I'll just say it's not what I would consider a good movie. I'm not a big horror movie fan anyway and wasn't even going to watch it. But another movie discussion group I follow was really chatting about it so I had to see what they meant when they talked about it going off the rails entirely in the the last 30 minutes.

I will say though, that last 30 minutes was insanely wild and kind of fun, and I could totally understand liking this movie if you were into B style horror flicks, particularly those monster movies of old.

All other discussion feels a little overblown at this point, but you guys will be happy to know the other movie group has been going back and forth on the same issue for like 3 days. So we're far from alone here.

The local detective shouting, "CALL THE ****ING NATIONAL GUARD was so damn funny I thought I was going to lose my mind. And that chair yeet, amazing.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The goalposts keep changing. Hilarious.

First it's about ****ty acting. Then about how his casts are never a draw. Then it's about how they're not all-star casts because they've been on TV. (Nevermind that Emerson has won an Emmy.)

At this point I'm just enjoying seeing the mental gymnastics TC is doing.

---

Literally nothing I have said has been negated by the fact that a washed up Danny Glover and Cary Elwes starred in Saw. If that's who you're holding up as actors that somehow prove whatever point you're trying to make, I don't know what to say. And as far as Emerson goes, that's great and all, but he still wasn't some big get for Wan at the time. Ha, he hadn't even appeared in Lost yet.

IT WASN'T GOOD ON PURPOSE!!! DON'T YOU GET IT????

Seriously, though, that line did have me rolling.

You've pivoted from the original discussion like three times now, and making points to basically no one.

Once again, nobody has ever said Wan has had all-star casts. Nobody said he pulls in audience with his casts.

This is about Wan having the capability to cast THIS movie with better actors if he so chose.

But please, continue to bring up unrelated points to bolster your ridiculous argument.

Next up....casting good actors before they've won awards doesn't count as casting a good actor.

These forum arguments are fun!

Live look at TC in a heated argument:

Now you're just being hurtful. I don't understand why people disparage others or projects when older actors choose to work with young directors that they feel have real talent. Bill Murray did the same thing with Wes Anderson. Travolta and Sam Jackson with Tarantino. Bruce Willis with Shamalamadingdong. Happens all the time.

Two questions. Are movies meant to entertain? what's your top ten films TCTTS?

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

You've pivoted from the original discussion like three times now, and making points to basically no one.

Once again, nobody has ever said Wan has had all-star casts. Nobody said he pulls in audience with his casts.

This is about Wan having the capability to cast THIS movie with better actors if he so chose.

But please, continue to bring up unrelated points to bolster your ridiculous argument.

Next up....casting good actors before they've won awards doesn't count as casting a good actor.

---

I can't get over the fact that you genuinely believe that Wan PURPOSEFULLY cast bad actors in this. That's as delusional as the Premium guys who believe Jimbo purposefully called offensive plays last week not suited to Calzada's skill set in order to "challenge" him. Both are truly ridiculous notions, the former of which is the reason I've been arguing the points I have; to try and give you the benefit of the doubt. But this admission is straight up hilarious.

Almost as ridiculous as not understanding what this movie is, and then basing your entire argument on a past filmography most of which you've never even seen.

TCTTS said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

You've pivoted from the original discussion like three times now, and making points to basically no one.

Once again, nobody has ever said Wan has had all-star casts. Nobody said he pulls in audience with his casts.

This is about Wan having the capability to cast THIS movie with better actors if he so chose.

But please, continue to bring up unrelated points to bolster your ridiculous argument.

Next up....casting good actors before they've won awards doesn't count as casting a good actor.

---

I can't get over the fact that you genuinely believe that Wan PURPOSEFULLY cast bad actors in this. That's as delusional as the Premium guys who believe Jimbo purposefully called offensive plays last week not suited to Calzada's skill set in order to "challenge" him. Both are truly ridiculous notions, the former of which is the reason I've been arguing the points I have; to try and give you the benefit of the doubt. But this admission is straight up hilarious.

