I finished Mud last night [had started it earlier in the week but didn't have time to finish until now]. Overall I liked it. It was a strange combo of being pretty derivative in some aspects and fairly original in others. Good acting all around though it got a little unbelievable and cliche towards the end there. I'd still recommend renting it.

I might have missed some dialogue about James Spader being older than the others, but even his character seemed too young for such an established, connected drug dealer.

Yeah, the movie just didn't click with me for so many reasons. For example that scene where they park the car in the middle of the road as dozens of motorcycles drive by? Maybe it was supposed to be cool or romantic, but I thought it was kind of ridiculous.

American Psycho is the only great Bret Easton Ellis adaptation and much of that is due to Mary Harron doing a brilliant job of picking worthwhile parts from the novel.

American Psycho is my favorite movie written by him, or based on his writing. It's probably the only one I'd have any desire to watch more than once. The others range from mediocre to bad IMO.

The Curse of Downers Grove (Ellis co-wrote the screenplay based on someone else's novel) was an ordinary teen thriller. The Canyons didn't appeal to me at all, and I think I saw The Rules of Attraction years ago and hated it.

Logan was very good. I felt like it didn't totally jump out of genre conventions---based on the tone of the trailer I expected there would be a greater number of non-action dramatic scenes with Wolverine---but was damn fine all the same, and fairly adult for reasons beyond bloodshed. And Patrick Stewart fucking nailed it in this film, he was almost the standout.

Also, very much enjoyed the nods to Eastwood's "Unforgiven." They even had a bit scene about the distortion of myth. Very cool.

Beauty and the Beast was a wonderful sight to behold, even if it exists more as a giant nostalgia trip to watch onscreen than anything else. You're meant to be dazzled by the cinematography and set design, and when you go into the movie with that mindset, it becomes much easier to forgive the movie's shortcomings, such as the rushed pace of certain scenes (especially the prologue, which also comes across as fairly hokey when you have the narration from the original movie playing over the scenes the narration is describing) and the sometimes flat acting. Even then, the base that the movie is starting from is already pretty much perfect, so it's not like the movie had any real chance of sucking. I did appreciate the movie's attempt to explain some of the plot holes from the original movie, such as why nobody in the village knew about the Prince to begin with, or how long the movie takes place for. I also really liked the sparse adaptation of musical themes from the Broadway show into the score as leitmotifs for individual characters and scenes, as well as incorporating extra verses for a couple songs that were deleted from the original movie back into those numbers. All in all, regardless of the obvious flaws this movie has, the parts that didn't work weren't enough to counteract the glorious spectacle that the film was meant to be from the beginning, and it was both a fitting adaptation of the original movie and a great musical to watch in its own right. Think of it like a modern version of the opulent Hollywood musicals of the 50s, only with a 9 figure budget and crazy cool CGI effects.

Also, LeFou being gay is nowhere as big a deal as it was made out to be. It's never made a subject of any real attention in the movie, and it's way more subtext than anything, but anyone with good gaydar would have been able to pick up on it had Disney not said prior to release about it. Anyone that gets their panties in a bunch over this is an idiot, but you already knew that.

Yeah I'm glad they didn't go overboard with subverting genre expectations. It felt like an action movie with weighted drama, integral to caring about the characters and providing a somewhat believable tone and world.

The Rules of Attraction is perfectly okay but it does nothing highly memorable like AP and falls on predictable edgy tropes, it's tightly directed but with no personality and a supreme reliance on quick cut editing to punctuate the acting (which ranges from average to sub standard). Maybe in the hands of Tarantino it might have worked but the comedy rarely hits it's mark and it just comes off as vaguely interesting.

Saw Skull Island in 3d last night and loved it. This really needs to be seen on a huge screen.

I finally watched 10 Cloverfield Lane the other night. My wife and parents all really enjoyed it, as did I. It got a bit rushed towards the end and there were a couple eye-roll typical Hollywood parts, but otherwise a good flick.

I thought it was really lame. I seemed to be in the minority as my friends who I saw it with enjoyed it. I just thought the way the plot twist in the last act happened was out of left field and didn't fit at all with the movie. And so much of the first couple of acts were just cliche... but there were some decent enough parts here and there, so not a total waste I guess.

Continuing on my James Bond marathon, I've finished From Russia with Love... and yes, Opsius, I did rewatch it in a single sitting.

