+1:

Plus One is cripplingly slow, as its core plot is so very simple. There are two young lovers, one is played by the gorgeous Ashley Hinshaw and the other played by the utterly terrible in every way, Rhys Wakefield. David cheats on Jill for reasons he cannot explain, they break up, but thanks to a party which is "it" this weekend the two lovers cross paths once again.The problem is, that isn't really what the film is actually about.

+ 1 is less than a hundred minutes long, so there is no excuse for how crippling slow the build up is. Pretty much the whole first thirty minutes or so of the movie could be skipped entirely without any impact on the experience, and with the dialogue and acting so awful, I wouldn't even feel bad about skipping it either. Luckily then, when the real movie starts, it gets really really good.

The actual core concept, involving two timelines placed on top of one another, isn't particularly well realised, with a whole heap of logic leaps that leave you degrading your own intelligence - why would you start killing yourself in the past? - and lots of interesting directions for the film that are suggested, but then never actually capitalised on.

But, and I guess a pretty big but, if you let yourself be stupid for a bit, the movie has so much fun with such a simple concept that it ends up being a pretty fun ride. Everything that has happened, and is going to happen, begins to change. And as the pace picks up and up, it becomes increasingly more deliberately nauseating trying to keep on top of everything that is transpiring. It's thrilling.

Even the initial houseparty set up starts to make sense (not the length of that sequence, but the choice of the setting certainly) as it gives them a space the movie can easily control, while still having more than enough to play with to have things go totally nuts. I couldn't really imagine a space that would have worked better for this movie to play out in.

Seriously though, I can't stress enough, how much Wakefield ruins the entire experience. I'm kinda hoping that he was just stoned as fuck on set, and actually isn't the kind of actor the internet turned Kristen Stewart into in their jokes because fucking Christ misery guts. He's so wooden and emotionless he borders on bored, and considering David, over the course of the film, loses the girl he loves (and murders her), has a chat with himself from the past, watches someone get shot and a whole bunch of other crazy shit, the last fucking thing he should seem is bored. I'd suggest he was in shock or something, but he was just as cold and rigid during the happy portion of his life at the start and at the end of the film. He embraces the girl he claims to love in that awkward way you do with a relative you've barely met and are supposed to care anyway. Awful.

Worst of all though is the atrocious special effects. There is no movie magic here, most of the time a person is faced with a double it's a pure greenscreened CGI affair. And this is the only point the movie is genuinely scary, because the CGI used to recreate people is so atrociously bad, the humans look more like monsters.

If you've already seen Donnie Darko and Primer, I suggest watching this. It isn't nearly as good as either of those movies, but it clearly takes huge inspiration from them, so I'm sure fans could find something to enjoy through that.

If you haven't seen Donnie Darko or Primer, what the fuck is your life?

Inside Llewyn Davis:

At its heart, Inside Llewyn Davis is a very touching tale, telling the story of a folk singer whose partner commits suicide. Even though his partner commits suicide, Llewyn Davis refuses to give up on the music and 'just exist' and sets out on a journey to make it. Sadly, the film doesn't go down the Hollywood path, and instead treads Davis into the dirt repeatedly.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but with the naturalistic stylising of the films structuring and pacing coupled with the melodramatic, almost soap opera like pessimism, the film actively stunts its own progression and as a by product, becomes kinda boring.

I mean seriously, someone out there try and justify to me, what the point of the car ride to Chicago was. Sure John Goodman and Garrett Hedlund are both great, but they leave the movie as quickly as they come, with no lasting effect on the narrative. Except their roles aren't fleeting, despite it having no wider purpose on the rest of the film, the car ride to Chicago seems to go on FOREVER.

Even when Llewyn finally makes it to Chicago, it leads to nothing and he just goes home again. I can see what the Coen's are doing here, but even the most social realist of social realism cinema still remembers they are a film, and they still have to carefully steer the proceedings. The Coen's take a backseat so far back it's like they aren't even in the same room, leaving the film to not feel true to life, it just feels random.

