Yeah, that's pretty much the reason I was asking haha. Gotta be sure before making such an investment!

Bela Tarr is great and all, but you can just watch Carl Theodor Dreyer movies instead, because that's all he really wants to be.

You and me both. Be it French, Chinese or Russian, when they're dubbed I find them totally unwatchable. The voice actors they usually get give it a 'totally bogus' cartoon/anime feeling that just seems unnatural and at times laughable. Reading a few words at the bottom of the screen is hardly a chore.

Dubbing is only acceptable in Godzilla or Jackie Chan films, both already having a campy charm.

I'm putting in a formal request for Empyreal to, if he hasn't done it yet, review All the Boys Love Mandy Lane. The movie is shot well enough (although whenever it's an outdoor day shot the auto white balance starts going crazy, especially during the climax), but Jesus Christ is the story shitty. In the first 15 minutes you already know who the killer is gonna be, and by the halfway mark, if that, you know what the ever so shocking plot twists are gonna be.

1. I did that two weeks ago.
2. It's good actually, you missed the point. Definitely one of the better slashers out there today.

I'll have to check it out. I love slashers, even the crappy ones.

Yeah man, if you love slashers it's a solid one for sure. It's pretty much a modern take on the classic style. It doesn't do any shitty new gimmicks like torture garbage or shaky cams, so that's nice - sad that that's now a positive thing to mention, though.

Yeah, the movie is shot very well. It has a very grainy look to it, and it's obviously film stock rather than digital cameras. The only issue with the look I had was, as mentioned, the auto white balance going haywire at times. I just didn't like the story, even if it was "the point" to know everything that's gonna happen later on in the first 20 minutes.

Well, yeah - I mean I get it if you don't like how the story unfolded. I found it, along with Teeth, a really great feminist message for a horror film. It takes the message and then makes it an over the top gore-fest - the traditional horror movie way of doing things. Like Jonathan Levine's other films, it's very witty and clever.

Teeth I actually liked quite a bit. I found it darkly hilarious at times, and it weaved the horror and comedy elements together quite nicely. It certainly did the horror/comedy thing better than something like Last House on the Left where it switches from the horror scenes to the comedy scenes seemingly at random and without warning.

Nah, I wanted people to read it whether they wanted to or not.

Whoa crap, I only just heard of The Hunt today, but a new Danish film starring Mads Mikkelsen has me sold from the get-go. I haven't seen hardly any of Thomas Vinterberg's films, but Festen is one of my all-time favorites, so that's a plus as well.

Anyone happen to see any of the other Oscar-nominated foreign films from this year?

The Hunt is good, you might like it - very dark, dreary sort of drama with a lot of subtlety and symbolism in it. I thought it could have used a little more resolution to it all besides "pedophilia is bad" but the great characters and acting really sold it. It created a real 'small town' mood and sort of played out a worst case scenario of what would happen in that situation.

So I guess you haven't been watching many Metallica music videos lately?

Not in almost two decades, in fact.

Just watched it last night and I'm not sure what would make you say this. I thought there was obviously more going on there than just "pedophilia is bad," in the themes or the resolution (or...lack thereof...?). "Pedophilia is bad" never seemed to even be a key message of The Hunt, let alone the sole one. Pretty nice film, in any case.

I worded that pretty badly. From an artistic standpoint, I liked that it just sort of didn't have a resolution for the whole conflict - the main guy will always feel hunted and on edge in the back of his mind now, as exemplified by the last scene in the woods. He and everyone else just kind of moved past the whole thing naturally, but it still stayed with him anyway. It was just my own personal desire to see something else happen that showed him coming out of that darkness and overcoming it. But that wasn't the point of the story overall.

So just watched Killing Season and what a stupid waste of what could have been a good concept. The set/scenery for the movie was very well done. Travolta physically somewhat pulled it off, but couldn't do an Eastern European accent to save his life. It was interesting when the "hunt" began, but the back and forth soon became ludicrous and completely unbelievable. The premise behind the movie (at least initially) had potential, but man did they do everything in their power to stop that potential from being realized.


