- Welcome to Badmovies.org Forum.
Recent posts
#51
Good Movies / Re: Recent theatrical viewings
Last post by Jim H - June 15, 2026, 10:28:49 PMSaw The Furious. If you like martial arts action films, this is a must see, some of the most intricate and well performed fight scenes ever made. The story and character work, not so much. This is actually an issue I've had with a number of really well choreographed martial arts films coming from Southeast Asia and Japan lately. They'll try to be serious and grim with the story or just really thin and it ends up working worse than if they'd just focused on the basics of storytelling. I don't need GREAT storytelling it just needs basic competence, not be boring, and not annoy me.
Like, for an easy comparison, watch Drunken Master II. Jackie Chan is affable, likable, has moments of melodrama, and has a simple but clear arc and the characters have a clear goal you want them to get to but it's not TOO serious for something so goofy. Where are any of the characters in the Furious going as characters? I guess the mute lead has a tiny bit going on, but not much. The villains motivation is cartoonishly evil and vile, in fact it's too much for something they don't have the skills or interest to fully weigh on the audience. The villains are paper thin and the main one has all his dialogue in English and it's all awful, and he doesn't even meet the leads until the last 20 minutes. The film also has a significant slow patch that should have been trimmed about the time of the rescue and before the jail sequence.
One exception is Brian Le's dimwitted thug, who is genuinely one of my favorite second tier bad guys in any martial arts films. Incredible performance physically (he says the character is partially modeled on Donkey Kong, and I believe him), and just a highly entertaining character.
I probably sound pretty negative, but that's because the fight scenes are so stellar and intricate it's hard to even discuss them the next day. I'd have to rewatch them to really discuss them much. Just, they're so damn good the film is well worth watching anyway. Overall 8/10.
Like, for an easy comparison, watch Drunken Master II. Jackie Chan is affable, likable, has moments of melodrama, and has a simple but clear arc and the characters have a clear goal you want them to get to but it's not TOO serious for something so goofy. Where are any of the characters in the Furious going as characters? I guess the mute lead has a tiny bit going on, but not much. The villains motivation is cartoonishly evil and vile, in fact it's too much for something they don't have the skills or interest to fully weigh on the audience. The villains are paper thin and the main one has all his dialogue in English and it's all awful, and he doesn't even meet the leads until the last 20 minutes. The film also has a significant slow patch that should have been trimmed about the time of the rescue and before the jail sequence.
One exception is Brian Le's dimwitted thug, who is genuinely one of my favorite second tier bad guys in any martial arts films. Incredible performance physically (he says the character is partially modeled on Donkey Kong, and I believe him), and just a highly entertaining character.
I probably sound pretty negative, but that's because the fight scenes are so stellar and intricate it's hard to even discuss them the next day. I'd have to rewatch them to really discuss them much. Just, they're so damn good the film is well worth watching anyway. Overall 8/10.
#52
Off Topic Discussion / Re: Memes n' stuff of the day
Last post by LilCerberus - June 15, 2026, 09:48:47 PM
#53
Off Topic Discussion / Re: Random Statements About So...
Last post by Trevor - June 15, 2026, 09:43:47 PMQuote from: zombie no.one on June 15, 2026, 09:48:33 AMI had a threesome a while back... it was great, despite a couple of no-shows.
😳😃😂😀🤣😄🐢
Nice to wake up with a smile for a change 😊☺️
#54
Good Movies / Re: Recent Viewings, Part 2
Last post by indianasmith - June 15, 2026, 08:40:00 PMDISCLOSURE DAY (2026) After hearing all the hype for this one, I decided to give it a go at the theater last night. What a great film! I remember seeing CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND back when I was a kid (honestly, too young to appreciate the nuances of it), and this movie is CLOSE ENCOUNTERS for a new generation. A supersecret cyber-security firm, founded in the seventies, has served one purpose: to keep the knowledge of alien visitors from the public. Now, a group of dedicated whistleblowers have decided that it is time for the world to know the truth - but some will stop at nothing to prevent the info from getting out. This movie was very well-made, perfectly acted, and paced just about right. I thoroughly enjoyed it! 5/5
#55
Bad Movies / Re: Generate Movie Poster with...
Last post by chainsaw midget - June 15, 2026, 05:36:21 PM
#56
Press Releases and Film News / Re: RIP Abdullah Ibrahim
Last post by Rev. Powell - June 15, 2026, 03:33:06 PMOh no! 
