Dont watch it any mindset, just let it blow your mind.

I just saw Cabin in the Woods today, and I really liked it. One thing I noticed was the actor who played Marty (the stoner) sounded and gestured a lot like Michael J Fox, and I was expecting the DeLorean to pop in at some point, complete with Doc Brown shouting, "Marty! We've gotta go back to 1955!"

Scream 4 - 0/5
This is the worst one of the series. I've never really been a fan of these movies but I did find the previous three, although far from scary, to be entertaining. It really needed a game changer this late in the series, some kind of complexity or new setting, instead it's just rehash of the original albeit a more self aware, cheapened version. The introduction was lousy this time and felt more like a MTV Movie Awards sketch, not something that surprised or captivated me in the slightest. The big reveal was utterly ridiculous and felt like an episode of Murder, She Wrote or Colombo. It's hard to come away from this feeling anything but disappointment and the fact that the writer and director of the first were involved only deepens the blow.

@Zelkiiro:
You know, I actually hadn't noticed that but now that I think about it it's a spot on observation.
Just going to ignore Volute's post.

The Adventures of Tintin - 5/5

Similar to Rise of the Planet of the Apes, I came away from this thirsting for another and dreading the wait in between. Not since the first Indy films have I been this enthralled and genuinely entertained by a Spielberg film. This type of adventure has been missing for too long, or executed poorly, and deserves the greatest of praise. Purists may find fault because there are new scenes that aren't in the comic books, which is understandable. I know the books like the back of my hand and going in I wanted a little variety and unpredictability, I enjoyed the new elements because I didn't know what was around the corner.

I certainly wouldn't give it a 5/5, but it was definitely very enjoyable.

Did a double dip last night.

Dredd: Surprisingly underwhelming. I saw a trailer a week or so ago and thought to myself "ehhh, I'm not sure...", and then I saw it was rated R. Man we just don't get fun, hard R action flicks anymore, not like the golden age in the 80s and early 90s. So of course I got stoked for it, but I think a big part of the R was from the constant language and incredibly shoehorned sex parts. Don't get me wrong, the violence was there and it was entertaining, but it was nothing on the level of brutality that Robocop had or anything. There were basically a few showy deaths in the beginning, and then about an hour of little blood puffs accompanied by people spinning and falling down, and then one or two good ones at the end. I realize the plot isn't the most important aspect in a movie like this, but really this one was pretty bad. It's like the writers/creators had a few cool ideas about Judge Dredd killing people and based an entire movie around three death scenes. There really is an hour long dead zone in the middle of the movie that just dragged on forever, and it's not like nothing was happening. There was a good amount of action going on, it just wasn't fun to watch. It's sad when I notice plot points being dropped when the entirety of the plot is "Dredd and his partner are trapped in a 200 story apartment complex full of thugs who want them dead". Also the drug that made everything go into Max Payne-o-vision was really less of a plot device and more of a lame excuse to showcase gimmicky 3D effects. This is another example of a movie that simply did not need to be 3D.

It wasn't all lost though, Karl Urban had a hilarious permascowl throughout the movie that I did my best to imitate whenever somebody looked at me for the rest of the night, and the last death in particular was one of the few times CG effects were both 100% necessary and really effective. Overall check it out if you're an action movie fan, because while it has nothing on the really good modern action movies (Rambo, Crank) it's still a fuckload better than Die Hard 4 and the throngs of neutered PG13 nonsense. It's a cavalcade of cliches with only a few worthwhile parts. 4/10


