feelings directly from their brain, store them on tape, and enable someone to playback and experience those same things as if it were happening to them.

Unlike Spielberg, who (at the time) was casting mostly character actors in his movies, director Douglas Trumbull assembles an ensemble of "acclaimed performers"; not stars per se, but well-respected actors of note -- Christopher Walken, Natalie Wood, Louise Fletcher, Cliff Robertson. And they aren't wasted either. Brainstorm not only explores scientific speculation, but endeavors (often successfully) to place human relationships at the forefront of the story, in depicting how this invention affects the character's lives. Nowhere is this better expressed than in the storyline of Walken and Wood, who play a couple going through an acrimonious divorce -- until Walken uses the machine to "record" how he truly feels toward her. Unable to verbalize his love, he "records and plays back" his reminiscences of their courtship, wedding and early years of their marriage for her -- and the result is their marriage is saved. It is by far the most touching sequence in the film.

Much of Brainstorm's appeal also lies its visual style. This truly is one of the best-looking science fiction films ever made. Matthew Yuricich's cinematography is luminously gorgeous, bathing the film in a naturalistic but engaging (and at times almost heavenly) light. John Vallone's production designs, from the scientific lab apparatuses, to the living and work spaces, is eye-catching and believable. Trumbull's decision to shoot all the "real world" scenes in 4:3 35mm (with monaural sound), but all the virtual reality footage in Super Panavision (and in stereo) made the film a much-more immersive experience. This all contributes to really livening-up what is essentially an interior "talkie". Unfortunately, this inventive use of two different film gauges didn't transfer well to home video in the 1980s (the virtual reality scenes were merely squeezed for videocassette and TV broadcast -- and the difference in resolution between 35mm and 70mm was invisible in standard definition video). Happily, modern transfers have made this inventive photographic choice much easier to appreciate.

Although released in 1983, Brainstorm was filmed in 1981, and often looks like a film from the 1970s (especially in the costuming) -- which isn't necessarily a problem, but it does feel more like a product of the time than, say, Close Encounters or E.T. That said, the gadgetry in Brainstorm still looks terrific in 2025. Yes, the memory recording device uses digital tape, stored on spools, which of course no one uses anymore -- but it comes off as functional, and real, and is interesting to look at. If this film was made today, the memory data would be stored on flash drives. Boring.

Moreover Brainstorm's exploration of virtual reality, and its extensive climax revolving around computer hacking, were way ahead of the time in 1983. As such the film was very prescient -- probably too prescient for its own good. I suspect its box office failure was partly down to early 80s audiences, for whom "science fiction" meant more familiar tropes (i.e. spaceships and aliens). In addition, the tragic death of Natalie Wood certainly didn't help the movie's appeal.

The crowning glory of Brainstorm is of course James Horner's score. I loved Star Trek II and (more particularly) Krull, but Brainstorm is the one that really sold me on Horner. This score made it clear he was set to take his place in the pantheon of great Hollywood composers -- specifically in the tradition begun by Williams and Goldsmith. Horner certainly lived-up to that promise (until he was sadly taken from us ten years ago). His music really brings the film alive, as effectively uplifting the moments of human emotion as the science fiction elements. His big climactic cue, with its blend of romantic and avant garde styles, and the ecclesiastical climax accompanying the shots of Heaven, is among his finest work, and I still think Brainstorm is in his top five best scores.

Brainstorm also gets a lot of points for presenting a story of scientific speculation without getting bogged-down in a lot of technobabble. However I do think that the film ultimately poses questions it fails to answer. At the climax Walken accesses the tape which recorded Louise Fletcher's death, leading to an out-of-body and near-death experience (and glimpse of Heaven -- as well as Hell). It's an extraordinary sequence, amazingly-realized -- but what is the payoff? It sets-up a philosophical and religious question, which the film pretty-much ignores, and that's a bit of a shame. The film is ultimately content to being a sci-fi thriller / love story. The film also falters when the protagonists hack into the computers running the research institute's assembly line, and it offers-up a bunch of childish slapstick pratfalls (which are glaringly at odds with the film's otherwise serious tone). That said, when Brainstorm adheres the scientific and human interest of the story, it does work beautifully.

Oh man, now I HAVE to rewatch this Paul! Thanks for the review.

Eric -- amazing catch on Mrs. (?) Darling. Again may have to rewatch that one too.

As for GLADIATOR II I stand with Paul -- it SUCKED. Scott on a snake eyes roll with sequels

Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 9:07 am But aside from that, the paralleling works reasonably well and again, left me unprepared for that final twist that forces you to reevaluate what you were thinking about Kevin Costner's lead character up to that moment.

