Rate the latest movie you've seen.

[Cavebear]

Read 'Lucifer's Hammer' by Larry Niven.  THAT is a great end of world story...

[SGOS]

Spoiler alert:

Here is a thing that bothered me a lot.  The evil doctor wants to wipe out 50% of humanity, because over population will eventually lead to man's extinction.  While that claim could be challenged, he at least articulated it as a reason for his action.  If we accept the claim, his logic does hold up.

On the other hand, the good guys don't even challenge the claim, so I'm starting to side with the evil doctor, who is actually trying to save humanity, while the heroes are busy rushing to facilitate the doom that awaits mankind because of their very actions.

There is definitely a conflict that drives the movie along, but everyone seems to proceed without actually thinking.  All the thinking done by the heroes centers around deciphering the encrypted codes in some ancient diagram of Dante's Inferno, but fuck thinking about what they are actually doing.  The only one actually thinking about what they are doing, seems to be the evil doctor.  I want to slap someone upside the head, but they are all so idiotic that I don't know who to slap first.

The movie shifts gears at the end when Tom Hanks expresses some wackadoodle affection for a minor character that doesn't play much of a role in the movie as a whole, and I'm sitting there wondering, "What the fuck does that scene have to do with anything?"  Is Ron Howard trying to insult his audience, or did he just have some Hollywood cliché just pop into his head at the last minute that he thought would add closure to what he thought should have been a romantic comedy instead of an action thriller?

[Cavebear]

Spoiler alert:

Here is a thing that bothered me a lot.  The evil doctor wants to wipe out 50% of humanity, because over population will eventually lead to man's extinction.  While that claim could be challenged, he at least articulated it as a reason for his action.  If we accept the claim, his logic does hold up.

On the other hand, the good guys don't even challenge the claim, so I'm starting to side with the evil doctor, who is actually trying to save humanity, while the heroes are busy rushing to facilitate the doom that awaits mankind because of their very actions.

There is definitely a conflict that drives the movie along, but everyone seems to proceed without actually thinking.  All the thinking done by the heroes centers around deciphering the encrypted codes in some ancient diagram of Dante's Inferno, but fuck thinking about what they are actually doing.  The only one actually thinking about what they are doing, seems to be the evil doctor.  I want to slap someone upside the head, but they are all so idiotic that I don't know who to slap first.

The movie shifts gears at the end when Tom Hanks expresses some wackadoodle affection for a minor character that doesn't play much of a role in the movie as a whole, and I'm sitting there wondering, "What the fuck does that scene have to do with anything?"  Is Ron Howard trying to insult his audience, or did he just have some Hollywood cliché just pop into his head at the last minute that he thought would add closure to what he thought should have been a romantic comedy instead of an action thriller?

Dumb movies have dumber finales...

[Munch]

This is why I've always liked ra's al ghul in the batman comics and the animated series (not the movies) as a character, because despite whatever batman claims him as being, Ra's wants save the earth, from mankinds overpopulation and fucking up the planet. Its such an interesting take on a character who is a villain, but also one you can understand fully why he wants to wipe out half the planet.

[SGOS]

This is why I've always liked ra's al ghul in the batman comics and the animated series (not the movies) as a character, because despite whatever batman claims him as being, Ra's wants save the earth, from mankinds overpopulation and fucking up the planet. Its such an interesting take on a character who is a villain, but also one you can understand fully why he wants to wipe out half the planet.

I never followed those kinds of comics.  I would read them at a friend's house, but that was many years ago.  If Raj al ghul appeared  in one, I wouldn't have recognized him as a regular.  I remember Batman as cooler than Superman, but I don't remember an array of colorful superheroes back then, either.  Except for one called Plastic Man, who could squeeze through keyholes and things like that.

[Munch]

I never followed those kinds of comics.  I would read them at a friend's house, but that was many years ago.  If Raj al ghul appeared  in one, I wouldn't have recognized him as a regular.  I remember Batman as cooler than Superman, but I don't remember an array of colorful superheroes back then, either.  Except for one called Plastic Man, who could squeeze through keyholes and things like that.

honestly, batman the animated series is one of the best animated super hero cartoons they ever wrote, if you can find it online, watch it. you can get episodes over here http://kisscartoon.me/Cartoon/Batman-The-Animated-Series

[trdsf]

Rocky Horror Picture Show, hosted by Fritz the Nite Owl (local late night movie host).  An unusually subdued audience, oddly enough.