I mean don't get me wrong, on a technical level it's exquisite. They seem to have desaturated the film, giving it this almost monochrome look, which along with the harsh weather and the general quality of the places he frequents, seems to capture what is going on inside Llewyn Davis in a beautiful piece of dramatic irony. It's nice to see a film set in the past, that isn't captured by a nostalgic glow.

It is also really enjoyable to see actresses like Carey Mulligan be dressed up as playing exactly to their role, only to then open their mouth and immediately defy all expectations. She is one of the funniest things, in a movie that is surprisingly funny, given its general melancholia. Plus Davis himself is played so wonderfully by Oscar Isaac that you wont even realise it is Isaac.

I don't even know what to do with Llewyn Davis as a character. With a film that has no real trajectory, no real act structure, Davis doesn't really have a character arc. He's basically a bit of an ass at the start, and over the course of the movie we realise just how much of an ass he actually is. But am I supposed to take that as a good thing? I think we're actually supposed to feel sympathy for him. I have no idea why the movie expects us to be sympathetic to a perpetual man child who is his own worst enemy. I certainly didn't care much for him.

I dunno, I guess from all the hype I'm just missing the point or something. To me it was two hours of an asshole moaning and it went nowhere, as it started nowhere. I'll probably go ahead and buy the soundtrack or something, but I can't imagine revisiting this again any time soon.

Had the misfortune to sit through a film called "Mars Needs Moms." its an instant candidate for the worst thing I have ever seen.

Never before have I seen a combination of bad elements like this. Its ugly, unfunny and offensive in so many ways.

Do you know what you should have watched instead?

3 Idiots.

You're Next:

You're Next took so long to be released in the UK, I'm treating this as a 2014 film, as as far as I'm aware it had no UK release - and no, film festivals don't count - until now on home viewing. I know it's so late, the movie is basically not even relevant any more, but let me enjoy this moment. This is a movie I longed for, and it's finally in my hands!

I'm gonna be perfectly honest in saying I really don't know a lot about this films context. Lots of people have spoken about the connection between cast and director in their day to day lives, and in the projects they share - most noticeably projects under the mumblecore genre. That apparently gives you this whole other reading of the film but I didn't even realise this until after I finished the movie and read up on it without fear of spoilers. So this is the first, and last time, this angle will be mentioned in this review. Okay? Okay.

The big twist in You're Next is there is no Final Girl, as such, because the final girl is so from the very beginning. They completely cut out the transformation from innocent virgin into cute Rambo, and with excellent results. The minute the family dinner turns into a horror film, Erin kicks into overdrive taking charge and control of the situation, even killing off one of the Home Invaders before the hour mark comes in. The invaders really have fucked up here, going after a chick who grew up on a survivalist compound. By the end she transforms into the most terrifying thing in the film, reminding me a lot of Ash from the Evil Dead trilogy. Sadly Erin's character is about the only thing of worth in the whole movie as pretty much everything else about You're Next is best described as "well crafted, but unoriginal.".

Director Adam Wingard almost makes the anti modern horror. The horror genre has largely forgotten that build up is as important as pay off, and that constant pay off without any build up is simply flat. That is why we've become so desensitized to jump scares, which are these days used in the absence of genuine scares.

What You're Next does is pretty much the opposite, Wingard stages tension and builds up his sequences exquisitely, constantly keeping you on the edge of your seat. There is no such thing as a cheap scare in You're Next, unless the scare is purposefully meant to be cheap. But after so much wonderful build up, the movie rarely pays off. Minus one kill with a blender, pretty much all of the kills are uninspired, and painfully repetitious, the kills feel bland even in comparison to the slashers of old, which had budgets of peanuts.

There are some well staged set pieces, some extreme bursts of raw violence, but prepare for throat slashing and face stabbing/smashing with next to no variation, with very little in between. I guess they were the only effects they bought.

