- Welcome to Badmovies.org Forum.
Recent posts
#11
Entertainment / Re: The Wachowski Sisters..Has...
Last post by chainsaw midget - Today at 06:30:13 AMI'm willing to mark that down in the "Hollywood people can be weird sometimes" category.
#12
Good Movies / Re: Spoil a movie
Last post by Trevor - Today at 06:14:27 AMQuote from: indianasmith on Today at 06:10:56 AMSTAR WARS Ep 4: Big space station go kablooie!
😅😆😄
Damn, I haven't seen that one yet 😏😉
#13
Good Movies / Re: Spoil a movie
Last post by indianasmith - Today at 06:10:56 AMSTAR WARS Ep 4: Big space station go kablooie!
#14
Good Movies / Spoil a movie
Last post by Trevor - Today at 03:34:24 AMTHE OTHERS: They're all dead.
JAWS: 🦈 go blub blub.
JAWS: 🦈 go blub blub.
#15
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by Jim H - September 21, 2026, 08:59:03 PMResident Evil - Very solid adaptation of the games. Funny, great lead performance, terrific pacing, constantly moving. Loses me a little bit in the last act, where I think the humor of it undercuts something like what is happening TOO much, but still a really good film worth seeing on the big screen. Guess Cregger don't miss, eh?
One thing I want to mention: the setup and some of the subtext to this is rather similar to Exit 8, which is the second best rated video game movie now. Kind of interesting that. It would be a mild spoiler to say what this is, just interesting to think about if you've seen both.
One thing I want to mention: the setup and some of the subtext to this is rather similar to Exit 8, which is the second best rated video game movie now. Kind of interesting that. It would be a mild spoiler to say what this is, just interesting to think about if you've seen both.
#16
Games / Re: Answer the question with a...
Last post by bob - September 21, 2026, 05:06:01 PMAn
How did the dog jump on the roof?
How did the dog jump on the roof?
#18
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by M.10rda - September 21, 2026, 09:27:40 AMTHE WAITERS' BALL (1916):
This pre-Buster Keaton short from Roscoe Arbuckle finally clinches for me that Buster didn't "make" Roscoe funny, as Letterboxers often like to claim - though he did contribute a lot of value. Roscoe knew what he was doing behind and in-front of the camera on his own, and in fact WAITERS' BALL is tighter, slicker, and funnier than some of the Roscoe/Buster flicks that followed. Roscoe is an inept and mostly unflappable chef in a restaurant that by all rights should have no customers, yet still does. In lieu of Buster, perennial third wheel Al St. John plays Roscoe's foil, an equally inept and manic waiter. Al really shines in the spotlight (and in a bunch of close-ups) for a change, pulling some ridiculous faces and showing off snappy comic timing.
The first three-quarters of WAITERS' BALL is essentially plotless - "just" one rapid-fire restaurant gag after another, but executed flawlessly. There are visual gags (Roscoe loves a good background sign), there are verbal gags in the intertitles, there is prop humor, there is slapstick, there are bodies flying through the air, there is (as usual) irresponsible use of a firearm, and it goes on for fifteen minutes and it could go on for thirty! My Mom watched a Roscoe short w/ me last week and asked "Did they just make it up while the cameras were rolling?" This theory seems plausible for some Roscoe flicks but WAITERS' BALL feels like it had an elaborate screenplay that mapped out everything to the smallest gesture. Roscoe's camerawork and editing is especially crisp here. This also allows him to do a lot more personally/as a performer w/ smaller, subtler and more specific gestures and expressions.
The eponymous social function is briefly set up in the first fifteen minutes and then only commands about three minutes of screentime. It's the least important and least funny part of the movie.
Roscoe does end up in drag, however. He looks better as a dame than you might think! Actually he's got kind of a Commander Stephanie Sterling vibe goin' on. 3.5/5
This pre-Buster Keaton short from Roscoe Arbuckle finally clinches for me that Buster didn't "make" Roscoe funny, as Letterboxers often like to claim - though he did contribute a lot of value. Roscoe knew what he was doing behind and in-front of the camera on his own, and in fact WAITERS' BALL is tighter, slicker, and funnier than some of the Roscoe/Buster flicks that followed. Roscoe is an inept and mostly unflappable chef in a restaurant that by all rights should have no customers, yet still does. In lieu of Buster, perennial third wheel Al St. John plays Roscoe's foil, an equally inept and manic waiter. Al really shines in the spotlight (and in a bunch of close-ups) for a change, pulling some ridiculous faces and showing off snappy comic timing.
The first three-quarters of WAITERS' BALL is essentially plotless - "just" one rapid-fire restaurant gag after another, but executed flawlessly. There are visual gags (Roscoe loves a good background sign), there are verbal gags in the intertitles, there is prop humor, there is slapstick, there are bodies flying through the air, there is (as usual) irresponsible use of a firearm, and it goes on for fifteen minutes and it could go on for thirty! My Mom watched a Roscoe short w/ me last week and asked "Did they just make it up while the cameras were rolling?" This theory seems plausible for some Roscoe flicks but WAITERS' BALL feels like it had an elaborate screenplay that mapped out everything to the smallest gesture. Roscoe's camerawork and editing is especially crisp here. This also allows him to do a lot more personally/as a performer w/ smaller, subtler and more specific gestures and expressions.
The eponymous social function is briefly set up in the first fifteen minutes and then only commands about three minutes of screentime. It's the least important and least funny part of the movie.
