Wait, what? Carpenter's The Thing is the best movie ever but the remake/prequel is the worst ever? Talk about hyperbole. Was the prequel unnecessary? Sure, but it also was nowhere near terrible.

Man the prequel was pretty cool. The alien in that movie managed to be more unsettling than the first IMO! I like them both a lot, but the original edges out on top for riding the suspense a little bit better.

Yeah, that's my big complaint about the prequel. There's maybe 5 minutes between when they suspect something is amiss and when shit totally hits the fan. I guess they figured the suspense of figuring out what's going on and who might be infected and all that was already played out well enough in the Carpenter movie, so they just got on with the monsters and gore already. The suspense part ruled though, so I wish it had lasted a bit longer.

There were some good monsters in the prequel, but I feel like Headless Tentacle Dog from the Carpenter film wins for overall creepiness.

Also, (prequel spoilers)

The lamest thing about the prequel is it would've been way better if they had just spent that same time and effort making an original story. Instead all they're doing is inviting comparisons to a far superior movie.

I just got home from Hunger Games Catching Fire and damn was it good. If you like the books then you definitely won't be disappointed by this movie like you we're by the first one. Everything was wonderful this time around acting, writing, plot flow, all phenomenal. At one point in tims I looked at the time and it had only been just over an hour but I felt like I had been there almost three (in a good way) by the ammount of content they managed to get in. So yeah it's for sure worth seeing and I'll probably see it at least once more before it leaves theatres.

Who else is markedly unexcited about the next Hobbit film, and dreading the annoyingly massive advertisement hurricane that will follow?

This man gets the prize.

I am glad to hear there were cool monster(s) in the prequel but I don't think I could ever bring myself to watch it. Were the effects practical or CG?

I think most people have a lot bigger problems than to be unexcited about a film and dreading ad campaigns.

While the monsters were cool in a "oh man, I can't believe someone came up with something so bizarre" sense, they weren't actually that scary on account of being all CG. The first film had that gross "wet" feeling with all the monsters and gore, while everything in the prequel feels all clean and polished despite its attempts to have similar tentacles/bones/tearing skin/etc. And as I've said before, the dark filters and low lighting really cut back on that washed-out brightness that made the first movie so surreal. It's possible that they were trying to do the same thing in the opposite direction, but it didn't really work for me.

Game. Over.

Pacific Rim - I just went back and read the posts from July talking about this, and I mostly agree with the positive reviews. It's a movie about huge robots punching huge monsters in the face, yet it managed not to be as headache-inducing as, say, Transformers 2 or 3. I was worried that casting both Jax and Clay from Sons of Anarchy would be distracting; fortunately they didn't have any scenes together to pull my brain out of the movie and into the TV show.

It probably could have been a bit shorter, and it was odd that the robots always seemed to wait until the last minute to use their best weapon (sword, plasma cannon), but it was still enjoyable.

Im kind of mixed, because as of right now, my theater is showing the 2d and HFR 3d, but this one looks a lot more CGI than the first. The only part that bothered me in the first was the first 35 minutes. Last year, I drove nearly an hour to see it on the biggest screen in the area(which ended up not being nearly as big as I thought) and of all things, it's half the price now.

I have been on a bit of a Scorsese kick as of late for I watched Goodfellas yesterday and Casino the day before. Both are great crime flicks with such an excellent sense of pacing and storytelling that one is not likely to notice their gratuitous lengths (I am, after all, a horror fan and rarely do horror films exceed much beyond 90 minutes, haha); hell, I would say that besides The Godfather (I and II) and Scarface (De Palma's version, that is) they are two of the best crime pictures out there.

Lockout

A Guy Pearce fronted sci-fi action flick. I wouldn't stress too much on the sci-fi bit except that it's set in space where all the action happens on MS-I, a prison facility keeping prisoners in cryo-stasis. I liked the concept and the action was pretty good. Definitely a throwback to the good ol' 80s/90s action movies where the good guy has to save the day. I enjoyed the movie even though the acting of everyone else apart from Guy seemed a little unnatural. But that said, I liked the buildup and most of the scenes. It's a good PG-13 type of action movie.