It doesn't help that the edges of its budget are sadly pretty garishly exposed by the HD. From obvious makeup, to the very fake looking blood, to shots of bodies making no attempt to disguise that they are still breathing, despite being just killed. This film has actually been bouncing around festivals since 2011 and it's looking pretty tired already, even though most of us have only just got it.

That isn't even mentioning how much of this film feels completely wasted. I love the idea of three brothers, who once served together, returning home and becoming home invaders for hire. Each choosing a mask to identify themselves with, and a catchphrase they'd mark every house with. This would make a cool movie, without everything else, shame that isn't the movie we got.

I want to read your full review now. Any venom-spitting review of a movie I thought would have been stupid makes me happy.
This man speaks the truth. I watched that 3 hour magnum opus and I concur with KRX that 3 Idiots will be one of the best films you will ever see.

The Godfather III - My god, I know people have said this movie is bad, and for years I have been told it is bad, and have read it is bad, but I could not believe they were all actually right. This movie sucked!! The biggest atrocity is that it was just down right boring. It did not have any of the cinematography of the first two. None of the character development. In fact, Mary was about as interesting of a character as a brick wall. Sam Witwicky had far more development in the first Bayformers movie than she had in this movie, making the ending of the movie completely emotionless as you don't give a crap about her to care. Vincent was a poor imitation for Michael too as the movie never gave us a reason to care about him either. Even Michael himself was vastly out of character and it just felt like Al Pacino phoned the performance in. Man this movie sucked ass and the plot just did not make sense. What the hell was the entire point of the Vatican stuff? Nothing ever came out of it. Overall, I give this movie a 2/10 and that is because of the last half hour of the movie during the opera house.

OK. I guess I should spoiler-tag this but frankly you'll thank me for not having to see it:

The reason Mars Needs Moms is because all the Martian women are busy running the planet. And the men are all gay. That's a bad enough message (that you can't have a career AND a family) but the film takes it a step further. It's implying that you can't grow up into a good person if you come from a non-traditional family structure, and that you're only loved if you have the right set of parents.


That's why I hate this film.

Also it's infamous for it's Uncanny Valley CGI. Frankly I'm shocked that no one's even trying to do 2D after Princess and the Frog lost to Alivin's Sqeakual. That's one of Hollywood's main problems today: in making all these effects story telling gets shoved to the wayside.

Mars Needs Moms was such a huge misfire. I only saw commercials of that trainwreack and I still felt like I was ripped off. It's just offensive on so many levels.

Saving Mr Banks - WOW!! This movie was down right terrific. I went in expecting a simple story about the filming of Mary Poppins and Disney's battle with the author and came out with a complex well developed story that was much bigger than anticipated. Tom Hanks was incredible as Disney and it was interesting to see a movie that featured the life of Disney than just his creations. Thompson was also amazing as Travers as was Giamatti as her limo driver. The movie knew when to add comedy to the drama and it did it exceptionally well. This is by far one of the best movies of 2013 and it is a shame it has been snubbed of almost any award nominations. This movie gets a great 9/10.

I watched a bunch of stuff since this thread last got bumped!

The Great Gatsby:

The Great Gatsby's main meta point is that the world of the roaring twenties is basically our world, without the iPhones. That is why the book is still relevant, almost a hundred years later. Sadly the film version makes no attempt to play this idea with any subtly, replacing twenties jazz with modern pop music and rendering the entire world in extremely dated looking CGI.

That said, because the true nature of Gatsby is a reveal left late into the movie, he becomes a very intriguing and complex character, probably marking the performance from DiCaprio that I have enjoyed the most. The film deliberately makes his history convoluted and difficult to follow, to attempt to distract you from who he really is and what is really going on.

The two other must mentions in the cast are Carey Mulligan and Tobey Maguire, especially as they are in stark contrast of one another.

Mulligan on the one hand, has the stunning beauty to capture Daisy, but also has the acting chops to control her complexity. Daisy is shallow, and ultimately not really worth the lengths Gatsby goes to, but Mulligan makes sure she is never played as a straight conduit for the audiences hatred. She never feels like a villain, and she is so carefully steered, it takes you a long time to truly process how not worth it she ultimately is.

