Some people haven't read It I see. Super 8 is basically The Goonies meets the book version of It. Though I agree the ending could have been substantially better.

It's nothing like IT. Similar on the surface maybe, but the stories and tones, etc are very different.

So. Fucking. Good. That actress gave an incredible performance. I don't watch a lot of newer horror movies but that one was seriously impressive.

I think your standards are lower than mine.

Something tells me you've never seen any of those movies.

I'm betting Episode 7 is way better than the prequels. It looks like JJ Abrams is basically fulfilling a childhood dream and wants to be faithful to the look and feel of original three movies. I understand peoples complaints as he doesn't have the best filmography but I still feel his first Star Trek is good and Mission Impossible 3 is great.

You know what, I honestly have no problem with Abrams. I mean yes, his ST movies were ripe with the bullshit that you're gonna get in a Hollywood film that makes sure to check off all the key movie points. However, it helps that I couldn't give less than a fuck about the Star Trek franchise prior to his involvement. It never appealed to me as a kid or growing up. Abrams with those two films made it watchable to me, which is more than the rest of the series ever did.

I rewatched both Star Wars trilogies and I will say that any of it away from Lucas' hands is a good thing. Those prequels were god awful, particularly the first two.

I wholeheartedly agree. I never really enjoyed Star Trek until I watched the Abrams movies. Sure, they've got their problems, but you can't expect every movie to be a cinematic masterpiece! I grew up a Star Wars fan, watching my dad's old videotapes with my brothers and hiding behind the couch whenever the mynock scene came. It's a part of my childhood. As for the prequels, I absolutely hated Jar Jar, even as a kid. The only thing that really kept me watching episodes 1 and 2 were the lightsaber battles. Episode 3 was the most tolerable one. Sure, the dialogue was silly in some parts, but I still enjoyed the space battle at the beginning as well as the lightsaber duels.

I was much more into Star Wars, as well. Rewatching the prequels, ROTS was in fact the most tolerable. It's stacked with holes and inane stuff, but when you've got dogshit like TPM and perhaps the worst romance on film in AOTC (among other problems with that movie, such as that heinous droid factory scene), then you have what amounts to a mediocre-at-best ROTS? Makes it bearable. The original trilogy was part of my childhood in the mid-90s before the remasters hit and before the TPM surfaced.

Star Wars fans: If you haven't already done so, the Plinkett reviews of the prequels are mandatory viewing.

Episode III had in my opinion the best tone/mood of the six films. The darker themes worked better with the SW setting and I feel Williams really gave it his all in trying to capture it in music too (unfortunately the film jumped all over the place and that shows up in the score as well). The amount of plot holes in that film though

I do remember the third prequel being somewhat better than the previous two, so yeah... have to agree there, though I'm basing this on six- or seven-year-old memories at this point.

In other sci-fi news: Uuuurrrgggghhhhh

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... -Ford.html

Nnooooooooo

Waaaaiiiiiiiii

Last I heard the Blade Runner reboot was being written by the guy who wrote The Green Lantern so if anything that's a slight step up...

Not only did I rewatch these right after the prequels, I edited out all the bullshit skits and stuff. Makes the reviews FAR more tolerable to watch. I always hated that about those reviews, and now I can watch all of them without the fluff! The romance breakdown and the edit near the end of the same review with Yoda's Force speech in TESB being contradicted by prequel stuff are the best.

I approved! So fucking funny and weird. I agree with most of what he said too. My favorite argument was about how Qui-Gon Jinn was a totally uncessary characte and he could had been merged with Obi-Wan. I guess they needed a big name with Liam Neeson though... I liked the prequels as a kid but I think they suck now and the acting (except like McDiarmid and McGregor) is terrible. The death of Mace Windu is basically unwatchable, fuck Sam Jackson can suck so bad sometimes.

I'm in love! BB-8: http://i.imgur.com/Uri6EfQ.webm

JJ is massive Star Wars fan and it's apparent with the trailer, I think the movie will do justice to the universe and I'm glad Lucas isn't involved. I liked his Trek movies (but they weren't Trek movies, they were more like a Star Wars version of what he thinks was Trek) and I'm sure this will be good.

Maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything bad for me. I've just seen enough shitty movies to know when to appreciate something good. You didn't say much so I have no clue what your "standards" are, but so many people just watch horror movies thinking everything either has to be the next The Shining or Alien, or it sucks. I see this stuff all the time. I just want new, creative, good horror movies that have things to say. The films I listed do exactly that.

Yes. Rebooting Blade Runner, a great moment in cinema and one of Harrison Ford's finest. What shall we do? Why, gingerly place it into the hands of a guy who wrote one of the worst movies of 2011, of course! Yeah, we're in good hands.

Haha, yeap, and it looks like it's still happening: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0338169/?ref_=ttfc_fc_wr5

hooray

Brain, his point is that it will be a good thing Ridley Scott isn't writing it.


Though really I think the main objective is just to keep Damon Lindelof away from it.

I have an Aunt who is a big horror buff and I used to sit and watch whatever random horror flick she put on and very rarely were they ever entertaining to me. I'd much rather watch those old 70s grind house flicks that were cheesy but they knew they were cheesy but still had this b rated charm that worked. Like I drink your blood that film was fun.

Think of it this way - to a dedicated ST fan, the Abrams movies (not so much ST09) were like the prequels were to SW fans. Although as someone who is only a casual SW fan, the prequels weren't that bad to me. At least the universe was consistent and they kept the same feel.

I think he'll do ok with Star Wars as long as he keeps it simple. I enjoyed Super 8 and he seems to excel at enjoyable fluff which is what SW is.

Okay, as long as there's no Damon Lindelof, I'm cool with it.

I have it on good authority from a dedicated ST fan that the Abrams movies were good and that the SW prequels were garbage.

I'm not a Star Trek fan but I enjoyed the Abrams version, even though it's excruciatingly stupid at times. He's not a big Trek fan either apparently, but he is a Star Wars fanatic so I suspect he's capable of doing it justice. That said, i'm infinitely more looking forward to Rian Johnson's effort.

No. The first one is acceptable as a Hollywoodized "turn your brain off" action/adventure movie with some of the same character names and other vague similarities to the original series (despite loads of idiotic plot holes and general terrible writing and design decisions), but Into Darkness is one of the worst Star Trek movies ever made. Nemesis is pure shit, and in purely objective terms it's definitely the worst, but shit is ALL it is. Everyone knows it's shit, it's shit from the very beginning right up until the very end. Into Darkness is like an eclair that looks good on the outside, which tricks you into taking a bite, but the cream filling is actually warm gooey shit. There was just so much money and talent and effort and skill and equipment used to make Into Darkness look really amazing from the outside, that it becomes much more insulting when you discover that it's filled with shit on the inside. Soulless, corporate, money-grubbing shit. JJ Abrams doesn't even fucking like Star Trek, and it shows. Nemesis was just a handful of talentless Star Trek fans squatting and straining for about 15 minutes. It's pathetic and terrible, but I just don't feel personally insulted.

Huh, I guess I'm glad I never bothered to see Into Darkness after finding the first one fairly mediocre

Odd, I found ST '09 embarrassing and shitty and bad in all the wrong ways (red matter!!!!11) but Into Darkness to be totally watchable sci-fi action porn. I've only ever watched it on IMAX though, so that could be why.

Nemesis is so bad it's funny, especially when you recognize that was Tom Hardy's first major role. B4 (Data) cracks me up to this day. Oh John Logan, does your wit know no bounds?

The difference for me really between 09 Trek and Into Darkness was the tone. 09 Trek was much more of a fun adventure with a silly time travel plot and silly plot devices like red matter, but Into Darkness was this uber-serious shit that was deliberately aping two of the best movies in the franchise (II and VI), except doing so horribly and stupidly and completely shitting on everything that made Trek good (even dumb adventure Trek). The thing is, sci-fi action porn can't work (at least for me) if it's going for that ultra-serious tone and trying to come off as smart and intellectual. 09 Trek was just a silly adventure and knew it, what with the ridiculous opening sequence and the bar fight and the ridiculous swelling hands trick to get Kirk on the Enterprise and the joke/reference to Sulu's fencing and whatnot. It was idiotic, but not a bad way to spend 2 hours when you're bored.

