- Welcome to Badmovies.org Forum.
Recent posts
#3
Bad Movies / Re: Generate Movie Poster with...
Last post by claws - Today at 08:10:39 PMAlternative (better) version
#4
Press Releases and Film News / Re: RIP Rex Reed
Last post by LilCerberus - Today at 08:00:36 PMQuote from: LilCerberus on May 12, 2026, 02:29:07 PMAnother one, addressing the people who were protesting The Passion Of The Christ:Oops! I meant The Last Temptation Of Christ, not that Mal Gibson movie.....
"C'Mon guys, it's only a movie! Now did I just say it was a 'Good" movie? No way José!"
#6
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by chainsaw midget - Today at 06:20:18 PMWHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS
I just finished watching the series (all 6 seasons) so I decided to track down the movie it was based on. Or perhaps inspired by. There are none of the same characters, setting, or anything between the two. Just the same general idea. A documentary crew is filming the daily "life" of a group of vampires that live together in modern times.
While the TV series takes this a step further and makes them all basically idiots, the original show just has them... completely out of whack with modern day life. There's not much of a plot to it, the closest thing it has is the fact that one of their victims at the beginning of the movie gets turned and they roughly guide him in what being a vampire is actually like.
I wouldn't say it's laugh out loud funny, but it is quite amusing in places. Also a lot bloodier and gorier than the Tv series.
Worth checking out if you like vampire movies.
I just finished watching the series (all 6 seasons) so I decided to track down the movie it was based on. Or perhaps inspired by. There are none of the same characters, setting, or anything between the two. Just the same general idea. A documentary crew is filming the daily "life" of a group of vampires that live together in modern times.
While the TV series takes this a step further and makes them all basically idiots, the original show just has them... completely out of whack with modern day life. There's not much of a plot to it, the closest thing it has is the fact that one of their victims at the beginning of the movie gets turned and they roughly guide him in what being a vampire is actually like.
I wouldn't say it's laugh out loud funny, but it is quite amusing in places. Also a lot bloodier and gorier than the Tv series.
Worth checking out if you like vampire movies.
#8
Games / Re: Answer the question with a...
Last post by bob - Today at 04:26:27 PM
Who ate the shoes?
#9
Good Movies / Re: 100 COLOR movies
Last post by HappyGilmore - Today at 01:42:44 PM94.) Blue Beetle. The superhero flick.
#10
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by M.10rda - Today at 01:40:53 PMGOOD BOY (2025):
Another Madame pick. Is this that "elevated horror" that the kids talk about? Said subgenre always seems like the kind of thing I should enjoy and yet I had serious reservations about (or outrightly disliked) THE BABADOOK, THE WITCH, and HEREDITARY. (I will stan for IT FOLLOWS, which might be a litmus test that separates elevated horror Tourists from Real Heads.) Anyway GOOD BOY appears widely well-received and I thought it was ultimately better than BABADOOK (to which it is similar), yet I still can't muster an unqualified rec.
First of all, as this seems to be the primary concern for many potential viewers: The Dog lives at the end. Nevertheless we still cried (well, Madame wept and I got misty, anyway) because the Dog does have an emotionally frank tragic experience that will be fairly universal to anyone w/ feelings and interpersonal connections. That's no small deal, thus props to w/d Ben Leonberg.
Most of the film's events are related from the perspective of the Dog ("Indy", played by the director's own dog, also named "Indy") - in third person, but usually providing only the information that the Dog has access to. That's a cool approach to telling a spooky story, yet it still amounts to a lot of jump scares. Also, GOOD BOY takes on allegorical dimensions at the end that kind of conflict with the concrete reality (that being Indy's) that has been established for 80 minutes. And there's just plain lapses in cogent film grammar and common sense. For instance, there's a passage partway through the film where (at least as the film is edited) Indy doesn't go outside to pee or poop for over twenty-four hours
yet doesn't appear to do his business in the house, either. (Are we sure that the director actually owns and lives with a real dog? 
) I'm not saying I need to see the dog go to the bathroom - I'm just saying think about the possible elision of time when you're shooting and editing your movie.
Finally: Indy is a beautiful dog, and he gives a good "performance"... but really, while dogs can learn tricks and "perform"... a dog doesn't really understand the concept of "a movie" and thus doesn't really understand that it's in a movie, I think. So I felt concern for Indy during moments where he appears upset or sad or angry, and I felt kinda' bad during moments where Indy gets physically roughed up a little. I'm sure Leonberg loves Indy so I hope he allows Indy to retire from horror movies and live out a comfortable doggy lifespan in peace. 3/5
Another Madame pick. Is this that "elevated horror" that the kids talk about? Said subgenre always seems like the kind of thing I should enjoy and yet I had serious reservations about (or outrightly disliked) THE BABADOOK, THE WITCH, and HEREDITARY. (I will stan for IT FOLLOWS, which might be a litmus test that separates elevated horror Tourists from Real Heads.) Anyway GOOD BOY appears widely well-received and I thought it was ultimately better than BABADOOK (to which it is similar), yet I still can't muster an unqualified rec.
First of all, as this seems to be the primary concern for many potential viewers: The Dog lives at the end. Nevertheless we still cried (well, Madame wept and I got misty, anyway) because the Dog does have an emotionally frank tragic experience that will be fairly universal to anyone w/ feelings and interpersonal connections. That's no small deal, thus props to w/d Ben Leonberg.
Most of the film's events are related from the perspective of the Dog ("Indy", played by the director's own dog, also named "Indy") - in third person, but usually providing only the information that the Dog has access to. That's a cool approach to telling a spooky story, yet it still amounts to a lot of jump scares. Also, GOOD BOY takes on allegorical dimensions at the end that kind of conflict with the concrete reality (that being Indy's) that has been established for 80 minutes. And there's just plain lapses in cogent film grammar and common sense. For instance, there's a passage partway through the film where (at least as the film is edited) Indy doesn't go outside to pee or poop for over twenty-four hours
yet doesn't appear to do his business in the house, either. (Are we sure that the director actually owns and lives with a real dog? ) I'm not saying I need to see the dog go to the bathroom - I'm just saying think about the possible elision of time when you're shooting and editing your movie.Finally: Indy is a beautiful dog, and he gives a good "performance"... but really, while dogs can learn tricks and "perform"... a dog doesn't really understand the concept of "a movie" and thus doesn't really understand that it's in a movie, I think. So I felt concern for Indy during moments where he appears upset or sad or angry, and I felt kinda' bad during moments where Indy gets physically roughed up a little. I'm sure Leonberg loves Indy so I hope he allows Indy to retire from horror movies and live out a comfortable doggy lifespan in peace. 3/5