Tobey Maguire on the other hand, is utterly terrible. Nick Carraway is infamous for his passive nature, and I can't think of many choices worse than Maguire for the character, as the movie attempts to recreate Carraway with feeling. If that is their intention, why didn't they get someone who could act?

Honestly Gatsby's narrative is so complex, that it is pretty much impossible to discuss. Firstly, the whole thing is being narrated to us by an alcoholic in a mental asylum, which already proves problematic for how much we can truly trust what ultimately transpires. But even beyond that, The Great Gatsby is a movie about lying, where no one tells the truth even to themselves, constantly parading in masks which often deliberately distracts from the point. So even when Carraway is telling the truth, that doesn't stop him from being lied to, which means what he may believe to be the truth, isn't the truth at all.

What this ultimately means is everything The Great Gatsby is about, it isn't, but it also kinda is. For example at its very core, it's a very typical fairytale. There is a princess, a brute and a brave knight. But in reality none of these roles really exist, they are just fabrications by Carraway, and the movies opinions are simply his, not unbiased truths for the audience to make up their own mind. It's all Carraway's dream world.

And honestly, if that is the case, The Great Gatsby is a gay romance as much as it is anything else.

Out of the Furnace:

Bale is one of the best actors of our generation, and this may well be his finest performance. He lowers his gun, and both he and the audience, let out a long sigh as if none of us realised we were holding our breath. We see his character, Russell Baze - who is a pent up volcano of brotherly love - at his most peaceful during his moment of greatest violence. Windows of his performance let out small bursts of everything that is raging inside of him, but with one pull of the trigger he just lets everything go. And my GOD is there a lot of stuff raging inside of him. The grief of losing his brother, the death of the child that tore away any chance of him ever having a good life and the reality that the town he lives in is slipping off of the map, so he can't even just get by and live.

Perhaps most powerful though, is a scene where he finally plucks up the courage to see the love of his life for the first time since he got out of prison. She drops the bombshell that she is with child, after running to the Town Sheriff after he went to prison. His reaction to this news feels so real, so palpable, it's just magic, magic in the making. I'm really sad that this movie has met largely mixed reactions, because Bale's performance is one for the ages. It's the kind of breathtaking acting that is just so perfect, and so utterly rare, you wish you could go back and experience the whole sequence fresh and new.

He isn't the only actor worth writing home about either, but I find that every character aside from Russell is painfully problematic. Take Casey Affleck's Rodney for example. He plays a soldier who has done three tours in Iraq, who has seen and done some incredibly horrific things for his country, and then he has to return home to the same piece of shit town. The same piece of shit town where the best chance he gets is working in a dying steel mill and it just fills him with untapped hatred for everything. Affleck is no Bale, but he does a wonderful job of carefully downplaying his character, and then unleashing him at all the right moments. He becomes as lost in Rodney's shoes as much as Bale does in Russell's.

But the problem is, unlike Bale who tells Russell's story with his body, Rodney is the complete opposite. The stuff that drives his entire character happens entirely off screen with only a vague piece of dialogue dropped now and then (and one aggressive outburst) to allude to the horrors he has seen.

Ultimately what all this means is Rodney is more invested in himself, than the audience ever is. We never truly know the horror he has seen, and this works to his detriment, not to to his betterment. The most crucial thing he does in the movie is die, but as he defiantly utters "I don't care... I don't care.", it's a character moment much more profound for himself, than it ever is for the audience.

Woody Harrelson steps in to be the movies villain, DeGroat, playing completely to his type as a ridiculous psychopath. If he wasn't so good at playing this kind of character, I'd call his performance tired. He chews the scenery gloriously and his hands steer some of the movies most impressive moments.

Aside from those three, the movie utterly wastes the talents of Willem Dafoe, Forest Whitaker and Zoe Saldana. I really don't know why Dafoe was in the movie, Whitaker is used as a shameless plot device and although Saldana's character is crucial, her story appears to be taking place in a very different movie.

