I just finished watching Zero Dark Thirty. I liked it and was definitely interested enough to keep watching it to the end. But I didn't feel that much for the characters if I compare it to the Hurt Locker.
Up next is maybe Silver Linings or Coriolanus. I'm not really sure what to expect from Coriolanus otherwise I probably would have seen it a long time ago.

Man with the iron fists- 5/10 Too goofy, horrible cgi, and the music was way out of place. The action was good though.

Thief: Watched this on a lazy Friday based on failsafeman's good word a while ago. It was an alright movie. As a Mann crime movie, it doesn't touch Heat and it's got the excrutiating slow pace of old movies of the sort like Carlito's Way. It's basically a two hour character study more than any kind of action film. That said, it has some interesting themes, James Caan is badass, and the ending doesn't disappoint.

Caddyshack: Apparently I had no authority on comedies because I hadn't seen this. What to say? It was pretty funny. Not gut busting, but consistently amusing. The dialogue is rapid fire and you can tell there was lots of improvisation so I suspect it's the type of thing that gets better on repeat viewings. I didn't like Bill Murray in this. I can sort of see the appeal but his character is just pure trolling, 80's style. The dancing gopher is priceless, I'll give it that. But one of the top comedies of all time? As of right now, agree to disagree.

Hatchet : Man, this movie is retarded. It aims to be nothing else though, just a loving tribute to slasher flicks. The killer looks like a mongoloid hybrid of the Toxic Avenger and Jason Voorhees without his mask. Dumb yet strangely memorable characters exchange sometimes funny dialogue and get picked off one by one, then it ends with a very original Friday the 13th moment. It's just executed so lovingly, with almost amateur filming and fun to be had.
Edit: my main gripe is that the killer doesn't look original or all that cool. Even Cropsy from The Burning (who looked almost the same, 20 years earlier) looked cooler. Hatchet 2 is more of the same except it takes more than half it's running time to really get going and there's some leaps of logic. ( Crowley can rip a dudes insides out with his bare hands but I'm supposed to believe some fat dude can fist fight him for 5 minutes? Ok movie.)

Did you think the film surreptitiously slipped in some U.S. foreign policy propaganda or that the producers misrepresented the facts that information used was gained from the tortures and all that controversy that has come about?

I'm assuming you mean the waterboarding aspect? I haven't seen it yet, but I was under the impression that the going theory is that the CIA's primary contact(s) for the film misrepresented their side of the story to the filmmakers. I thought I heard that Senator McCain had voiced that concern (he's like the only Republican on the Senate side of Capitol Hill who's willing to openly oppose the practice).

Anyway, it's a pretty amusing turn of events given that a year ago they delayed the release by a few months in order to avoid the impression (which seemed obvious at the time) that the film was deliberately being released in October to boost Obama's election prospects. Now it's apparently some sort of Bush apologist piece.









The last film I saw was the Hobbit. It was a bit worse than I expected (I expected a disappointment), though another viewing might help. I don't really think much of the fault lays with Jackson & Co., the base material is just weaker than the Lord of the Rings. Their effort to try to make a children's book seem more adult was laudable, and my least favorite parts were when they swung the other way (giant fat man landing on a bunch of dwarves, anyone?). I also thought the cheesy parts were much cheesier than they needed to be, almost like a parody.

As expected, I liked the music. I'd have to see/listen again to see if I really love it like I did the LOTR trilogy, but it was very fitting either way. I sort of wish Howard had come up with a different, more distinct Hobbit theme, as while nice it felt a little too familiar. But good nonetheless. And what seems to be the main theme for this movie (the one from the first trailer) was actually really good.

Just saw Warm Bodies. I actually liked it quite a bit. I'm surprised.

Not to many out there that accomplish this. Have you ever seen the original Omen? Along those same lines. How about The Sentinel? Rosemary's baby is tough to match the directors use of colors and environment, to create that environment.

Rosemary's Baby is the best satanic horror film ever. So much better than The Omen it's not even funny.

