I've seen it called isolation horror, though that would also include horror movies about isolation that do not have a monster.

I've listened to Italian people speak English and it's fine. It's not like it would have to be a comical Mario parody where every five words in a sentence is read like one of his short catchphrases. Though I'm fine with the American accent.

I prefer Mario with a Brooklyn accent. Chris Pratt's accent isn't convincing and, for me though probably not for the kids the movie is for, it's too easy to tell it's Chris Pratt and not a character.

It would almost pass for third place at a no-notice, surprise "Rocket Raccoon as the ninja turtle Raphael" impression contest. So that's something.

Peter Jackson seems like the obvious choice because he's already directed the greatest medieval-inspired fantasy films of all time, but imo it's a different type of fantasy. Zelda is about one guy quietly going through dungeons with moody music, encountering all sorts of crazy monsters while solving puzzles. It's less like The Lord of the Rings's big battles and more like Legend, Labyrinth, or Willow, which are more about a few characters going from one bizarre encounter to the next. Since the directors of those films are Ridley Scott, the late Jim Henson, and Ron Howard, Howard or Scott seem like good choices to me. I generally prefer Scott's work but I don't know if he's still interested in the fantasy or sci-fi genres. Ron Howard's daughter Bryce Dallas Howard has directed some of my favorite episodes of the Star Wars TV shows so maybe she'd be up to it? Scott would be my choice since Legend feels so close to a Zelda movie already.

It is fifth after Demon Slayer: Mugen Train, Spirited Away, Titanic, and Frozen.

Drama, scifi, action, romance, and comedy.

This movie's ending is so simultaneously triumphant and depressing it deserves a new word for the feeling. Triumphressing.

I just became a huge fan of Nope, a horror movie that is sort of like Tremors if Tremors gave you a little bit more implications to think about after the movie is over. Don't look up what happens if you can avoid it. It's on Peacock.

As for TV, I just finished my first ever watch of Cowboy Bebop. It's mostly episodic so there's probably a guide out there if you want to skip certain episodes, but I can give it a compliment I do not mean lightly. It's perfect.

I'm glad you're open to it. Another thought, some fans, myself included, like to think of Sam as the main hero. Frodo is quiet and is practically wandering around in a daze for the whole third film, while Sam is cooking for them and taking care of them. He has the one-liners (get back, you filth!), he gives the inspiring speeches (though Frodo helps him out with the one at the end of Two Towers), and he's the one Galadriel looks at when she says, "Yet hope remains." Also, in the books, after the war the Shire doesn't celebrate the day Sauron was defeated, or Frodo and Bilbo's mutual birthday; they celebrate Sam's birthday. It's sort of like that thing in Harry Potter where Neville was almost the chosen one. It isn't inherently better than Frodo being the hero but if you do ever watch it again, it will give you something new to think about.

Book fans always have scenes they wish were kept in and which scenes they want varies, but to give you an idea of just how much they cut for the films, in the books Sam and Frodo spend a week at the house of that farmer, who is just a scythe waving above the crops in the movie.

I watched the trilogy's theatrical editions years ago and liked but didn't love them. I wanted to get more into it, so I read the books to have a deeper understanding of the story and watched the extended editions of the films.

The main villain not being a real character is a common criticism from fans. I think it helps to think of the Ring as Sauron and not just the big eye. Every time the Ring tempts someone like Boromir or Frodo or Gollum, that's a villainous act on the part of Sauron. It essentially tortures Frodo by the third film. This doesn't make Sauron a complex or interesting villain but makes him more of a threat to our heroes than just an eye that sends out waves of bad guys. The prequel show that just ended its first season on Amazon Prime, The Rings of Power, shows more of Sauron the character, but most fans seem to dislike the show overall so it might not be worth your time if you don't care much for the movies.

I don't agree that the action scenes dragged. The balance of power in every battle is constantly shifting, the characters are moving around and having to try new things to win or escape, and one-on-one fights rarely last more than a minute. However, I can see how the thirty minute battles are tedious and not exciting if you don't care about the characters or stakes. The scenes with the Ents dragged on purpose as a joke but even fans I know get really sick of those scenes before they're over.