Ultimately there was a great movie in here somewhere, but it's lost in the bloated run time. This film is impossible to hate, but the execution also makes it impossible to love, either. Which is a shame, because I want everyone to experience Bale's performance, it is wonderful.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters. :

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters was a film I was initially very excited for, but then seeing it get torn a new one by critics, I completely avoided it. However, with the release of an Unrated Home Video release, I found myself looking into the film again and seeing that revisionist horror fans have come out of the woodwork in the films defence for its apparent unashamed fun. Armed with that, and the relatively new knowledge in my film watching life, that critics have a unified hatred for all things fun I decided to dig into Witch Hunters and see just how wrong the critics were this time, the miserable old scrotes.

Witch Hunters is visually splendid, with just over ten percent of the effects done with CGI. CGI here is used as it should be, they don't use it to do effects easier, they use it to tweak and perfect what was already captured on the camera. I love that. From the awesome makeup of the witches, to the fabulous designs of the Witch Hunting weapons, to the beautifully dressed sets like the Candy House. Oh and Edward, the lovely animatronic troll. This movie is just lovely to look at.

This is all wrapped up in ridiculously gory action sequences which zip along like the witches do on their brooms. The hits are heavy, the impact is visceral and it bleeds style. The badass dial is ramped up to eleven. I just love fun, cool movies. I guess I'm still a little boy at heart

If there was to be any problems with the action, it's the tone. For the most part it plays the action like your typical action comedy, full of heavy hits that don't actually do a lot of damage and a lot of swearing, one liners and banter. But weirdly in the middle of all this slapstick action, are the witches, and the witches are some mean bastards.

At one point, they make a boy turn a gun on his mother, at another they force a guy to turn a gun on himself and another, they murder and eat a child - and this is just three examples, amongst many brutal things like the flashaback to Hansel and Gretel's parents or the rapist sheriff. Where the fuck is this coming from, in an otherwise fun little movie?

Renner plays Hansel exactly how Hawkeye should have been depicted in the Avengers. You can almost feel the pent up frustration for that character, unleashed here, making Renner so fun to watch. He's just a really great character. The ridiculously sexy Arterton adds all her sex appeal to Gretel, while also being a no nonsense badass who regularly outcools her brother. And that is fine by me, fuck your Catpiss Nevercleans.

Perhaps most fun though, is they are both 'flawed' heroes. A cheap device maybe, but it's more depth than I was expecting from a movie that has been so quickly written off by so many. Set right in the middle of Witch Trial Hysteria of 1700s Europe, the movie pulls no punches when it comes to presenting the horror of it.

Hansel calls himself 'old fashioned' in that he's happy to let someone under the suspicion of being a witch burn, without evidence. Living by the code 'the only good witch, is a dead witch'. His prejudice against witches is only turned around, when he ends up fucking a White Witch who numerously saves his life. It says a lot about his character, but not perhaps in quite the damming way you're probably expecting

His sister however is a woman who requires evidence, before she starts slaying, creating a series of checks she's trained herself and her brother in. But despite perhaps being the most grounded, logically, she sees nothing wrong with head butting the town, that is paying their bills, sheriff to the floor, even if he is a douchebag, on first meeting.

Best of all though, is seeing them together. They may not exactly be as much of a well oiled machine as you're probably expecting, but Gretel reserves a certain vulnerability for her brother and likewise although her brother is a bit of a douche, he is so fiercely protective of his sister, you can see she is the only thing he truly loves.

The only real downside to this, is as other reviewers have pointed out, they are just a little too...sexual with one another. I was never really convinced they were siblings. No one with real brothers or sisters, looks at their siblings this way or acts this way around them.

Really though, my biggest problem with the movie is how sequelbaity it is. Luckily that sequel is already secured and locked down (although who will still be on board after the first films critical failure is unknown at this point) but it's still somewhat disappointing that the whole film feels a bit like a feature length TV pilot, leaving you at the end ready to watch the next episode, only to remember there isn't one.