R.I.P.D. - Also known as "that movie that looks like it's trying to be Men in Black, but with ghosts." This was one of the bigger bombs of the summer, which probably shouldn't be too surprising given Ryan Reynolds' questionable star power (I've liked him in some movies, but let's be honest - his hits usually involve him being carried by a bigger name like Denzel Washington in Safe House). Jeff Bridges used this annoying voice that I've heard him do at least once before, making him pretty hard to understand. The ghosts, or dead people still living on Earth, or whatever, were done using CG when old-fashioned effects probably would have worked better.

Watch Van Wilder again (or for the first time!) before watching this even once.

Wow, Mary Reilly has some of the absolute worst attempts at English/Irish accents I've ever heard. What the fucking fuck. John Malkovich's delivery is flatter than David Duchovny's in this. What the fuck went wrong here. What a waste of neat atmosphere and set design. Shit doesn't even make any sense. uuuaaahhhh

Just finished the first installment in Bourne Binge 2013. The Bourne Identity wasn't actually as bad as I'd remembered it being. Some of the acting is pretty crap (Chris Carter has a lot of pretty laughable moments) and there's a bit of disbelief-suspension that has to go on, but for an action/spy flick it was actually pretty well directed. All the action sequences were pretty damn good and the overall pacing was effective. Even the writing wasn't as bad as I was fearing (hoping?) it would be, and they seemed like they were striving for at least a modicum of realism despite the extreme scenarios. Kind of interested to see where the whole story goes... not that I'm expecting great things, but methinks it'll be a fun ride if the general quality level doesn't drop much from here.

Oh, the soundtrack also sucked. Way too much generic filler. Why don't film studios understand that tension is oftentimes greater when you just dispense with soundtrack altogether?

Re-watched Shame. You know, the one with the sex addict played by Michael Fassbender.

Excellent drama movie, with a terrific grasp of subtlety. Minimalism isn't usually my thing, but the way the film is allowed to speak for itself through long shots and scarce use of dialogue is very nice. The emphasis on the aforementioned long shots also lends itself to some very effective scenes, such as when the protagonist goes out for a jog, or his first date with one of his co-workers (which is depicted as very realistically awkward). Fassbender also knocks it out of the park here, with a very emotional, rich performance, and the chemistry he has with Carey Mulligan is just lovely, in a slightly Psycho way.

Definitely recommended.

not too sure if it was reviewed yet, even though i could swear somebody posted before this-
just recently viewed the Raid: Redemption, and from the get-go it is a freaking ride!
pretty decent fight scenes, a simple plot (get in, kill, take, get out), and loads of hand to hand combat.. knives to the neck, rolling on the ground and shooting three to five rounds point blank into faces.. gangster shit. check it out

Just watched the new Riddick movie. I don't think I hated it as much as Tony but it definitely is my least favorite of the three. Here's why:

Yeah, Raid was praised by many. I dunno if you've seen this but the trailer for Raid 2 was released sometime back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI0xzJKVAVo

i was hoping for some sequel or something more.. something about those knives slamming into flesh was pumping me up!
thank you for clearing how many praised it already, i knew the title was familiar and am glad i saw!

I just heard that Paul Walker (from the fast & Furious) died in a car crash yesterday.
Shame, I really like the last couple of fast & furious movies. I wonder if they will continue or just stop with the entire series.

RIP Paul Walker

I would assume that those movies are done. I was surprised when they came out with most recent one, because it seems like fast five just came out. With that and the recent news with Walker, I can't imagine them making any more.

Why not? They'll keep churning them out as long as they make a profit.

They're in the middle of post production for the next one at this very moment.