Nebraska was pretty enjoyable, though.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - This was pretty good, though at times it felt like a rehash of the original. One major difference I noticed is that in the first movie, they kept reinforcing the point that there were cameras everywhere in the battlefield, so the average people in the Districts could watch the Games as they were happening. In the sequel, there are plenty of scenes of Donald Sutherland and Philip Seymour Hoffman (RIP) monitoring things, but I can't recall if the movie ever really made clear that Joe Six Pack was watching as well. Were the ordinary people too busy rebelling?

Minor nitpick aside, the movie was solid, didn't severely drag the way some 2- to 2.5-hour movies do, and I'll admit the ending surprised me a bit. I'm somewhat looking forward to Mockingjay to see what happens with the rebellion and all, but I don't really care about the love triangle. Hopefully that doesn't eat up too much of the running time.

Pretty much, yeah - there were still people watching though, it just didn't show it in the movie so much.

Right now I'm watching The Roommate from 2011. It's got a 4% on Rotten Tomatoes, but it's honestly not 4% bad. It's just really generic and not suspenseful at all, and it desperately wants to be a thriller from the early-2000s. The acting's mostly uninspired save Leighton Meester as the villain (most of the time) and Billy Zane in the few scenes he's in, and there's an overall feeling of blandness and "I've seen so many other movies do this same idea much better" coming from it.

So, You're Next was a great little slasher, y'all. Check it out.

Really?

Yeah, really. Inventive, unpredictable, well filmed, slipshod character development, great soundtrack, break-neck pacing and terrible dialog. 5/7 ain't bad for this sort of thing.

I found it completely unwatchable. I couldn't even finish it in one go, and only did to confirm it was the worst movie of 2013 - which was never challenged by the time I got done with it the next day. Horrible, horrible fucking movie. You seem to have been using a different set of standards than I did though, so eh.

Yeah, I hated it too, especially since horror sites were giving it great reviews. I dont usually take movies that seriously, but the characters were morons. Actually dumber than The Purge.

Just watched Gravity and it felt like nothing more than eye candy, a blu ray 3d demo.

You mean, aside from the myriad parts where people weren't dumb, right? I felt its approach to a Strong Female Character was infinitely better than anything dreamt up by Dross Whedon, and its subversion of horror tropes or whatever kicked the teeth in of self-indulgent garbage like Cabin in the Woods. But that's just me.

Also realize the film was made for about the cost of a night on the town in L.A.

It didn't completely ape every horror cliche out there like other modern films do, but that didn't redeem it for me. Plus the whole plot thread where



was about as cliche as anything I've seen in horror the last 10 years or so. That just about made up for the lack of some other cliches in the film - just hackneyed bullshit.

Today's question: is Eva Green worth the ticket price of the new 300?

The non-spoiler reviews I've been reading for it have been saying she's absurdly great in it, so maybe. I enjoyed the hell out of the first 300, and I was planning on seeing it this weekend before issues beyond my control made me change theaters and movies (by the way, The Lego Movie's insanely good and you all need to see it). I'm still gonna see it anyway, but yeah, Eva Green's apparently really good in it.

Nope. I wouldn't waste my money seeing it at the cinemas.

The first worked so well because '300' by Frank Miller was made well in advance and Zack Snyder was faithful to the source material and had a genuine passion for it. The second story Xerxes hasn't even been released and by everything I've read it's obvious the script or lack thereof was a rushed job. Snyder's involvement is a very basic outline. The director Noam Murro did one other movie beforehand that's some quirky comedy with Ellen Page. The title of the movie was changed early on without a moments hesitation from Xerxes to 300: Rise of an Empire, because audiences wouldn't ever know it's a new '300' movie, not to mention it's been in release limbo for years.

I think the whole theater groaned when . I dont remember much else, except for when my friend was whispering . I was thinking 'seriously?', considering how dumb it was.