Watched three movies last night with my friends; Project X, Dredd, and Grave Encounters 2. A short description of the them:

1) Project X was really stupid and rather boring at the beginning, as it was basically a bunch of American teenagers trying to throw the party of their lives. The thing is..... They succeeded. They succeeded too well, in fact. Can you imagine a party escaling into a full blown riot consisting of a couple thousand teenagers high on ecstasy? Yeah. You also get to really laugh your ass off in more than a couple of scenes, mostly because of how absurd the situation becomes with every passing scene (really, at some points, you'd expect a modern day Caligula to pop up). Not my type of movie really, but it gave me a bit of a surprise. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't a teenager though. That is, unless you enjoy poking fun at the stupidity (really, these people are stupid) of most people between the ages of 13 and 18-20 (which I do).

2) Dredd was badass. They really captured the essence of the comics (Dredd never takes his helmet, for instance) and the portrayals of both Judge Dredd and his psychic companion Anderson were spot on. And the violence, man! It's a really fucking violent movie, but it only enhances the action. Plus, it's been a long time since I saw an action movie which used slow-mo sequences so effectively. I was expecting a cool film, yes, but this certainly exceeded my expectations. Not much more to say other than the fact that the "dystopian Die Hard" label that's been thrown around this thread to describe it really does it justice, though there's quite a bit more than that to it.

3) Grave Encounters 2..... Yeah, not nearly as good as its predecessor. The previous movie relied a lot on the uncertainty of the situation, as you only get a bit of a hint of why the supernatural activities of the building take place at the end of the film. Here they reveal a bit too much of how the place works, and it looses a lot of its charm because of that. Couple that with some ridiculous acting, less easy-to-root-for characters, and a less effective use of CGI than in the prequel and you get..... Crap. Not recommended.

Pretty much this. I thought The Omen was terrible.

Finally saw the trailer for the Evil Dead remake last night, and... it looks ok. It also looks like my fear will be true: they'll be so concerned with the gore that they'll lose the other things that made the original so enjoyable, like the mood and atmosphere. The original was a very surreal movie, and its low-budget campiness added to that. It was also quite creepy, especially considering the humorousness that those movies are known for. The remake looks like it'll be a decently solid, modern, slick horror movie, and slickness is not something I want within 12 parsecs of my Evil Dead.

I'll grant you that I'm only saying this based on a single trailer, so hopefully the movie proves me completely wrong. The director and star of the original are, after all, on board with this movie, so I doubt that it will be bad. I'm more concerned that it will be disposable. But hell, I'll have fun with it either way, I'm sure.

I've seen The Omen, ACM. It's an okay movie. I've yet to see the Sentinel though, I always put it off.

Speaking of Rosemary's Baby, I can't believe the famous 'Hail Satan!' scene at the end hasn't been sampled by a metal band. Seriously, it must have been and I don't know about it. It's the most obvious metal sample I've ever come across.

Well, you pretty much said it. I wouldn't be concerned if I were you considering both Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell are involved. I'm actually confident this won't blow. It's marketed (more so than any other recent film) as being very scary, so that's a plus. We'll see.

Dredd was pretty boss. Not the savior of all action movies, but good. Permascowls and stylish action par excellence.

Just saw Bullet To The Head and wished thats what happened to me while watching it. What a waste of time. Stupid predictable plot, shitty shot action sequences and some idiot right behind me telling the theater "ooh that would hurt" everytime someone took a bullet in the face.

70's movies and shit.

Death Wish: Pretty cool movie. Nothing I would re-watch but Charles Bronson is a menacing dude and it's a good time killer to watch him waste random muggers. Then again, it feels underdeveloped, and some of the twists ask me to suspend my disbelief a little bit too much for a ''realistic'' movie. It certainly does look gorgeous though, with vibrant colours and none of that colour muting that modern films of this type tend to have.

The Warriors: Hailed as a cult hit, I can sort of see why. Even though it didn't personally get me hard. The music is ace, the characters are stereotypical, and the villain is easy to hate and over the top. cool fights, dialogue oozing with style, still somehow kind of boring.