It was definitely an improvement over Dr. No. The plot was more consistent, the characters (and supporting characters) fleshed out, and the story more believable. At least in this case I can see how SPECTRE was rationalizing its end game. They were certainly more ominous and intelligent in this film. The choice of having Tatiana Romanova seduce him also fit in well with Bond's character, and seemed like a suitable way of drawing him into the trap. I also like the way the film handled Ali Kerim Bey and his relationship with Bond, although it got really deep unusually quickly. The fights were also much more realistic and thrilling, too, although this film relied more on luck than it did on skill. The fact that Bond's winning of the fight with Red Grant ultimately came down to Grant just happening to open up the suitcase with the gas canister in it was not a form of Bond outsmarting Grant. It was just pure, unadulterated luck.

Beyond this, there were a few weak points, admittedly. The gypsy scene was totally unnecessary to the plot; it acts as nothing more than pretty filter full of pretty ladies. The fight between the women and Bond "resolving" it... why? For a film almost two hours long, that addition made the film's pacing slag for me. The same is true for the boat scene: great action, but not particularly necessary or relevant for the plot. There's other scenes in the film that also felt like they were added as padding or filler, either to show off women or to add more action to an already sexualized, action-packed film. I get why they did it, but it doesn't really add anything or progress the plot. These felt like skippable moments.

On the whole, though, this film was an improvement over its predecessor. I've seen the next one, Goldfinger, already a number of years ago. However, I look forward to watching it again. Given the fact that I've now seen its predecessors, I'm sure I'll have a new perspective on it.

The novel is definitely a classic, displaying the overtly narcissistic attitudes of California elites well before that became a popular thing to do. The movie? Not so much.

I'm currently working my way through an indie sci-fi flick called Kill Command. It's basically Dog Soldiers meets Terminator, with an elite military outfit sent out on a training mission that goes awry after they realize they're the bait. It's okay, worthy of a full watch, but I've been doing a fair bit of traveling and socializing lately so I haven't had time to give it the full watch.

Glad you liked it. I really liked it, too, even the final act. I'm interested to see if there's going to be a follow-up.

I've seen 10 Cloverfield Lane recently too. I kind of liked it, I like seeing John Goodman, but that last part made no sense at all.


By the way there's a Logan screening here. I've never seen any X-Men movie and I'm not really fond of the universe, or superheroes in general. But I've seen people comparing it to The Dark Knight, which I really like. I also like violent, dark and "mature" films of this kind. So my question is, would I "get" Logan even if I'm not familiar with the others?

It's an extremely well made and well acted film that, while not divorcing itself from the superhero genre, does all the usual tropes so well that it's like watching them for the first time again. Also it is super fucking violent so if you like that stuff, you'll be in for a treat.

You don't need to know specific plot details from prior movies or anything (though knowing some of them can help you appreciate some references), but having a working knowledge of the relationships between and histories of the characters in the movie will definitely give you a greater appreciation for what happens.

[quote="Belial"]I've seen 10 Cloverfield Lane recently too. I kind of liked it, I like seeing John Goodman, but that last part made no sense at all.


Yup I felt the same way about the rushed-nature of the end.

I don't think you'll be bowled over if you don't have at least an understanding of the character, whether via comic or at least one other movie, my advice is see something like Narc (2002) as it's all the mature content you need while suiting your non-superhero preference.

RE Cloverfield Lane:

Most of the good parts revolved around



And even then...

Earlier I mentioned how awesome I thought Con-Air was. And I still do. I fucking love that movie. So I asked what movie is better than Con-Air? Someone mentioned "The Thing". So last night I watched it. It was alright. Not even close to Con-Air's awesomeness though. Try again. What movie is better than Con-Air?

No. Anything we say, you would immediately declare it to be worse to keep yourself as the "correct" one here. Worthless fucking conversation.

Con Air is over praised as fuck. It's like the movie to like if you can't appreciate or watch B-movies.

I'm going to really stick my neck out here and submit a bold opinion. I feel that GoodFellas is a better movie than Con Air. I'd also rank Rain Man higher as well.

Seriously even if I restrict myself to movies that are rated R and are either pure action, or [something] / action, there are so many choices: The Raid Redemption, The Raid 2, Gladiator, Robocop (original), The Matrix, The Rock (I found Con Air slightly disappointing because my first reaction was "The Rock was better"), Terminator 2, Total Recall (Arnold version)...

That's bullshit. No, I would not immediately declare it to be worse. There's a lot of movies I haven't seen. "The Thing" was recommended several times now, so I finally checked it out. It was not so great in my opinion. Good but not great. ConAir on the other hand, is a GREAT fucking movie.

Who the fuck compares a horror movie to an action movie? Do you also go around comparing the worth of meat pizza against that of black pudding?