#59
Games / Re: Answer the question with a...
Last post by bob - June 15, 2026, 11:55:01 AM
Where did your head go?
#60
Bad Movies / Re: RECENT VIEWINGS (Bad Movie...
Last post by M.10rda - June 15, 2026, 11:34:05 AMTHE FATAL MALLET (1914):
This short takes the cake as most puerile silent slapstick comedy I've seen, which is some kind of statement. I should also mention it co-stars Charlie Chaplin, who FTR I've never thought was all that funny. I do think he eventually directed some striking dramatic sequences in his later silent features, and I greatly admire his later features with talkin' (MONSIEUR VERDOUX is some kind of masterpiece), but his legendary shtick has rarely made me laugh - and here, possibly less than anywhere!
Chaplin, Mack Sennett (who directed), and Mack Swain play three bachelors who all try to woo Mabel Normand (...away from one another). If this film is an accurate representation, early 20th century courtship was a barbaric and dangerous practice, because this 20-minute film is just an endless loop of one of the three guys kicking another one in the pants (sometimes into a body of water) or clubbing one of the other guys over the head with rocks, bricks, or eventually the eponymous mallet. No one is killed (so much for truth in advertising) but victims of said concussions are knocked unconscious at frequent-enough intervals that chronic traumatic encephalopathy is almost certainly in the futures of all three gentlemen (and actually - good, all of 'em have it comin'!).
What's most distasteful about THE FATAL MALLET, though, is how the juvenile plot objectifies Normand and denies her any perspective or agency. She passively observes all the aggravated assault (or giggles at it) and then seems happy to walk off with/get courted by whichever guy just bludgeoned the previous guy....... this in spite not only of their barbarism towards one another but also in spite of the fact that both Macks have the physiques of Roscoe Arbuckle and Chaplin is (of course) about five foot nothin'. It would be one thing if Normand was allowed to play her character as a gleeful sadist who enjoyed inspiring the carnage around her, and/or if she got fed up at the end and dumped all three of the men, but - no - she's an entirely blank slate just there to smile and blush.
Technically speaking, some of the physical performances are impressive to watch (though I never laughed once). 2/5
And Mabel isn't so fine that you'd kill a man to get wiv her... what, were there no other women in Hollywood in 1914? Mabel was played by Bernadette Peters in the 70s, and okay, I admit - I would club a dude for Bernadette Peters.
This short takes the cake as most puerile silent slapstick comedy I've seen, which is some kind of statement. I should also mention it co-stars Charlie Chaplin, who FTR I've never thought was all that funny. I do think he eventually directed some striking dramatic sequences in his later silent features, and I greatly admire his later features with talkin' (MONSIEUR VERDOUX is some kind of masterpiece), but his legendary shtick has rarely made me laugh - and here, possibly less than anywhere!
Chaplin, Mack Sennett (who directed), and Mack Swain play three bachelors who all try to woo Mabel Normand (...away from one another). If this film is an accurate representation, early 20th century courtship was a barbaric and dangerous practice, because this 20-minute film is just an endless loop of one of the three guys kicking another one in the pants (sometimes into a body of water) or clubbing one of the other guys over the head with rocks, bricks, or eventually the eponymous mallet. No one is killed (so much for truth in advertising) but victims of said concussions are knocked unconscious at frequent-enough intervals that chronic traumatic encephalopathy is almost certainly in the futures of all three gentlemen (and actually - good, all of 'em have it comin'!).
What's most distasteful about THE FATAL MALLET, though, is how the juvenile plot objectifies Normand and denies her any perspective or agency. She passively observes all the aggravated assault (or giggles at it) and then seems happy to walk off with/get courted by whichever guy just bludgeoned the previous guy....... this in spite not only of their barbarism towards one another but also in spite of the fact that both Macks have the physiques of Roscoe Arbuckle and Chaplin is (of course) about five foot nothin'. It would be one thing if Normand was allowed to play her character as a gleeful sadist who enjoyed inspiring the carnage around her, and/or if she got fed up at the end and dumped all three of the men, but - no - she's an entirely blank slate just there to smile and blush.
Technically speaking, some of the physical performances are impressive to watch (though I never laughed once). 2/5
And Mabel isn't so fine that you'd kill a man to get wiv her... what, were there no other women in Hollywood in 1914? Mabel was played by Bernadette Peters in the 70s, and okay, I admit - I would club a dude for Bernadette Peters.