Escape From Alcatraz: The prison is oppressive, with lots of tight, claustrophobic shots, small cells, and constant prisoner counts. No one has ever escaped. This is the best of the three. Actual emotional involvement happens. The warden is a massive dick, Shawshank Redemption style, the secondary characters are interesting (I feel bad that English couldn't make it out, he's a really great character) and Clint Eastwood plays Clint Eastwood. It's a movie filled with clever camera shots and music, all enhancing the palpable, building tension. Eastwood quietly plots with intensity, observing his options. Really a fun watch.

BODACIOUS MEATBALLS OF FURY, WHY HAS TIM BURTON NOT YET MADE THE THIEF OF ALWAYS INTO A MOVIE???!!!!!!!?!?!!?!?!?

Have you seen Bronson, with Tom Hardy, Necro?

That movie rules!

I didn't like it. I don't even know if it fails at what it was trying to be cause I can't fathom what it was trying to be. Pretty sure I outlined my thoughts on it earlier in this thread but to sum it up "It's just Tom Hardy yelling and beating people up with zero plot progression. An utterly pointless movie."

Yeah, we had a big debate about that movie a few weeks ago or so. It was an awful film. It was just...ugh, just so insipid and idiotic. Pretty much everything it was doing was summed up in the first couple of scenes and after that it was pretty much the cinematic equivalent of white noise. Just unwatchable garbage. It was about nothing! One of the rare movies I could point to and say, "there was no story," and it wouldn't be an exaggeration.

Well, I just saw Django Unchained a couple hours ago and I have to say Leonardo DiCaprio was absolutely spectacular. He was a real scene stealer in this film. I think that was definitely the best performance he has ever given, but I'm sure the fact that the character was well-written and complex really helped him along though. Still, he really drew all the attention from the room to him and his character only got better and better as the film went on and you got to understand and learn about him. How Leonardo DiCapro did not get an Oscar nomination for that performance is beyond me.

Christoph Waltz played his character very well no doubt, but he didn't have the same charisma and power that he did in Inglourious Basterds.

My other favorite character was Samuel L. Jackson's Stephen. Damn was he a truly old hateable bastard. Which means his performance was also superb. I actually thought the two main antagonists were the best characters in this entire film by FAR. Maybe Quentin Tarantino is just better at writing villains.... it certainly seems like it.

Anyway, I thought the film was solid, but it dragged at the end. I think the film was about 30 minutes too long and should have ended when Christoph's character did.... what he did. I'd give it a 7.5/10, extra points given for Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson's performances (Christoph's as well). Also, the action scenes were generally pretty cool and sometimes a bit shocking.

But I agree, mostly. Refn's earlier Pusher trilogy, as well as his 1999 entry, Bleeder, are pretty damn awesome movies, though. I found Drive insanely, almost suspiciously overrated, but it was still generally more agreeable than either Bronson or the even more annoying Fear X. Never did actually watch Valhalla Rising; didn't really look like anything I'd enjoy.

Whoa, Refn did Valhalla Rising? Didn't even realize. I thought it was alright. I think if you don't go into it expecting anything specific it might offer some pleasurable surprises. It had some awesome cinematography/imagery, and the atmosphere it generated was pretty intense for the most part. The writing was also blessedly understated. For a film that could've been a titanic failure, I thought it was actually pretty worthwhile. Definitely worth checking out, I'd say, even if it's not a masterpiece.

Pusher was also surprisingly good. I didn't expect a whole lot during the first half hour or so, but as it developed I got drawn further into the desperation of the scenario and the more poignant aspects started to shine through. The end left me disarmingly empty inside, but in a contemplative, divided way, not at all numbly. Pretty interesting stuff. I keep meaning to get around to the other two but then get sidetracked.

I remember coming across Valhalla Rising while randomly zapping through channels not too long ago. And I also remember the violence as being..... Strangely unsettling. I mean, I like gore as much as the next guy, but for whatever reason, I found the part where the protagonist (fear not spoilers, as this happens pretty much at the start of the film) impales his captor's decapitated head on a pole rather revolting.

First time I ever heard that line, it was as a sample in a song (though not metal).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKjC34o2vy4

Charles Bronson's "Obligatory Jock Slaughter Song"

Cabin in The Woods is just amazing. This is the horror movie to end all horror movies. Sam Raimi needs a lot to push for the next Evil Dead or else it will loose to what has already improved and fixed an old wheel. Those who love horror movies, this for you to see. It's a conspiracy movie, mixed with comedy and homages to every known monster on the planet. Forget about Edgar Wright's Shaun of The Dead. This is the great horrormedy.