Roscoe does end up in drag, however. He looks better as a dame than you might think! Actually he's got kind of a Commander Stephanie Sterling vibe goin' on. 3.5/5 #19
Television / Re: What TV Shows Are you Watc...
Last post by M.10rda - September 21, 2026, 08:39:52 AMWe watched Season 1 of "Widows' Bay" over about a week - we were around Episode 7 or 8 when it won a poop-load of Emmys. The way that the Emmys and Golden Globes categorize "Comedy" versus "Drama" programs has always been a bit ridiculous and may be getting moreso. Seems like anything that's about a half-hour (including the highly stressful and unfunny "The Bear") is classified as a "Comedy", while things that are closer to an hour long are "Drama". Well, I think all the "Widows' Bay" episodes are longer than 30 minutes and some are 50+, and yet in this case the TV Awards Stopped Clock happened to be right. As a horror series, I have some complaints about "Widows' Bay". As a comedy, though - I highly recommend it!
No Spoilers - the tone is quite serious throughout, there are life and death stakes, there is a lot of tragedy, and there's a lot of suspense, which sometimes got my anxiety up. I would even say that "Widows' Bay" manages to be scary on a few occasions. As Melodrama or Horror, I'd rate "Widows' Bay" a B or a 3 or 3.5 out of 5. It's competent for the most part, but I was never knocked out of my seat from the acting or writing or the horror elements. The main actor (who just won two Emmys) is... fine. He plays "irritation" and "grief" over and over for ten episodes, sometimes a little "dread", but that's all he's got. The great comedic character actor Stephen Root (who also just won an Emmy) is also decent enough as a character that is almost 100% serious all the time. It's a little perverse to not let Stephen Root be funny! The female lead, however - who, yes, also won an Emmy - is very offbeat and fascinating and fun to watch. The biggest issue I have w/ "Widows' Bay" is it seems like it's made by and for people who aren't big Horror fans, a trait that materializes at least once in every episode, when there's either a ludicrous Idiot Plot contrivance that puts characters in a position that is largely implausible or otherwise characters behave really foolishly or recklessly even though they know they're living in a haunted town that's trying to kill them. That's typical bad Horror storytelling, of course, but I would expect more from something that's winning so many awards.
All that said, "Widows' Bay" is still worth checking out, because at least once (or half a dozen times) per episode it is really, really, really funny. I'll specify that it isn't situation comedy or farce and it isn't witty repartee. Instead it's funny in the way that TWIN PEAKS was sometimes funny and in the way that four or five moments in ERASERHEAD are funnier than anything in any Mel Brooks movie. Amidst the atmosphere of sadness and dread, something completely inexplicable and sometimes even surreal & preposterous will happen, and the characters sort of just absorb it with the same solemn dejection as they accept everything else in their lives. So the amount of "comedy" in "Widows' Bay" is comparatively miniscule to the amount of suspense and horror and tragedy, and yet when it appears it always gave Madame and me a huge laugh.
I think it's a very odd show in the above regards. But, a lot of people are totally wild for it, so maybe I am just even more out of touch than I thought!
No Spoilers - the tone is quite serious throughout, there are life and death stakes, there is a lot of tragedy, and there's a lot of suspense, which sometimes got my anxiety up. I would even say that "Widows' Bay" manages to be scary on a few occasions. As Melodrama or Horror, I'd rate "Widows' Bay" a B or a 3 or 3.5 out of 5. It's competent for the most part, but I was never knocked out of my seat from the acting or writing or the horror elements. The main actor (who just won two Emmys) is... fine. He plays "irritation" and "grief" over and over for ten episodes, sometimes a little "dread", but that's all he's got. The great comedic character actor Stephen Root (who also just won an Emmy) is also decent enough as a character that is almost 100% serious all the time. It's a little perverse to not let Stephen Root be funny! The female lead, however - who, yes, also won an Emmy - is very offbeat and fascinating and fun to watch. The biggest issue I have w/ "Widows' Bay" is it seems like it's made by and for people who aren't big Horror fans, a trait that materializes at least once in every episode, when there's either a ludicrous Idiot Plot contrivance that puts characters in a position that is largely implausible or otherwise characters behave really foolishly or recklessly even though they know they're living in a haunted town that's trying to kill them.
That's typical bad Horror storytelling, of course, but I would expect more from something that's winning so many awards. All that said, "Widows' Bay" is still worth checking out, because at least once (or half a dozen times) per episode it is really, really, really funny. I'll specify that it isn't situation comedy or farce and it isn't witty repartee. Instead it's funny in the way that TWIN PEAKS was sometimes funny and in the way that four or five moments in ERASERHEAD are funnier than anything in any Mel Brooks movie. Amidst the atmosphere of sadness and dread, something completely inexplicable and sometimes even surreal & preposterous will happen, and the characters sort of just absorb it with the same solemn dejection as they accept everything else in their lives. So the amount of "comedy" in "Widows' Bay" is comparatively miniscule to the amount of suspense and horror and tragedy, and yet when it appears it always gave Madame and me a huge laugh.
I think it's a very odd show in the above regards. But, a lot of people are totally wild for it, so maybe I am just even more out of touch than I thought!
#20
Entertainment / Re: What have you been listeni...
Last post by Rev. Powell - September 21, 2026, 08:17:43 AM
Not what I expected. For some reason, I thought she was a singer-songwriter. It's actually teenybopper pop.