I guess at least at only having just over and hour and a half to tell your story, the mythology stays largely coherent and consistent. It almost feels well thought out, considering what we usually get from this genre.

Witch Hunters is pretty much the embodiment of 'you either get it, or you don't' and I don't mean that in some kind of intellectual way, actually I mean it in the complete opposite. It's the kind of movie where the lovers and the haters use exactly the same stuff for their argument. Some, like myself, will appreciate the films unashamed silliness and get behind it wooing and fist pumping all the way. Others will find the film stupid and frustrating, which I can really understand even if I can't really appreciate.

In short, If you find yourself asking before the first half an hour, why the two heroes are dressed in near bondage gear in 1700s Europe, you can be damn sure this isn't the movie for you. And that is okay.

Modern pop music? If that is what they are calling rap these days, then my god, the genre has turned to shit. I really wanted to love TGG, but because of that god awful garbage Jay-Z crapped out, I couldn't even get into the movie. There is nothing worse than seeing musicians play trumpets, drums, and other jazzy instruments only to hear rap come out of it. Not to mention having people dancing like it is a god damned rap video. This alone made Gatsby the single worse movie in 2013. Let's hope the next time someone decides to make a movie set in the 20s, they actually know what the hell music was like.

Fright Night 2 New Blood

This was a fun movie. It was yet another retelling of the original Fright Night, rather than a sequel to the recent remake, but it had some interesting variations (it takes place during a school trip to Romania rather than in Charlie's neighborhood, for example).
There was a great flashback sequence that was in an animated style that was awesome. The effects and makeup were good, and Jaime Murray is the hottest vampire I have ever seen, holy crap.


There were things that weren't explained, that I wish had been, but were still cool see, and the end wasn't explained well, but nothing too bothersome to me.

I enjoyed the film a lot. Having only seen the original film recently, shortly before the Colin Farrel remake came out, so I have no nostalgic connection to it, I'd say all three Fright Night films are good, fun, vampire flicks.

The original Peter Vincent was the best, I thought Imogen Poots was the best Amy, I liked all three Jerry/Gerri Dandridges, I don't remember which Charlie I liked the best. Original Evil Ed was probably slightly better than the newer ones.

I recommend all three of them, and I'll probably watch them all again some day.

I dunno, 2013 gave us Aftershock and Upstream Color. They were both far worse, at least Gatsby has the awesome character of Gatsby himself.

Skyfall- Great action, decent plot, finally sold me on Craig in the part of Bond. Looking forward to more of him.

Just two thoughts stick out:

*I am convinced that Kincaid's part was written with Sean Connery in mind. Shame he's retired/uninterested, that would've been amazing.

*Hollywood really needs to stop using "the bad guy wanted us to catch him" as a plot point in action movies.

Rewatched Robocop for upteenth time the other day, still as fun as ever, especially with how violent it is, they just don't make 'em like this any more. Sadly the biggest downside to Robocop is its actually starting to really age horribly. There are quite a few pop culture classics from that era that are still visually splendid now, I mean look at Blade Runner, but Robocop is easily aging the worst.

Batman Returns:

This is my pick for the worst Batman film ever made and easily in my top 10 worst superhero films ever. Its TERRIBLE.

*The plot & pacing is all over the map; Penguin has about half a dozen schemes that come & go without meaning a damn thing.

*Designs are straight-up frightening to the point where I can't really believe this was marketed with kids in mind.

*Christopher Walken has absolutely no business here. HE brings NOTHING to the overall story.

*And lastly the moment that really broke my inner fanboy: BATMAN SHOULD NEVER MURDER PEOPLE.

… What!?

I think he's talking about the part where Batman throws one of the clowns down into the sewer, he following it by throwing a bomb down there as well. That, or the part where he sets a guy on fire.

What kind of sick, twisted abomination...? GIVE ME BACK MY SUIT!