Nah Shaun of the Dead is better.

Also, Bronson was made by Nicholas Refn? Loved Drive but Fear X, which I picked up randomly at a video store years ago, was almost as bad as Bronson...apparently Refn has some consistency issues.

“Having never played a villain before, DiCaprio relishes in the opportunity, spewing fire and brimstone,” Stern said of his performance in “Django.” “His phrenology speech delivered towards the end of the film—while wielding a hammer—got so intense that he accidentally split his hand open while giving it, and that’s the cut that was used in the film.”

From the Huffington Post.

Wow! I noticed that his hand was bleeding in that scene quite a lot and I thought it was just apart of the film for extra effect. I had no idea that he accidentally cut himself while filming. That scene was really damn intense. He truly was giving his BLOOD, sweat and tears into this role. He acted like nothing happened and just kept on with the scene. Amazing.... he really did get shunned pretty damn badly for this performance.

Yeah, poor poor immensely underrated Leonardo DiCaprio .

Awe well. At least it's not a Christian Bale circle jerk this time around...

LD is a fucking boss, and you know it.

I don't think he is underrated really. Perhaps a tad, although the point is that the best performances should be nominated and quite clearly and obviously they missed one here. But, it seems like they've done this a few times with Leonardo DiCaprio and other actors/directors.

Only if The Exorcist and Angel Heart don't count.

In any event, the three form a pretty awesome trilogy, highlighting different aspects.

Those are both great films, but I think Rosemary's Baby is better, even if only by a little. Nothing beats the killer pacing and atmosphere of that movie. The Exorcist was grislier and Angel Heart had the super awesome detective-Louisiana-voodoo shtick going on, but Rosemary's Baby is simply the best. Man, it's been way too long since I've seen any of these though.

The Omen is quite similar to Rosemary's Baby in terms of subject matter. Harvey Stephens as the satanic child is damn creepy and innocent at the same time. He gets creepier and creepier as all the weird things and deaths take place one by one. Rating - 4/5

Edit - I didn't quite read the previous pages before posting. I see that the comparisons are already there. Anyway, it's not as quite terrible as some of you think.

I think The Omen is great. I haven't seen it in awhile but the death scenes are still firmly etched in mind. The birthday scene at the beginning being the most shocking and memorable, it truly set the nightmarish tone for the rest of the film. Also the graveyard scene where Keith and Robert seek out Damien's mother's grave and what they find had me taken back the first time I saw it. I don't really like ranking classic horror films over others like The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby because they're all equally brilliant in their own right.

Yeah, they're good, but in different ways. Angel Heart is probably my favorite though, personally speaking. Even though the ending is a twist it doesn't come off as contrived at all, as they clearly set it up over the course of the movie, and it doesn't seem like a "gotcha" either. It just had such a bleak tone, and it left a lot to the imagination (in a good way). I loved the metaphor of the descending elevator.

Plus, you know, DeNiro as the freaking Devil!

Flight - 1.5/5

I expected a lot from this one, as it looked good and was marketed as this really serious, somber drama - I don't know who the fuck's idea that was, but they were obviously in need of a lobotomy. This is pretty much one of the most confused films I've seen lately, lurching insanely between a pained, torturous drama about a man suffering from alcohol addiction and a very goofy sort of romantic comedy involving a recovering crack addict (can you feel the love yet?). The story has really no pacing at all as it just sort of does whatever the hell it wants, with little regard to any kind of emotional build up or storytelling sense, and though it starts off well and has a few good moments here and there, this is pretty much awful, and a real headache to watch. It gets really preachy at times, too, and has nothing interesting to say beyond...drunk people shouldn't fly planes. Fascinating. Call me when you're ready to write a script that doesn't involve lawyers locking up an alcoholic in a hotel room when they're trying to get him clean, but failing to notice that they put him right next to an open room full of booze. Frankly, I need a drink after this.

Hah, that scene and the graveyard itself are fucking made of evil. Also, Jerry Goldsmith and that unforgettable score.