[SGOS]

Rocky Horror Picture Show, hosted by Fritz the Nite Owl (local late night movie host).  An unusually subdued audience, oddly enough.

Did everyone have their spray bottles and costumes?  I always thought one of those midnight showings would be fun.  Although I didn't get into the movie itself.  It's cult status and fan participation is phenomenal, however.

[SGOS]

Rocky Horror is the first and only true audience partici-(SAY IT!)-pation movie. People yell back lines at the screen during the extended pauses between dialogue, dress up in costume and act out the film, and throw props various times during the film. The audience participation phenomenon was observed as early as the film's first run in 1975 (when it bombed during limited engagements in 7 of 8 cities), and was later re-released as a midnight movie where the audience participation really began to flourish.

But hey, what about the props and audience participation lines and dressing up in costume? Well, no one expects you to know much of anything your first time out. While audience participation is mandatory to keep the show alive, it is not mandatory that everyone participate, every time. Virgins are not expected to know a damn thing (just like in sex.)

If you really want to bring props, check with your local theater and ask what props are not allowed. The safest ones to bring are rice (banned at some, but not most theaters), toast (unbuttered), toilet paper and a deck of cards. A newspaper may help keep you from getting wet, but water is banned at many theaters. Watch everyone else to figure out when to throw these items. A prop list is available on this website.

Oh, and if you need to know one AP line, there is one that is almost universal to every theater, that you can use multiple times. Whenever you hear the name "Brad Majors", yell "ASSHOLE", okay? An important note here: AP is NOT fixed from theater to theater and night to night. If you feel an new line coming on, YELL IT! A big part of keeping the show fresh is creating new lines with topical humor.

[Mr.Obvious]

"De Premier" by Erik van Looy.

A belgian movie. The prime minister (De Premier) is kidnapped, along with his wife and kids and tasked with assassinating the president of the United States, lest his family be killed. What ensues is a desperate attempt to escape this predicament as he's guided evermore to the meeting in which the deed must be done.

While the story and the reasoning behind the assassination is a bit bland, the acting is well done and makes up for most of that. You believe the characters, with maybe the exception of the big bad of the story, though he's just not given much to work with and still manages to put down a more than acceptable performance. Not a very colorful film, but seeing as it's a suspensfull action flick, I guess, it works. (Also very Belgian style to portray everything in gray, black and other dark colors.) It's pacing was also quite good. But what I really, really enjoyed about this flick, was it's rather realistic violence. Definitely not too much, and barely enough to call it an action flick. I'm guessing it might be closer to a thriller, but it's not really that either. It's a constant suspense. And it keeps it up well.

8.5/10

[aitm]

Independance Day part douche.  Someone thought they could make a couple bucks by making a pretty crappy re-make. Luckily the kid downloaded in and we tethered to the big TV so it didn't cost me anyhthing....meh.....2/10

[Cavebear]

Independance Day part douche.  Someone thought they could make a couple bucks by making a pretty crappy re-make. Luckily the kid downloaded in and we tethered to the big TV so it didn't cost me anyhthing....meh.....2/10

I did like Independence Day.  The initial destruction was impressive and the aliens were OK.

I Like Battleship and re-watch it when it comes on.  The Indestructables is good.  Dash running on water always cracks me up. 

[Baruch]

I did like Independence Day.  The initial destruction was impressive and the aliens were OK.

I Like Battleship and re-watch it when it comes on.  The Indestructables is good.  Dash running on water always cracks me up.

Incredibles!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5v2qBBD-gE

[Munch]

The conjuring 2

I saw the original conjuring, and really liked it, james wan is a good director and can make for some fun roller-coaster style horror movies. The original is infact one of my top 10 fav horror movies ever.
The acting is good in it, it had the vide of it being an american made movie shooting its take on britain, but it came off well for that, the setting of enfield made it feel like a street I could be walking down any day.
The special effects were good too, something I like about Wans directing is he doesn't rely on cgi unless he really has to, and that makes everything feel much more attached and creepy like when characters movie about, its more grounded.