---

You think naming a character Sydney Lake that works as a princess at Chucky Cheese and having a slow pan in and shocked face with music building about an adoption reveal was done unintentionally?

TCTTS said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

You've pivoted from the original discussion like three times now, and making points to basically no one.

Once again, nobody has ever said Wan has had all-star casts. Nobody said he pulls in audience with his casts.

This is about Wan having the capability to cast THIS movie with better actors if he so chose.

But please, continue to bring up unrelated points to bolster your ridiculous argument.

Next up....casting good actors before they've won awards doesn't count as casting a good actor.

---

I can't get over the fact that you genuinely believe that Wan PURPOSEFULLY cast bad actors in this. That's as delusional as the Premium guys who believe Jimbo purposefully called offensive plays last week not suited to Calzada's skill set in order to "challenge" him. Both are truly ridiculous notions, the former of which is the reason I've been arguing the points I have; to try and give you the benefit of the doubt. But this admission is straight up hilarious.

---

Here's a statement for ya. We can all agree that Daniel day Lewis is a great actor right? That being said there are roles and films that even he, an incredible actor, would not be suited to derive the maximum effect of the director's intention. It's like saying well this movie would be better if you filled every role with A+ actors and yet there are plenty of films that did that and failed. It's all about the director's vision and sometimes actors who you callously find as arbitrary and awful are the best choices for that particular film. It's like Barbara Cranston is Chopping Mall. Did I mention that you need to see that film?

*removes topic from watchlist*

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Live look at TC in a heated argument:

---

Cat sounds in the background "rawr!!"

Why do these things have to be mutually exclusive? Wan can wink at the audience AND have miscast/not be able to get good performances out of his actors.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Have you guys seen the acting in most of his other movies? I can't believe I'm the crazy one in an argument about the guy who directed Furious 7 and Aquaman.

As previously stated, I saw The Conjuring as well. It just left no impression on me whatsoever.

AgStuckinLBK said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Saw = You couldn't pay me to see this, but it was financially successful no doubt due to its unique, entertaining premise as a horror movie, not its cast. I couldn't name a single actor in the entire franchise.

---

---

****ing hell

*** MALIGNANT PRE-PRODUCTION MEETING ***

CASTING DIRECTOR
"So, James, what do you need from me?"

JAMES WAN
"Bad actors."

CASTING DIRECTOR
"I'm sorry, did you say rad actors?"

JAMES WAN
"No. BAD actors. Actors who can't act."

CASTING DIRECTOR
"I don't follow..."

JAMES WAN
"You asked me what I need. This is what I need."

CASTING DIRECTOR
"You don't at least want good actors who can pretend to act badly? Probably even better than the bad actors can?"

JAMES WAN
"The integrity of this movie - about a sentient murderous tumor - is everything. Thus, they have to be authentically bad actors."

CASTING DIRECTOR
"Okay. I get that. But playing devil's advocate here, you just directed a billion dollar earner for the studio, with a sequel on the way. Not to mention, all your films combined, you've made more money for the studio these past few years than anyone not named Zack Snyder or Christopher Nolan. And with Nolan on the outs, you've got them over a barrel. They'll get you basically anyone you want to keep you from jumping ship as well. Higher profile names that'll bring in a bigger audience --"

JAMES WAN
"BAD!!! ACTORS!!!"
(smashes the glass of wine in his hand, blood dripping to the floor)
"From the sh/ttiest acting class in Burbank. Scour the Skinemax ranks if you must. I don't care. Just bring me the worst of the worst.
(then)
"And my cousin Kekoa."

CASTING DIRECTOR
"Fine. It's your movie. Out of curiosity, though... will you let these actors in on the joke? Because they're gonna know something's up. How do you plan on working with them for months, with them knowing you think they're terrible at what they do?"

JAMES WAN
"I can do anything. I am... The Wan."

CASTING DIRECTOR
"The One? Like... Neo?"