Not sure what the cost has to do with anything, since most modern horror movies cost between 1-5 million(must be some really good bonus's for Paranormal Activity).

Hahaha. I worked for the producer for several months before the sequel was shot. Most of what you said here is patently wrong. Feel free to see the film and enjoy it, along with all the other fans of the original.

Watched 12 Years a Slave. Very poignant film, and quite hard to watch, but also beautiful. I still have to gather my thoughts about the whole thing, but there's no arguing that the movie deserves the praise it has received.

Also, if you thought that DiCaprio as Calvin Candie was easy to hate (which he was), then you're yet to see Fassbender's Edwin Epps. Vicious, disgusting motherfucker.

There's only 2 points out of 6 six points I could possibly be wrong about, that's hardly 'most'. I of course don't have inside knowledge to gloat about like you but I'd rather make a informed decision than simply march off to the cinema like a sheep because it features an attractive actress.

I'm not marching anywhere like a sheep and I could care less what female leads were cast. I'm glad the people I worked for created a successful sequel, doing 11% better business than the original. The movie is everything a fan of the original would want. Opening weekend numbers are proving this. Otherwise, this would've been another Pompeii or that earlier god awful Hercules thing from Millennium Films.

Zack Snyder's Superman commitments prevented his involvement as director. The Xerxes title was never meant to stick and the film had several 300: (subtitle) options...before it went forward. The release date moved from August to March because of the same reason most movies' schedules get moved - it made better business sense. The original also came out in March.

There is no conspiracy here to swindle 300 fans by making shitty retread. That would ruin the reputations of all involved. Christ, that is EVERYTHING in Hollywood.

But I digress. Go see something else.

Prince of Darkness - Time for another one of my John Carpenter rants!

This one is about a green liquid tornado in a glass tube that apparently signals the coming of the Antichrist. A priest and a bunch of scientists investigate, while the movie skillfully builds tension by showing us shots of ants. And bugs. And strange people standing around outdoors. At one point I said to myself "One of the main characters is going to get an unexplained nosebleed to show what grave danger they're all in," and I was close: she got an unexplained bruise on her arm.

Speaking of characters, there were too many of them, or else they just didn't make an impression on me so they all felt interchangeable. When somebody got possessed or killed, I didn't care. Since most of the characters were scientists, the dialogue included references to Schrodinger's cat, antimatter and faster-than-light travel. But thinking back, I'm not sure how much differently the story would have played out if all the scientists were just regular people. I suppose the translator did something directly related to her area of expertise, but maybe that was the point? That the movie is taking the "faith" side in the science-vs.-faith argument? These brilliant physicists can't outwit the Prince of Darkness? Whatever.

If you want to watch a John Carpenter movie about a group of people living together and dealing with a threat they can't fully understand, stick with The Thing.

Non-Stop: Pretty entertaining plane movie with Liam Neeson at his best and a villain that is super duper obvious for the entire movie, with sly looks and a sinister air aplenty. There isn't really much to say, you already know if it's your idea of a good time. The villain's motivation was completely retarded though.

Need for Speed - 3.75/5

Tons of fun. The plot is pretty full of holes and ridiculous moments, but the movie jettisons along at break-neck speeds. The action is fast and furious and there are some really cool scenes. Aaron Paul proves his worth - he carries this movie even though the writing really isn't special. But he makes it special, and really delivers a standout performance. I liked the lead girl too, but a couple of the other characters - including the villain - were a bit vanilla. It's dumb and insane, but fun.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2009) - 1/5

With gross misinterpretations of how a court trial would work, cliche characters and a lack of caring about any kind of real depth or nuance, this is a dreadful film that I'm pretty sure is part of the problem with movies today. With other piles of shit like The Call and Law Abiding Citizen, this is a woeful experience, turning what could be compelling drama into absolute shlock nonsense. Movies like this make people dumber. I was actually pissed off when I finished watching this. Skip it.