Now the controversy around this, and by extension the original conjuring. As an atheist, I should hate these movies, they are 'based on true life stories' that happened of hauntings. Before I became an atheist I use to believe in ghost stories a lot, and so by extent believed in ghost files from paranormal investigators, such as ed and Lorraine warren that these movies are based around. Now over the years just like with religion and belief fox will give back the x-men rights to marvel, you stop believing in this stuff and see it as people in the real world making up stories and shit.

However, I realized like from the first movie, that it doesn't actually matter what i believe in, thats not what makes movies like these enjoyable. Just like in movies like insidious, sinister, x-men, lord of the rings, starwars, they are all fantasies set in their own world there in those worlds, whats happening is really happening to the movie characters and environments.
Its like when they make movies of jack the ripper, and make up a bunch of characters and events around it that didn't happen, or make a zombie version of Jane Eyre, as long as the story can pull you in, isn't preachy, and flows well, then it doesn't matter if it was based on true events. The real truth is the warrens weren't even involved in the enfield story, they were their for like a day and then left. But in the movie world, ed and lorraine warren are like superheroes fighting off demons and spirts like something out of buffy the vampire slayer, and that makes the movies so enjoyable, the escapism.

So, given that, ignoring the 'based on true events' thing they write in, and just looking at the movie itself, I give it a 7.5 to 8 out of 10, I like james wans directing, I like the cast, the setting, and even the mythos around it, despite it being biblical. Even the feel of the characters and the emotions on display felt genuine, probably more genuine then what happened in real life.

Also, the movie annabelle is terrible.

[SGOS]

The conjuring 2

I saw the original conjuring, and really liked it, james wan is a good director and can make for some fun roller-coaster style horror movies. The original is infact one of my top 10 fav horror movies ever.
The acting is good in it, it had the vide of it being an american made movie shooting its take on britain, but it came off well for that, the setting of enfield made it feel like a street I could be walking down any day.
The special effects were good too, something I like about Wans directing is he doesn't rely on cgi unless he really has to, and that makes everything feel much more attached and creepy like when characters movie about, its more grounded.

Now the controversy around this, and by extension the original conjuring. As an atheist, I should hate these movies, they are 'based on true life stories' that happened of hauntings. Before I became an atheist I use to believe in ghost stories a lot, and so by extent believed in ghost files from paranormal investigators, such as ed and Lorraine warren that these movies are based around. Now over the years just like with religion and belief fox will give back the x-men rights to marvel, you stop believing in this stuff and see it as people in the real world making up stories and shit.

However, I realized like from the first movie, that it doesn't actually matter what i believe in, thats not what makes movies like these enjoyable. Just like in movies like insidious, sinister, x-men, lord of the rings, starwars, they are all fantasies set in their own world there in those worlds, whats happening is really happening to the movie characters and environments.
Its like when they make movies of jack the ripper, and make up a bunch of characters and events around it that didn't happen, or make a zombie version of Jane Eyre, as long as the story can pull you in, isn't preachy, and flows well, then it doesn't matter if it was based on true events. The real truth is the warrens weren't even involved in the enfield story, they were their for like a day and then left. But in the movie world, ed and lorraine warren are like superheroes fighting off demons and spirts like something out of buffy the vampire slayer, and that makes the movies so enjoyable, the escapism.

So, given that, ignoring the 'based on true events' thing they write in, and just looking at the movie itself, I give it a 7.5 to 8 out of 10, I like james wans directing, I like the cast, the setting, and even the mythos around it, despite it being biblical. Even the feel of the characters and the emotions on display felt genuine, probably more genuine then what happened in real life.

Also, the movie annabelle is terrible.

Ouija  7/10.

I just saw Ouija at the theater.  I'm not into these sorts of films, but I enjoyed it.  The jump scares made me chuckle, rather than jump.  However, it's actually a good plot, far better than most of this genre.  You might like it.

One thing that tickled me was that the movie was set in the 1950s, and as a added device, which may go unnoticed by the younger crowd, every 15 minutes or so, in the upper right hand corner of the screen they would flash those old time circles (those things that most people assume were flaws in the film), but were there to warn the projectionist to get ready to start the next reel.  It was like watching a 1950s movie that required 4 or 5 reels of film.  I was taken by that little addition to a digital film.

At the end, they kind of abandon the plot line in favor of a blitz of jump scares, but that was OK, since they fit the plot.  I figure they were obligated to do that since it's a horror type film.