I really love the Bourne movies, and I'm saying this as someone who can't stand action movies. I watched all three of them on a car ride from New Hampshire to Chicago, and dug the shit out of them. I actually thought that Bourne Supremacy was the worst of the trilogy, actually. I just didn't think it was as consistently good as the other two movies. I just thought that the pacing was kind of slow, and that the story didn't advance as much as the other two. It was still good, though.


On another note; despite Walker's death, it says that he was filming "Fast and Furious 7" on his Wikipedia page, last time I checked. I mean, the status says filming, and if that status was posted before his death, than they started with something, at least. If anything, if the studios want to continue the series, they would have to a) rewrite the script and emit Brian O'Conner's character, or b) cast someone completely different to fill in his role. I, personally, am tired of the series - one's fine, but six is a crowd - and wouldn't feel any sorrow if they just pulled the plug on it.

Turds on the horizon.

I, Frankenstein
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxOSPfUw3qw

The Legend of Hercules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elwJ47ifGsU

:/ Those were quite atrocious, especially Hercules. It's like a mix of 300 and Gladiator but a thousand times more terrible.

I, Frankenstein looks like some catastrophic nonsense.

The Disappearance of Alice Creed - 4/5

This is a punchy, smart thriller that doesn't really have much in the way of substance, but it makes up for that with deft, compact writing and a real sense for the dramatic. I was hooked on this all the way through. The acting is good, the characters are interesting and the story, concerning a ransom gone wrong and a tangled web of illicit romances, is snappy and entertaining. I never really knew what was going to happen next in this, as it played things in a way that there were always numerous possibilities. Just a solid as hell, enjoyable flick.

Catching Fire - 5/5

A masterpiece. I really think book to movie deals are getting way better, and in the wake of sad sacks like Ender's Game this year, Catching Fire is much needed. This does what most book-to-movie translations strive for but usually always miss: it stays true to the book while simultaneously also crafting a powerful, moving and sweeping epic of a film. The first Hunger Games movie was so good I didn't know if they'd be able to improve upon it, but they did. The change in directors worried me, but really Francis Lawrence stays true to the style of the first one while also using less of the jarring camera work that the first one was somewhat marred by at times. Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson sell their roles with aplomb and class to spare. Some of the imagery and shots in this are so gorgeous they will never leave your head. The story has something to really say beyond simply 'this is like the book!' This is a movie about perseverance and rebellion, about picking your fights and staying strong in the face of innumerable odds and a corrupt government - it is about the real, serious ways to rebel; i.e. quietly and persistently. While these themes are well-worn, Catching Fire drives them home with a gravity I've rarely seen anywhere else, really making you feel the full weight. Some of the things that happen in this will break your heart, others will make you so angry that you feel you need to do something yourself. A vital, serious work of film that I think is the best I've seen so far this year.

The World's End - 4.5/5

Finally, after 6 long years, we get the conclusion to the Simon Pegg/Nick Frost/Edgar Wright trilogy that started with Shaun of the Dead, now almost a decade ago. These are very smart movies, and this one is no different. I don't know if the jokes are as laugh out loud funny here as they were in the past, but Wright has grown as a director since the old days, and the whole thing feels very tight and mature. The writing is good, with the characters who start off as rather faceless and bland eventually becoming very interesting to watch, you know, like real people when you get to know them. The storyline about robots taking over a small town is a bit odd, but it works - like the other two films in this trilogy, it weaves in a lot of social commentary with the comedy, and comes out refreshingly thought provoking for a film of its genre. Not too intellectual and not too goofy, The World's End hits a happy medium. I really enjoy the manic energy and verve this whole movie has, and Pegg and Frost put their all into it, as do the other actors. It's not as iconoclastic as Shaun of the Dead, but it's within a hair of being as good.

Society

Not really sure how to rate this...a strange 80s horror comedy about alien sex orgies and Beverly Hills societal corruption. I don't really know how the two fit together. It's weird. It's very surreal and psychedelic, and I wish it made more sense, but I can't say I didn't enjoy this in some perverse way.