I really got a kick out of No Way Out -- until the ending. It was an almost Brazil-level anticlimax, as if to slap the audience in the face for rooting for the "hero".

Other than that I found it a taut, suspenseful thriller. Costner's performance was one of his best, and it was eye-catchingly photographed by one of my favorites, John Alcott (his final job before his untimely death). As a listening experience, Maurice Jarre's score can be a bit shrill at times, but it adds incredible dramatic tension to this film. (I always felt -- and still feel -- that Maurice Jarre's electronic scores sound like the work of a completely different composer than his orchestral scores, not just in instrumentation, but dramatic approach as well).

FULL MOON IN BLUE WATER (1988)
5/10


Back when it seemed a new movie with Gene Hackman hit theaters every other month, the prolific star appeared in this curious project which marked one of his few outright missteps of the era. Starring as the down-on-his-luck owner of a rundown Gulf Coast bar, targeted by both the bank and realtors looking to get their hands on the property, Hackman delivers a mopey performance as he grieves over the disappearance of his wife; Teri Garr, meanwhile, tries valiantly to liven up her role of the local bus driver who wants Hackman to snap out of it while Burgess Meredith serves up a number of profanities as Hackman’s father-in-law.

It’s hard to envision what drew all of these stars to Bill Bozzone’s stagy script, which is full of unappealing personalities and a tone much more downbeat than director Peter Masterson wants to recognize. Either that, or it was his way of coping with depressing material that only perks up in its concluding minutes.

Making its HD premiere on Blu-Ray, “Full Moon in Blue Water” boasts a fresh MGM remaster (1.85) with clear mono sound and no extras.

THE GORGE (2025)
6/10



Reasonably diverting creature feature -- with a heavy emphasis on romance (sort of) -- stars Miles Teller as a military vet sent to a covert location by government spook Sigoruney Weaver. Teller's barely-defined mission is to live in a tower, packed with lots of guns, no communication to the outside world, and with orders to shoot anything that comes barreling out of the gorge below. Anya Taylor-Joy plays a Latvanian sharpshooter on the other side of the gorge, and the two mingle before staging an actual date that goes horribly wrong, sending the duo into the abyss where they fight for their survival against mutated human monsters and a military cover-up.

Given I had a stomach virus, the fact "The Gorge" kept me invested speaks something, even though this Apple original movie (produced by Skydance) manages to be less than the sum of its parts. Director Scott Derrickson's movies are often interesting and this one is no exception, as the picture's creature-feature elements results in some monsters and backdrops that look like a post-apocalyptic world envisioned by Tim Burton (in fact, if there are callbacks to the woods of "Sleepy Hollow", it's no surprise with production designer Rick Heinrichs along for the ride here too). Yet all of it is kept within a PG-13 framework, the monsters looking like some of Davey Jones' crew from "Pirates of the Caribbean" mixed with Groot in his teenage years.

The romance, or heavy reliance on the interaction between the characters, is what defines "The Gorge" and both Teller (who also produced) and Anya-Joy, who's a lot more likable here than usual, are fine. Yet I couldn't help but think Derrickson was the wrong choice to mix these seemingly disparate elements together, the movie coming off as frigid when it should've made more of an emotional connection between the characters. It's passionless, sub-Hallmark Channel stuff, flatly written by Zach Dean as well.

Add in the almost completely digital cinematography -- outside of some early location shots, this thing is green-screen city, as phony as bad '50s Hollywood jungle movie -- and you get a picture that has compelling components that just don't gel...even as moderately entertaining as the film is on balance.

-Snow White & The Huntsman (2012): 8.5/10

-The Huntsman: Winter's War (2026): 7.5/10





The forthcoming, dreadful-looking Disney rehash of their 1937 animated classic did inspire me to watch that film on UHD a few days ago, as well as revisit Rupert Sanders' underrated 2012 take on the material. Snow White & The Huntsman is a film I enjoyed a great deal at the time and has only improved over the years, a confident, lushly visualized fantasy/adventure anchored by Chris Hemsworth's brawny authority as the titular Huntsman and a terrific turn by Charlize Theron as an erotically terrifying Evil Queen that toes the line between an emphatically pre-#MeToo rage against the patriarchy and a rapacious, selfish hunger. She's flat-out fantastic, especially compared to the wet dishrag of anti-charisma that clips of Gal Gadot's upcoming performance seem to indicate. Kristen Stewart is a trifle bland as Snow White, but she's adequate enough, and the actors chosen for the seven dwarfs (their faces digitally popped onto the bodies of little people in an F/X coup that's still pretty seamless) are a motley, engaging bunch. It's also a superb-looking movie, shot on 35mm film and set in atmospherically misty real locations and set to a fine musical score by James Newton Howard that juices up the proceedings nicely. It glances off true greatness by a hair (one wishes for more meat on the bone to make its wan love triangle between Hemsworth, Stewart and Sam Claflin as Snow White's childhood friend more satisfying, and her transformation into delicate wallflower to sword-swinging badass is too abrupt), yet it's a very satisfying movie that had weathered the years extremely well.