End of Watch: Dredd cost 28 cunt cunting dollars for two tickets, so you bet your ass I got my fucking money's worth and snuck in to another screen when it was over. I didn't even know what this was until I got in (it was just the screen with a movie starting as soon as my first one ended), but it's that one cop movie with Jake Gyllenhaal and Army from The Shield. The trailers didn't give much of a clue as to what the plot entailed, but strangely it was very indicative of what the film held. There was a very, very loose thread that connected the major plot points, but really it was more about the day to day lives of these two partners. One issue I had was that it was a weird kind of found footage type movie, with the explanation being that Taylor (Gyllenhaal) was taping everything for a project he was working on for his filmmaking class at community college. Reeeeeeally wish they didn't do this, because it was a bad and unnecessary gimmick that really detracted from the overall film, because it was still shot like a movie from a cinematic standpoint. The angles, lighting, things of that sort were very clearly professional, and there were rapid cuts from angles that obviously nobody could be filming, and it just kept taking me out of the movie whenever I was wondering to myself why the ethereal spirit of the editor from the Bourne movies was chilling with a handicam in some random apartment. Also the movie took place over several, several months, which made the excuse about it being for a class completely moot. Also the writing was pretty terrible too. I guess they were aiming for realism, but I'm being 100% serious when I say that about a third of the dialog was "fuck", "shit", and "bro". Does anybody else remember when it was this huge deal that The Devil's Rejects said fuck like a hundred and thirty times? I swear I've seen two dozen movies that have easily eclipsed that since, it just seems so lazy. I've never met anybody who actually talks like that, and you have to keep in mind that I surround myself with stupid people.

Anyway the movie is essentially a series of vignettes about Taylor and Zavala's beat, with every routine bust turning into something huge of course. There are three or four segments that have a very small similarity between them all that results in the film's climax, and strangely enough I kind of like it that way. It feels less like a movie and more like real life, where sometimes seemingly unrelated things just pile up and end up turning into this huge thing. That's one thing the movie really had going for it, it felt real. Despite the dialog really grating on me, I didn't doubt for a second that Taylor and Zavala were best friends and would do anything for each other, their banter was very genuine. The scenes with their families were well done too, it all felt very real. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the ending, all things considered. Also Anna Kendrick is a babe.

Like I said, a few things about it really got under my skin, and I can see a lot of people certainly not liking the way the story was told (my girlfriend certainly didn't), but it wasn't bad. My last thoughts upon the credits rolling were "Was there really a lesson to be learned from this story? Because I don't think there was" and "Was this all some weird allusion to Kojak? Taylor and Zavala sounds just too damn much like Telly Savalas for comfort". 7/10


Oh yeah, I rate these now. One of the cool kids, chyeah.

Really gotta disagree about Dredd. It was a lot gorier than you gave it credit for, like with all those people getting shredded by the miniguns, or the guys getting shot in the face in slo-mo, and I was honestly never bored. There was a slower part in the middle, sure, but it was meant to build tension. I'd put it on the same level as the new Rambo, though Dredd felt like less of an excuse to be gratuitously gory. 8/10 or so on an action movie scale. Not as brutal as Rambo, sure, but it had a better setting; the gigantic, locked-down mega-skyscraper full of gang members out to kill Dredd was awesome. There was a survival aspect to it (running out of ammo, grenades, Judge gadgets, etc.) that is missing from a lot of other action movies. It reminded me of Die Hard on steroids in that respect, which is always a good thing.

And yes, Karl Urban's scowl was great. My girlfriend and I scowled at each other the whole night too

Yeah that slo mo massacre in the apartment was easily one of the highlights. I initially had a little knee jerk "Oh man that's CGI, that's lame" before wising up and realizing that they were never, ever going to get that effect with practical effects. I don't think I made it very clear but the effects were really good. I dunno, I guess I was just expecting to be blown away like the first time I saw The Running Man (which if I haven't made abundantly clear is probably my favorite action movie). I'm really overly harsh on movies in general, so that's something to keep in mind with me. I just didn't at all like the padding and the stupid story (I like movies that take place in generally just one setting, but in terms of what actually happens I didn't like much of it) and I went in with the mindset of it just being a dumb, fun, and gory action movie, and I still walked away feeling a little empty. I certainly don't regret seeing it, and it's nice to see a real action movie being released in this day and age that doesn't star Jason Statham for a change.

BastardHead's legendary humour.

Necrotic's legendary taste. It hurts my soul that you have such a good taste in kung fu and 80s action, I can't in good conscience call you across-the-board terrible.

No shit. Have you tried watching one of those Transporter movies? I caught part of one on TV a while back and seriously couldn't sit through more than half an hour, the action felt way too slick and choreographed and the acting was just teeth-grindingly awful, and not at all in a funny way. Honestly I really liked how they used slo-mo in Dredd; it was coupled only with the drug use, and not used at all aside from that, whereas for the last 10 years most action movies seem to go slo-mo every single fucking time the main character does anything remotely cool. The fact that Dredd managed to make slo-mo cool again after that trend is testament to how awesome it was.