Into Darkness was watchable, yeah, but it was just so utterly plastic, bland, generic in every way - just hitting all the usual serious post-2000s action cliches. Shiny, super technical action bits, comedy appropriate for a dinner party with your parents, a villain imitating Hannibal Lecter (I really didn't think Cumberbatch was as good as people are saying in this), trying to be more than it was like a drama or whatever...it really just didn't have any personality or anything interesting about it. Reading that Abrams wasn't a fan of Trek much, well, I can see that in this. I'm not a Trek guy either, but the movie fell flat for me nonetheless.

Actually, I thought it was entertaining...to some extent. Like I said, not every movie is gonna be a cinematic masterpiece, but I feel that Into Darkness was way more flawed than the 09 Trek. I guess Abrams doesn't work well in a franchise he isn't familiar with, like Star Wars. Speaking of Star Wars, you know that ball droid thingy that showed up in the first teaser trailer? Yeah, that's not CGI. I have proof.

Well yeah, but you shouldn't look past a movie's flaws because of that.

Well, not always. Some flaws are passable while others are too hard to be ignored. If the latter is the case, a movie can be a little hard to watch and like. I had a hard time watching this awful movie entitled Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies. That was the worst movie I've ever seen.

Finally saw Godzilla. Man, it's like listening to that new Slayer song. ALL INTRO and then pop goes the zilla at the end. Well, I didn't dislike it, but it wasn't that good, either. I just kept having to extend my timeline as to when they'd actually show him doing some real fighting. Even The Room had Tommy and Greg together by minute 40, not an hour and a half in. Let me see some more bitch slaps, slams, and tackles.

I absolutely liked how they portrayed the scale of destruction, the sound, and the cinematography was great. The scope of how menacing this is and all... building up to it. Thing is, they should have been done with doing that by the first hour (and even that's being generous on their part). The "finishing moves" were pretty neat. :\ Seeing those made up for the holes in the script.

It did get hammy when it used kids and the coincidental timing and the friggen' same bs you'd expect with stock movie points. You know what I mean. It's like enough already with that shit. Also, so much military stuff, so much inconsistency. I'm vet-nerding out with that stuff.

Anyway, what's a good way to put this? Keep the staff that made the thing, but get a better script... or one that's suited more to monsters battling. The direction of the film being from the human perspective and hitting us in the feels getting emotional I didn't mind since it's supposed to be resurrecting the monster for the American market and yadda yadda yadda, but it could have been way better.

- Godzilla fan since the early '90s

"movie"

There are lots of nouns to describe Asylum productions but "movie" certainly isn't one of them. This coming from someone who had a writing contract with them for a while.

They actually aren't horrible people, just horribly incompetent at everything but coming up with names and cover art.

I guess you're right. "Movie" would not be the word to describe this abomination. The characters were hard to follow, there's a ton of plot holes, and the gratuitous use of historical figures like Stonewall Jackson were beyond pointless. There's also a concrete bunker in it, and you can easily tell that the dude playing Stonewall Jackson has a fake beard. But hey, this is the same production company that made Sharknado! What did you expect?

The best thing about Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies for me (and I'm not even gonna spoiler this because why bother when it comes to Asylum movies) was the ending with Lincoln ordering his own assassination in secret because he got infected by his zombified wife. That's so Asylum that it's magnificent.

And actually, the one positive in the whole movie is Bill Oberst Jr., the actor playing Lincoln. He gives a genuinely good performance in the movie, one way better than a movie called Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies deserves.

Actually, the ending with Lincoln ordering his own assassination is kind of a plot hole itself. John Wilkes Booth was going to do it anyway, zombie infection or no. I get that Bill Oberst Jr. did a good job with the Gettysburg Address, but that's just about the only good thing about the movie in my opinion. Everything else is just either stupid or really boring.

Saw The Divide yesterday. It was awful as shit. Plot full of holes, terrible acting, awful pacing... don't bother.

@Ozzy: I think they're gonna pull a Captain America on us with Godzilla. First one was mostly for setting up the scene and introducing the Big G to the newer generations, while the second one will bring out the big guns and a more reasonable action-to-drama ratio.

Mind you, I did like Godzilla a fair bit, but after cooling down a tad from the rush of seeing it on cinemas, I did find it to be quite flawed. I'm confident they'll do better with the sequel, though.