The Canyons - Lindsay Lohan and James Deen (highly prolific pornstar, in case you didn't know) play an annoying couple who like to invite random people to Deen's mansion for voyeurism and orgies and stuff. However, Deen's assistant's current boyfriend is also Lohan's ex, which might make things awkward when filming the upcoming slasher flick they're all involved in.

Dammit, I hate movies like this. I can't stand when movies are incredibly sleazy, yet still manage to be dull. Showgirls might be a punchline these days, but at least that one is entertaining and quotable. The Canyons isn't campy or fun, and I also don't think it works as the serious drama that its creators presumably wanted it to be. Avoid, unless you simply can't resist the "Dude, does Lindsay show her tits?" factor. (The answer is "Yes she does - but so what?")

If it was Lindsay Lohan in 2005, then the factor of seeing her tits would be a much more persuasive one, as her tits (and whole self, for that matter) have just sort of degraded over time like a melting stick of butter in the hot sun.

I watched Upstream Color over the weekend, a movie written/directed by the same guy who wrote/directed Primer. It's much much different. If you think of Primer as hard sci-fi, then Upstream Color is the most outre new wave sci-fi. The plot starts with a woman being knocked out outside of a club, and force-fed a drug that includes a live parasite. The parasite renders her incredibly susceptible to suggestion, and the man who knocked her out quickly uses this to con her out of everything valuable he can. The ordeal ends after a few days, and she wakes up without any memory of what happened, no money, and gets fired for not showing up to work. This is when the real bulk of the movie starts - her dealing with the emotional (and psychic) trauma left by the parasite, and slowly connecting with other victims as well. The movie is told in a very dream-like way, with essentially zero exposition, zero explanation. The plot ends up making some sort of sense, but doesn't really stand up to too much scrutiny - but that's OK, because it's more of a dreamy-feely "experience" type movie. Other people have compared it to Terrence Malick's work, but I'm not very familiar with it myself.

Overall, I didn't like it as much as Primer, but it's definitely a fascinating movie and it had a big impact on me. There's really nothing else like it that I can think of.

Flashing back to Mean Girls. Although I didn't really notice lohan next to lacey chabert; man she is in my top 5. Hell I've done some of the hardest drugs and I honestly couldn't imagine having the amount of money lohan does (well, did) and being so freaking vapid leading to a loss of control. It is actually terrifying. Want to see what happens when a heroin addict gets everything he wants for a period of a few years? Look at John Frusciante here:

Whoa, wait, what? These movies are actually good?

I just might have to take a look, then.

Your mileage may vary, but I think they're both excellent. Really looking forward to the Mockingjay two parter now. So far beyond any of the other YA novel-movies.

Catching Fire started pretty slow and boring actually, but the movie gets a whole shitton better and stays that way throughout the rest of its running time.

Also, the same day I saw Catching Fire I saw Frozen. Go see Frozen, even if you aren't that big on Disney. It's the best movie they've done since The Lion King. Everything about it is right on the money, and I cannot recommend it enough.

Failsafeman: yesssss, Upstream Colour was amazing. I really don't know of any similar movies. It doesn't remind me of Malick at all. Maybe I've seen the wrong ones, but Tree of Life was tremendously boring, and The Thin Red Line was the most tedious war movie I've ever seen.
Anyways, I'd say I enjoyed Upstream Colour more than Primer, and I can't wait to see what the director does next.

To Live - 1994

To Live covers up the lives of the Chinese people from the 40's until the 70's. The family the movie is all about withness loss, war and other struggles they have to cope with. The movie is pretty long (2,5 hours to be exact) but never drags. I felt that the movie was well done: rarely it feels like it drags and even though most of the scenes are rather sad there are some well placed funnier/upbeat ones that never appear totally random or come off akward. The background music also fits perfectly and goes well with the right scenes. Definitely recommended.