Well why the fuck not? Anyways does it bother you or get under your skin that I like ConAir so much? Is there a problem with that?

Man, talk about movies that fell through the cracks. I reckon it was probably a huge hit when it came out but it's so rare to hear anyone talk about this movie anymore. I agree that it rules hard. Other than Pearl Harbor being a complete piece of shit, those pre-Transformers Michael Bay movies are all some kind of enjoyable at the very least.

Actually that reminds me...I follow this site called Taste of Cinema on Facebook that mostly posts movie-related listicles put together by contributors. Most of the time they're super dumb ("The Nine Best Quentin Tarantino Movies!") but sometimes they're kinda interesting. A recent one was about huge box office bombs/financial disasters and it had that movie The 13th Warrior on there. Granted I haven't seen it in quite a few years now, but I remember really liking that one as a kid. Just a really strange concept for a big budget historical action movie.

It makes me irrationally angry that Michael Bay apparently thinks that VX is a corrosive gas and not a liquid nerve agent, and that at any rate plunging a needle into your heart can somehow stop your skin getting boiled away.

Speaking of Con Air, my favorite bad movie has got to be Battleship. I feel like the entire movie was created for this one scene. Its like a screenwriter got a first draft that just had one line: "Old guys start up a museum peice and blow up some aliens to AC/DC," and then he had to write the rest of the movie.

I'd say it was worth it. When the protagonists are saying they don't have a crew and all the WWII vets show up, I turn my brain off and cheer.

The unnecessary lens flare. The obnoxious orange-teal colour scheme. The Rhianna trying to act. The unnecessary slo-motion with whooshing sound effect. The most overused song from an overrated band that every bogan loves.

You didn't like the movie version of the Rules of Attraction? I thought it was pretty good. Of course his books are always better, but I enjoyed the movie version as well. Out of the movie versions of his books, I thought this one was the closest to recreating the book.

The Rules of Attraction is interesting because it captures the spirit of the book but changes a ton of it. They compliment each other very, very well.

I said TROA was perfectly okay earlier, it's just not in the same league as AP though.. I think the average acting and unnecessary morally bankrupt "outrageous" material seems typically edgy and it doesn't particularly hit the kind of black comedy watermark that Mary Harron captured so effortlessly. Probably the only decent thing starring James Van Der Beek at the very least.

The opening scene of Rules of Attraction was pretty impressive... it's horribly padded out and boring though, Roger Avery should stick to producing.

The Rock is fucking great, scientific inaccuracies be damned (the exploding cockroaches are even more egregious than the VX nonsense, but it's all for dramatic effect anyway). Brilliant casting, a neverending supply of action and one-liners (I'll take pleasure in gut'n you, boy!), and probably the best score Hans Zimmer ever wrote.

Finally watched the Green Room.

To me it's the perfect example of a thriller filmed as a horror film. Patrick Stewart as a smart sounding nazi scares the shit out of me. He speaks like a man I feel as I should get to know more but the words coming out of that mind makes me want to stay away. Every single character, regardless of the bad guy or good guy has some quality you can sort of relate to. Yes, even the neo nazi skinheads. Most of them are set up as a group of young impressionable kids, even though are the villains, are just looking some form of confirmation from an authority figure. No spoilers, but you'll see the glee in the eyes of some of the kids when Stewart's character starts giving them a bigger role.

The main cast, a touring hardcore punk band, even though are the good guys, make dumb decisions, but dumb decisions you can relate to. Some are comical and are things you would do just for the kicks. Some are decisions you make under duress. You know you would make the same decisions if you were in that position.

I would give it a 4/5.

Noticed the other night that Star Trek Beyond was added to Netflix (Canada) and decided to give it a go since I somewhat enjoyed the previous 2. By the time it hit the halfway mark, I noticed I was reading stuff on my phone and yeah that's about it. Might finish it some day, but I have no real urge I guess.

Well I wish I could recommend Sing Street as I really enjoyed a majority and it's rare to see such an uplifting movie that doesn't cater to children, but without getting into spoilers it shits the bed towards the end and I lost all interest and respect for the story.

Soooo...anyone seen Beauty and the Beast who wasn't a gushing Disney fanboy before the fact? I don't dislike Disney or anything, enjoyed the animated one when I was a kid but haven't seen it in ages, so I'm just not sure how much of the praise for the new one is detached from nostalgia. I'm thinking about catching that and Kong in theaters on Sunday and haven't decided if it's worth my time/money.

If you see Beast, chances are, itll be filled with noisey kids. I highly recommend Kong at least in 3d, but its probably out of a big screen by now.