JAMES WAN
"The WAN. James Wan."

CASTING DIRECTOR
"Oh, for f/ck's sake."

Fanfiction is the point at where I hit unfollow on this thread

Completely different scenario. I've seen enough of Wan's movies (four in total) to form an educated opinion about his overall body of work. That crap with aTmAg and others is when they start complaining about the political agendas of individual shows and movies before they've seen them, when they're almost always inevitably proven wrong. But sure, go ahead and compare the two situations. Ha, you guys are getting ridiculous. I feel like I'm being targeted by a cult at this point.

I was really excited to check this thread out after catching this after dinner tonight. 88 posts trying to explain to someone who has never seen a b movie what b movies are all about. Bummer.

That third act was WILD. Will be making the wife watch this one next time we get the opportunity.

I dont know man, arguing about things you haven't seen no matter the basis of the argument is still arguing about things you haven't seen.

I also think that BES and I would be the least likely co cult members on this board.

I get B movies. I understand B movies. I've seen B movies. Just not the exact ones mentioned in that specific post. The words you guys keep putting in my mouth…

Quote:

---

The words you guys keep putting in my mouth…

---

I just got here.

What'd I miss?

Run.

Don't apologize just watch the bad ass movies listed and be entertained (and educated). Who knows, you may actually enjoy them!

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

---

Just watched the entire thing, was legitimately hanging on every word throughout, and now I'm somehow more convinced, yet less sure of my opinion than ever. All I know is that I laughed a ton during this, the movie is so much worse than I gave it credit for, but also maybe it's just a tiny bit better? In other words, after watching that, I think we're *all* right. Wan might have very well intended uber-camp, but he's also incapable of constructing the necessary tone and cues to deliver the kind of camp he might have been aiming for. Watching that review was like reliving this thread all over again, down to the smallest detail, and this entire exercise might have been worth it just for that.

Agreed except for the part about Wan being incapable of delivering camp. It's amazing how similar of a reaction and discussion this movie has had with people. I can't wait for it to be shown at midnight and heralded as a truly amazing outlier.

One good point they made and one I didn't notice because I don't watch tv or am inundated with commercials hawking crap was how the trailers and ads were deliberately misleading. I think that one fact cements my feelings that this was meant to be a mashup of schlock, camp, exploitation, giallo, and b-movies of the past. Think about it. Those ads are only there to get you to go see the damn movie. They'll show you whatever bits that producers believe will sell tickets. Clearly the third act is the real payoff and yet they deliberately mislead audience goers.

Now it could be that they wanted to trick you into seeing a Wan horror film so they cut it to look like that. Or, Wan, fresh off of making oodles of money for producers for years, in particular films he probably gave two ****s about in Aquaman and F7, said "I want complete control over this film, from the story, to the actors, to the damn advertising, etc." So he tailored the best possible payoff by shielding the audience from what this film really was about. I mean, they didn't even show the doctor's scenes, the lab stuff, any of the characters, the antagonist, nothing. All they showed was a lady getting spooked in an old house. It looked like your garden variety haunted house horror. It could have been intentional or it could have been producers, fresh off of paying millions for the next Wan hit trying to salvage an audience. Maybe Wan knew that would be their reaction and banked on it? So many questions!

Anyway, it'd be awesome to learn more and I honestly can't remember a film that made me more and more intrigued by how it was made that this one.

The only relatable film I can think of is From Dusk, Till Dawn where the payoff is hidden in a crime thriller or Seven where the Kevin Spacey doesn't even grace the poster or credits, or Sleuth where the credits are deliberately misleading.

What a ****ing masterpiece of a film. Years from now, folks will be talking about this madhouse of a picture and here's hoping it leads to more films like it being made. A real catalyst for "**** it" cinema. Sadly I don't think that will happen as films like this never really make money, but maybe studios will start looking at streaming/simulrelease films like the old AIP pictures of the drive-in days and really dial in to exactly the notes this wondrous film exuberated.