I actually really like Statham, my problem is just that he seems to be the last real action star in Hollywood. There's pretty much nobody else to rely on for bare knuckle, adrenaline fueled action anymore besides him. I mean, acting range is great and all*, but that's part of what made the Schwarzeneggers and Stallones of the day so cool.

Plus I liked The Transporter, but then again I snuck into the theater to see that when I was 12 so there's a rose tinted thing there. I saw the sequels and they were definitely shit.


*-This reminds me, I saw a trailer for some detective-fucks-with-the-wrong-killer-and-shit-blows-up movie starring... Tyler Perry. I've dubbed it Madea goes Bronson.

Don't get me wrong, the first Crank was at least okay at best (though they need to stop putting Jason Statham in everything), but the second one was so horrible in every way. But hey, give it a shot, you might like it somehow.

I think it was one of the sequels I saw. Also I thought Statham was good in Snatch; the problem isn't really with him, it's the other aspects of the movies he's in.

Snatch is one of my favourite movies. It's endlessly replayable, definitely the best movie he was a part of.

I thought the very first The Transporter movie was cool due to having a Hong Kong action influence from the director. The others didn't feel grounded enough with how they portrayed the sequences for me to get behind it. Felt similarly about Crank.

I'm not a fan of Statham. I think his best movie is The Bank Job. Very entertaining and tensed movie. Had my total attention when I was watching it which is not often the case with Statham's movies. I also love Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch and The Italian Job as well but Statham didn't have the lead role in those movies. Cellular wasn't bad either

Say what you want, but watching any Statham movie in a hangover is just great fun with possible curative effects.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: Fantastic film. Amazing cast, all bringing in very strong performances. I'm not sure if I'd have preferred to have the whole thing in proper chronological order, though it wasn't difficult to follow this way either.

Regarding End of Watch, I was kinda interested in this after hearing a blurb on NPR. I'm partial to older styled cop movies where the police are good or at least decent or at least where the point of the movie is them against the crooks and not crooked cops themselves. The latter has been done to death so many times these days that clean cops versus robbers feels so much nicer and I suppose it's easier to establish themes and larger questions in that background rather than the more plot-centered double twists that crooked cop-films tend to be. But now that BastardHead mentioned it having some amateur filming-for-college twist to it, I'm kinda iffy. Not really wanting to see that really.

Regarding Jason Statham, I've liked him when he isn't the star of the film and the focus isn't so much on action. Then again, I'm not terribly fond of action films so take it as you will.

I think proper chronological order would be less effective for the movie. It is more emotional and powerful the way it was shown. The cast was indeed fantastic

The Avengers (2012) - Score 2/5

My question is to the people who did enjoy it and/or gave it 4 out of 5. Do you really need to be into comics in order to enjoy most of of the movies based on the Marvel series. I'm a person who enjoys action movies like 007, Die Hard, Black Hawk Down etc. To me the Avengers was like an action movie for the age range of 12 to 14 for some reason. The movie is overacting tension scenes in order to create suspense. Doing the typical "give me your hand i'll catch you" scenes that last instead of 15 seconds lasted 5 minutes. To me they looked too comedic and non realistic which becomes an annoying charater. The whole mishmash of characters to show their own personality didnt really stick because they are predictable and are not sophisticated, we know Stark would act like R D Jr. Its rated 8.5/10 in imdb - I doubt that 15 year old go there to rate it - what is it I'm missing in order to enjoy this movie or am I just too old and too smart to enjoy it.

Did you just complain that a film where the main characters are either mutants, alien gods, scientific experiments, all of the above, and/or dressed in ridiculous costumes isn't realistic enough?

...did you just call James Bond films realistic? A blockbuster based on comic books probably isn't too high-brow, no, but it's great, big, dumb fun, and I doubt you have to be stupid just to be able to enjoy the work...people call me intelligent, I still enjoy sillier action/comedy films and cheesy, fairly straightforward power metal. Am I an idiot? Maybe what the film is missing in order for you to enjoy it is the right attitude and mindset, or maybe it's simply a poorly done film to your expectations and standards.