The 2016 prequel/sequel Winter's War was dumped on at the time (20% at Rotten Tomatoes!), yet it's a perfectly enjoyable follow-up, with Hemsworth's Eric reconnecting with his lost wife Sara (Jessica Chastain, extremely fetching in her form-fitting battle leather and speaking in a soft Scottish brogue) in order to take down the sister Freya (a frosty Emily Blunt) of the late Ravena (Theron, snagging a sizable paycheck for a few minutes of arch villainy). The movie -- directed by the original film's F/X supervisor, Cedric Nicholas-Troyan -- offers up a pleasurable pileup of standard fantasy/quest tropes, with a refreshing sense of humor (Nick Frost is the only returning dwarf, but he and Rob Brydon offer up some funny interactions with a pair of comely/brash female dwarfs played by Alexandra Roach and Sheridan Smith who join their fellowship) and some Lovely visuals. The only real problem is some surprisingly lax continuity with the first film, which never quite gels...Ravena's simpering, albino brother in the first film is completely absent from this one, and substitutes Blunt as an obvious nod to the then-current popularity of Frozen, and the depiction of the event that separates Hemsworth and Chastain's lovers does not at all resemble how it's described in the original. Plus, you can tell that the filmmakers were bending over backwards to find a way to excise Stewart from the film so as not to give her a paycheck (she's given a "Fake Shemp" brush-off with an obvious body double in one shot, plus an additional, post-credits sequence added to the director's cut). Still, these flaws aside, it's better than you'd expect, with swashbuckling adventure, good humor and another Howard score that's even more expressive and melodic than the first.

Goodbye Mr. Chips (1939) 6.5 of 10
-I had never seen this film before nor its musical remake. After watching it, I am now convinced that Jimmy Stewart was robbed big time when they gave the Best Actor Oscar in 1939 to Robert Donat. I have read reference books that say "Donat was Stewart's equal that year." No he wasn't. It's obvious to me that Donat got the award because they were impressed by the fact he spent most of the film playing an older man and that the makeup was credible. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Donat's performance it's just that when you compare it to Stewart's in "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and Gable in "Gone With The Wind" it isn't even close. Academy voters probably realized that too which is why the next year Stewart got the Best Actor Oscar for a film in which he's really doing a supporting part ("Philadelphia Story") and which makes that award come off more as a case of "buyer's remorse" for the previous year (and likely cost Henry Fonda of an Oscar he should have won 41 years earlier)

The film itself is handsomely made but to be perfectly honest I don't find the story that compelling. Chips taught for 53 years, had a brief interlude of happiness (Greer Garson who comes and goes very quickly) and left his mark. Nothing that frankly stood out to me. Perhaps the reason I can't connect with this film is because the Twilight Zone episode "The Changing Of The Guard" is really a supernatural take on this story and is done so effectively and I've seen that tale dozens of times that suddenly seeing the original inspiration for it just can't have a great impact on me. MGM did a lot better with another Hilton novel "Random Harvest" a few years later. Or perhaps if I wasn't so self-consciously aware of the fact that Donat won the Oscar that should have rightfully been Stewart's, I might have been a little more positive about it.

I'll be watching the musical version soon because I just got a used copy of the FSM CD (which doesn't go for less than $150) and watching the original was a way of priming myself for that.

-The Day The Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie (2025): 8.5/10



Hoo-hoo, hoo-hoo! Wonderful homage to the golden age of vintage WB cartoons evokes the rubbery, spastic sense of movement of classic Robert McKimson and Friz Freleng shorts (with a dash of John Kricfalusi Ren & Stimpy rudeness) and is the best thing done with the classic Looney Tunes bunch since Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The vibrant, gloriously hand-drawn images burst off the screen, Joshua Moshier's terrific score evokes the mercurial tempo shifts of Carl Stalling (and Theremin-laden quaver of cheesy 50s sci-fi flicks), and voice actor Eric Bauza pulls excellent double duty as Daffy Duck and Porky Pig, who have to fight to save their homestead from the wrecking ball and the world from a bubble-gum invasion from outer space. Adult fans of the classic shorts may get more from this than kids (the handful at my screening seemed restless), but for those who grew up on the classics from the 1940s and 50s (and who have stewed through corporate-driven stinkers like the two Space Jams and Joe Dante's gravely disappointing Looney Tunes: Back In Action), it's a pleasure to see that, sometimes, you can go home again.