Harry Potter is a contemporary series to the Lord of the Rings (their first films premiered within a month of each other!) and both are the most well-realized living fantasy worlds ever in a movie, so that is a fair comparison. Harry Potter is all about the characters and their personalities bouncing off each other. In The Lord of the Rings, if characters are mad at each other we worry because the greater conflict may not get resolved. In Harry Potter, if the characters are mad at each other even over petty things I worry because I like them and want them all to get along. The only strong character relationships I feel in Lord of the Rings are Faramir trying to please his asshole father, Sam being the best friend in movie history to Frodo, and Bilbo and Gandalf at the start of the first film. Stuff like Arwen and Aragorn's romance and Merry and Eowyn's romance friendship is okay, too.

This is because characters in the Lord of the Rings often are representatives of their entire culture more than they are characters on their own. I didn't mention Gimli and Legolas before even though they have fun banter because they're really just "a dwarf" and "an elf," but the story is about those groups overcoming their differences to stop evil. The equivalent in Harry Potter would be muggles becoming aware of wizards and uniting against a threat. I think this is also why Aragorn is a Numenorean, someone with distant elf ancestry (I think? Help me out LOTR lore nerds.) who can bridge the gaps between them by becoming king of men and technically prince of elves I think (nerds, help me). Even the world itself that they are fighting for joins their side (the Ents). And I think it's really inspiring that the people who unite all these races are four young men from a hick town where everyone parties, drinks, sings, dances, and smokes all day. If Harry Potter is about a regular boy accepting his destiny and becoming the hero he was always meant to be, The Lord of the Rings is about regular people with no destiny and no responsibility becoming heroes anyway, simply because it's the right thing to do.

I also know a lot of fans like all the compassionate, openly emotional relationships between men in the films. They hug, cry, talk about their feelings, and the only man who is concerned about how others perceive him is Gimli, who is laughing at himself by the second film. Compare to the kids in Harry Potter, Han and Leia in the first two Star Wars, or especially the Marvel Cinematic Universe where everyone is so goddamn sensitive about what others think of them.

But to be honest, that's not why I love the movies. I love them because of the production design. The hair and makeup, the costumes, the locations, the sets, the miniatures, the cgi (great for the time, mostly holds up okay), the sheer number of extras in most scenes, the way every shot in the first film looks straight out of a story book before the sequels become gritty war films, the design of every piece of architecture and armor and weapon. I think it's the most immersive impossible world in any movie except maybe the original Star Wars movies. It's just impressive to me, even if I don't really get invested in the story much myself.

I'm sorry you didn't care for it but I hope I explained why I and so many others do as well. Personally, I recommend seeing it again some time with friends in marathon format. That's the best way to experience these. I put on the extended edition of Fellowship as comfort viewing but there's nothing better than shouting all the best lines together or playing drinking games like taking a shot whenever Frodo falls down (you will die).

You can't go wrong with a Christmas movie about dogs that has the number twelve in the title. Watch in order of title abstractness:

The 12 Dogs of Christmas

12 Dogs of Christmas: Great Puppy Rescue

12 Pups of Christmas

12 Dog Days Till Christmas

12 Christmas Wishes For My Dog

You are right but I like the movie even more for making the main character who has to save the world from aliens some random asshole instead of a more likable person with an arc. I also don't mind him forcibly recruiting his friend, as the movie takes a hard stance that grim reality is better than blissful ignorance.

I'm a huge fan of the film, but I am interested in your point about horror comedy. Horror is all about tension, while comedy is all about relieving tension every time there's a joke. Of course, you can also get people to laugh nervously if tension builds more and more. That may be more appropriate for a horror comedy but I'm not sure if I know any examples of a movie that does it that way in this genre. If You're Next is one, then I don't know as I haven't seen it.

I don't remember the kid getting punched but I remember liking the ending. The reveal that this ridiculous ritual was all real was funny to me and I'm a sucker for excessive violence, even if the cgi wasn't convincing.

"Oh, what a day. What a lovely day!"

Bennett the Sage has a YouTube video called Top 10 Hero Cars that asks the same question and reaches pretty much the same conclusion. It has to be inseparable from the work of fiction itself as well as its actual driver. And it usually should make you envious. If I got to drive one, gimme Cobra's car in Cobra.

This is a good answer because the second one sucked because of how they tried to turn it into a franchise. They killed off a fan favorite Japanese character to replace her with Jing Tian, whose whole Hollywood career is just being fit uselessly into movies so they can advertise a Chinese actress to the huge Chinese film market. They did a time skip so they could replace the rest of the cast with young adults and teenagers who could easily be locked into multi-film contracts. They did away with the heavy, slow moving powerful robots to turn them all into weightless superheroes. And instead of the movie being full of badass kaiju battles, there's just one at the end but it's bigger. Total crap.

