Saw The Help with family, Doctor Zhivago, and Night of the Hunter.
The Help was good, but I have a feeling ladyfriends will enjoy this more than I did. Doctor Zhivago was long, oh god, and it was just ok. The sets were really good, acting was good, but it was just kind of a boring movie overall. Night of the Hunter was tense as hell, really well-done movie for how early it was made. Some of the acting is p bad though.
Drive was really fucking good.
the fifties version of 12 angry men was really good.
(10-11-2011, 10:30 AM)Squishy link Wrote: [ -> ]avengers trailer is out
Trailer is actually pretty bland but YES YES YES YES YES
Watched Restrepo...not really sure what to think right now.
(10-09-2011, 04:13 PM)spm201 link Wrote: [ -> ][quote author=matter11 link=topic=947.msg226203#msg226203 date=1318194088]
the fifties version of 12 angry men was really good.
THIS
[/quote]
I did that for reals, now I guess I need to see the movie
(10-15-2011, 10:30 AM)geoff link Wrote: [ -> ]the thing was bad
Aw, I really liked the original one :'(
(10-15-2011, 12:00 PM)rumsfald link Wrote: [ -> ]there was no need to remake The Thing. Carpenter's version was brilliant.
THE THING film analysis (update) "Was Childs infected?" part 1/2
I actually learned that Rottentomatoes has unimpressive reviews on it, with only 78% liking it, and only 1 out of 5 top critics enjoyed it. Crazy considering how it's widely considered a classic.
(10-15-2011, 03:59 PM)Karth link Wrote: [ -> ][quote author=rumsfald link=topic=947.msg226940#msg226940 date=1318698051]
there was no need to remake The Thing. Carpenter's version was brilliant.
THE THING film analysis (update) "Was Childs infected?" part 1/2
I actually learned that Rottentomatoes has unimpressive reviews on it, with only 78% liking it, and only 1 out of 5 top critics enjoyed it. Crazy considering how it's widely considered a classic.
[/quote]because 78% of people liking something is somehow unimpressive, even though the majority of people who watched it and left a rottentomatoes rating liked it.
Because user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are the snobbish cinema feedback you can get ("It's good, but toos hollygoody for me, needed more ANGST")
And critics are dicks
(10-15-2011, 07:02 PM)Squishy link Wrote: [ -> ][quote author=Karth link=topic=947.msg226978#msg226978 date=1318712368]
[quote author=rumsfald link=topic=947.msg226940#msg226940 date=1318698051]
there was no need to remake The Thing. Carpenter's version was brilliant.
THE THING film analysis (update) "Was Childs infected?" part 1/2
I actually learned that Rottentomatoes has unimpressive reviews on it, with only 78% liking it, and only 1 out of 5 top critics enjoyed it. Crazy considering how it's widely considered a classic.
[/quote]because 78% of people liking something is somehow unimpressive, even though the majority of people who watched it and left a rottentomatoes rating liked it.
[/quote]
Usually, classics have much higher ratings. Like, Lawrence of Arabia has something like 98%, Nightmare on Elm Street has 95%, Die Hard has 94%, etc. I never meant 78% is bad.
[spoiler]Plus, the percentages are usually way off or inaccurate. What you should REALLY be looking at is the average rating. And just to clarify, I love Carpenter's version of The Thing.[/spoiler]
Watched Green Lantern and thought it was okay. Â I like Ryan Reynolds, so I thought he was good for the part, but the movie neither wowed me or impressed me. Â Maybe with the sequel, they'll do better.
On the other hand for DC, Batman: Year One was good. Was the Batman Year Two comic good and would then be good to have for an animated sequel?
SO IT BEGINS
Today was the first day of Horrorween: 2 weeks of horror movies up until halloween! Our list includes Return of the Living Dead, The Fly, The Exorcist, The Thing, and more!