The Substance (1/10)

Please, heed my warning -- do not watch this film.

The Substance is possibly the most disgusting movie I've ever seen (and I've seen Caligula). Apart from that, it is totally unoriginal, and little more than a re-hash of The Twilight Zone episode "The Trade Ins", Star Trek's "The Enemy Within" and "Turnabout Intruder", and Buck Rogers' "Cruise Ship to the Stars" (with some Single White Female tossed in for good measure).

The film actually starts-off as an effectively creepy sci-fi/horror thriller -- Demi Moore plays a a popular but aging fitness guru, who is fired from her TV show for being over-the-hill -- 50 years of age to be exact (which isn't at all realistic -- a lot of Hollywood starlets have made fitness videos well into their 50s). After being given some cryptic information about "The Substance", a drug that can furnish a "younger, more perfect" version of yourself, she gives it a try. What it does however is hatch a younger body out of one's own. Consciousness is transferred to the new body -- the catch however is you can only inhabit the new body every other week; in between you must continue to live in your old body.

It's an intriguing premise, but the film goes down the tubes as it progresses. Moore "births" the younger Margaret Qualley, but Qualley starts to take on a vain and self-absorbed personality of her own, and neglects the required maintenance of Moore's body, with inevitably detrimental repercussions for both. (Also, though Qualley is supposedly the "younger, more perfect" version of Moore, I personally find Moore -- even at age 60 -- the more attractive of the two.)

I can't balk at the highly convincing make-up and prosthetic effects created for the film, which are disturbingly real. Kudos to the team who created them. My score of one star goes mostly to them. But those effects are so real, they are simply repellent. Scenes of aging Demi Moore's naked body -- complete with droopy, sagging breasts -- is truly one of the most nauseating sights in cinema history. And yet it gets even worse.

I'm not a prude when it comes to cinema violence (I love RoboCop), but The Substance contains moments of repulsively misogynistic, savage bloodletting -- in particular toward the end, when Qualley repeatedly slams the decrepit Moore's face against a mirror, and then savagely beats her to death.

The film also endeavors unsuccessfully to straddle horror with humor, so-much-so it almost feels like two different movies -- particularly at the climax, which is like something out of Peter Jackson's Dead Alive while simultaneously trying to make a heavy-handed statement about "hating those who are different".

I'm not shocked that Demi Moore was willing to appear nude in this movie (modesty was never her strong suit -- who can forget that scandalous cover of Rolling Stone Magazine in the 90s?). But I find it ironic that Qualley was willing to do full-frontal nudity -- this is the girl who whined about Tarantino shooting close-ups of her bare feet a few years ago. (The Substance incidentally contains copious close-ups of Qualley's feet as well).

Obviously writer-director Coralie Fargeat was trying to make a statement about Hollywood's "twisted obsession" with youth and beauty, and the way female stars become unemployable once they reach a certain age. True, it is a sad reality of the entertainment business -- but you know, none of us lasts forever. We all have to move over for the next generation at some point, regardless of our profession and social status. Why should the average person feel sorry for multi-millionaires who've enjoyed a good 15-20-year run in that town?

In any case, The Substance is possibly the most sickening movie I've ever seen. It is vulgar, tasteless, voyeuristic, misogynistic and just plain infantile. Its title is also tantamount to a "bate and switch" tactic, for there is absolutely nothing "substantial" about this film at all.

Glad I'm never going to have to sit through it. As I get older my taste for that kind of film is next to none.

Gross out F/X have always been a turnoff for me. The melting Nazis traumatized me in Raiders as a kid and that's why I never saw another Indiana Jones film (especially after I read about the violence in Temple of Doom). I have never seen Carpenter's "The Thing" and have no desire to along with the 80s "Fly" and of course any other famous horror/slasher film from the 70s on has gone unseen by me. I can handle "Alien" but even with that film I admit I don't like to look at the first moment of the famous scene. To me, I just think there's something a bit warped in deciding we need to be 'realistic' for such moments in cinema depictions.