I know, but it beats calling yourself intelligent, don't you think?

Its probably that. The only ones I enjoyed were the Batman series. Which I assume I like because he is a human without special powers, so is 007. The reason I ask - why do people love it some much and the answer of "cheesy stupid fun" isnt really describing it because we can say the same about Smoking Aces. I guess its the mutant like characters.

I don't know man. I loved both Smoking Aces movies but still haven't found the will to watch The Avengers despite enjoying Thor which I watched only because Natalie Portman was on it. If you don't like superheroes why bother watching a movie which has around half a dozen of them. I myself have never watched any Iron Man, Hulk, Superman, X-Men or Spiderman movies. Just watch the type of movies you like

Because it's cheesy fun that is taken seriously to ridiculous extremes by way of how well it is put together and how big the scope is - not just its own 2.5 hour runtime but also several other films that came before it. That's why it's good.

I hope filmmakers don't try this kind of thing more though. Would get old.

What the hell was this movie about???? got 1 hour into it trying to figure it out but then I realized I'm one hour into this and confused.....

DUnno if you guys have been discussing 'Killing them Softly' or whatever, but i just saw the poster for this film downtown. What struck me was the cast; Ray Liotta whom i've always liked, and who I want to see more of, and of course, Gandolfini, who i was impressed by for years as an avid Sopranos fan. Then i guess it's got Brad Pitt who i don't really mind. Watched a trailer - seemed okay, guess it's the kinda thing i could find worth a watch, at least.

I thought the horror was pretty full on. I was expecting it to be goofy and ridiculous like Buffy but most of it is genuinely intense, no banana slipping or kazoo sounds to be heard. I would still call it horror despite the clash of genres.
My thoughts exactly.
Wait. You still have hope for these movies? I gave up 30 minutes into the second one.

Just watched the new Paranormal Activity 4 trailer and it's really looking recycled. Ill probably skip it if its pg-13, which it's looking like it.[/quote] Wait. You still have hope for these movies? I gave up 30 minutes into the second one.[/quote]

Just to watch once. To try to cash in more, theyre actually releasing this in the Imax theaters, going as far as saying its being "remastered". Theres way more fake imax's, which, as far as I know, charge as much as 3d, if not more. This is a perfect example of a movie that DOESNT need to be in an imax theater.

I'm a huge fan of the Paranormal Activity series, so you can bet I'll be there for the midnight screening of #4.

It was mostly just goofy, man...I mean the whole premise, really. Cabin in the Woods is so silly you barely even notice. Not a whole lot of intensity or scares to be found. Though there were a few parts.

Looper - 3.75/5

The comparisons to 12 Monkeys are pretty apt, but that movie was way better than this one. Looper's strengths involve its great atmosphere and big, ambitious scope, but perhaps the scope was a little TOO big for what director Rian Johnson could handle. Last time we saw Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Rian Johnson together they made the superb Brick, which is still my favorite Levitt film. This one just doesn't hold up to either 12 Monkeys as a science fiction time travel movie or to Brick as a Rian Johnson movie. I really like the idea behind this, and it's clear everyone involved is really into it. Some of the individual moments are beautiful and stunning, and the directing, while rather pretentious and showy, does work to create some very memorable scenes. But as a movie, it just drags, and the pacing is pretty disjointed, with some parts feeling like they last an eternity and others having an oddly rushed feel to them (witness Bruce Willis's "future" life). It seems like this was an idea for a TV series that got crammed into a two hour movie, as a lot of these ideas just feel like disjointed sections that should have been broken up by episode breaks. Not for lack of trying, but Looper is pretty flawed.

Stop proving you have shit taste, god!

I'm at the univ, so it means "MOVIE DOWNLOADING TIME"
Got some things I missed this summer and some others, including:
-Prometheus
-Moonrise Kingdom
-The Cabin in the Woods

Holy shit. Alert the internet, we've got a genius!

I'll save you the time and "hipster" out by saying: They're all garbage.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, bla bla bla.

WHAT. Moonrise Kingdom was a blast and it was dope. It was definitely the most Wes Anderson-y Wes Anderson movie, but he's still a lot of fun.

Hitchcock Trailer looks like shit. I'd expect nothing less (more?) from the writer of "Man of the House" and the director of nothing.