No, but two of the three of them happen to be full of some of the most insane shit I've ever seen, so they are at least worth watching.

The original Candyman is kind of like A Nightmare on Elm Street, with its supernatural killer, but is a lot more serious and adult than even the serious Nightmare films.

To see if they're interested in extreme transgressive films like this, he should just watch some brutal or torture-focused movies first like Saw or Bone Tomahawk.

Add it to the list:

Every Night of the Living Dead timeline:

Romero timeline: • Night of the Living Dead (1968, with colorizations by Hal Roach Studios in 1986, Anchor Bay Entertainment in 1997, Legend Films in 2004, and Legend Films again in 2009/2010, plus an alternate cut 30th Anniversary Edition in 1999, a 2010 Reanimated collab cut, and the 1999 parody redub NOTDOT) • Dawn of the Dead (1978) • Day of the Dead (1985) • Land of the Dead (2005) • Diary of the Dead (2007) • Survival of the Dead (2009)

Russo timeline: • Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition (1999) • Children of the Living Dead (2001)

Remake timeline: • Night of the Living Dead (1990)

Dawn of the remake timeline: • Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Day of the remake timeline: • Day of the Dead (2008)

Bloodline of the remake timeline: • Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2018)

3D timeline: • Night of the Living Dead 3D (2006) • Night of the Living Dead 3D: Re-Animation (2012)

Resurrection timeline: • Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection (2012)

Darkest Dawn timeline: • Night of the Living Dead: Darkest Dawn, aka Origins, aka Origins 3D (2015)

Contagium timeline: • Night of the Living Dead (1968) • Dawn of the Dead (1978) • Day of the Dead (1985) • Day of the Dead 2: Contagium

Return of the Living Dead timeline: • Night of the Living Dead (1968) • Return of the Living Dead (1985) • Return of the Living Dead Part II (1988) • Return of the Living Dead 3 (1993) • Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis (2005) • Return of the Living Dead: Rave to the Grave (2005)

SyFy timeline: • Day of the Dead 10 episode show

Zombi timeline: • Night of the Living Dead (1968) • Dawn of the Dead, aka Zombi (1978) • Zombi 2, aka Zombie Flesh Eaters, aka Zombie (1979) • Zombi 3, aka Zombie Flesh Eaters 2 (1988) • Zombie 4: After Death, aka Zombie Flesheaters 3 (1989) • Zombi 5: Killing Birds, aka Zombie Flesheaters 4 (1988)

Alt. Zombi timeline: • Night of the Living Dead (1968) • Dawn of the Dead, aka Zombi (1978) • Zombi 2, aka Zombie Flesh Eaters, aka Zombie (1979) • Zombie 3: Return of the Zombies, aka The Hanging Woman (1973) • Zombie 4: A Virgin Among the Living Dead (1973 and an alternate 1981 cut) • Revenge in the House of Usher: Zombie 5 (1982) • Zombie 6: Monster Hunter, aka Absurd (1981) • Zombie 7, aka Antropophagus, aka The Grim Reaper (1980)

Alt. alt. Zombis: • Let Sleeping Corpses Lie, aka Zombi 3 (1974) • Zombie Holocaust, aka Doctor Butcher, M. D., aka Zombi 3 (1980) • Nightmare City, aka Zombi 3 (1980) • Burial Ground: The Night of Terror, aka Zombi 3 (1981) • Panic, aka Bakterion, aka Zombi 4 (1982) • Pulgasari, aka Zombi 34: The Communist Bull-Monster (1985) • Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence, aka Zombie 2001: Battle Royale, aka Zombi 7 (1991) • Zombie 1, aka Zombi 1 (1995 short film on the Nether Horror Collection)

Animated • Night of the Animated Dead

What event in the victims' lives would you watch a movie about?

It bothers me in Suicide Squad that no one has any questions when Rick says Katana's sword steals souls. And it really bothers me that it doesn't make it any better to fight with than a regular sword.

It's a very good horror movie that happens to feature the final confrontation between Laurie and Michael from the otherwise unrelated Halloween films. Calling it Halloween Ends was stupid, H20 and Halloween 2018 are far more satisfying rematches. Should have been called Corey in the House.

Because I like The Three Musketeers and it has plenty of straightforward adaptations already