So how should I sum up The LEGO Movie...

Everything was awesome!

Just saw the Lego Movie...damn I would have never ever imagined that this movie would be THIS awesome.

Watched the RoboCop remake yesterday:

RoboCop is a film that strives for greatness, and at times it reaches its own ambitious heights in moments that truly outclass the original. Given what this film is about, it's beautifully ironic that the marketing for this film itself was so incredibly poor. I know there'll be lovers of the original who'll go to see this just to crap on it but I ironically think they'll gain the most enjoyment out of this, when they realise it isn't a downright disaster like some other modern Sci-Fi remakes.

It fits awkwardly between the realms of a loving companion piece, as the film features pretty much every key moment and idea and spins them in new directions, with a thoughtful appreciation and attempt at modernisation and the obnoxious sort of remakes which want to bombast, outdo and undermine the original like an insecure piece of shit. Luckily though more often than not the sheer strength of the ideas makes the concepts land, even as the poor execution seems destined for it to miss.

The original was a satire, and a good one at that, but it never really felt like it wanted to be anything more than that. There is nothing wrong with that, it was an extremely entertaining piece of entertainment, but this RoboCop however really has greater ambitions, it wants to be about something and for the most part, it is just as intelligent as it thinks it is.

It's basically the same old story but now RoboCop has gotten an upgrade. Translating the story across to modern times, but reshaping every moment to see how it would look, feel, work and react now this story is existing in our modern post-9/11 world of paranoia. It also has lots to say about focus groups and marketing 'he transforms, kids love that!' and it's all very sharp, accessible and on point, featuring an America that is happy to throw away its very soul for the person who says the nicer sounding words.

Better still is between this much more straight faced political critique of the future just beyond the horizon, is also an increased focus into Murphy himself. This is something that would never be caught dead in the original, but is here the central jumping off point for some of the movies best tweaks to the original formula. So although the new RoboCop suit is hideous, thanks to the black draining out all the detail of the suit in what I can only assume is a thinly disguised cost saving measure, he is actually a much more interesting character and a much more fleshed out human being.

The original RoboCop was, ironically, almost unimportant to his own story despite the fact that the film was named after him. Him being a robot cop was really more of a cool novelty, than something the plot hung on, he could have just as easily been Pirate Cop with little narrative adjusting needed. Here however the film is both much more about what being RoboCop MEANS both to him as a person - and in harrowing fashion I must say - and also the wider world around it.

RoboCop in his very existence is a critique of our world in a way that just didn't work so completely in 1987 and thus he actually feels integral to the plot, as they both manage to up the ante - one of the few times the film ups the ante successfully - without losing any sight of the its humanity, providing a RoboCop both as a character and a film with all the heart and soul the original lacked.

Biggest surprise though goes to Abbie Cornish. She looks lovely, and seeing her in her bra on the big screen is always a treat, but I also assumed that'd be all she'd be here for and was ready to add this to the list of new additions to RoboCop we didn't need. What her character, Clara, turns out to be though is perhaps the most progressive element of the whole film.

In the original Murphy's family were practically written out of the film, but Clara here is a fiercely strong woman, independent and active who is trapped in a moral grey web of the shared knowledge between her and the audience, that she signed the consent forms and got this ball rolling in the first place, even if the ultimate trajectory for the ball is a good one, it takes a long time before it gets to that good place. She is almost, ultimately, as crucial to the proceedings as RoboCop is and that made a refreshing change for this kind of character.

Although this film lacks the originals extreme violence, don't feel too downhearted. Sure one bullet in the original spilt enough blood to go around in this film, but there are key moments of gloriously extreme violence here, that hark back to originals best moments. There is one moment, fairly early on, where an ED 209 spots a child holding a kitchen knife, when the kid doesn't put the knife down, ED guns him down in a moment so brutal and from the marketing, so surprising, I'd love to see the reaction from unaware Mums and Children in a full screening. Similarly are the scenes of RoboCop beneath the suit, which is imagery so disturbing, I'm pretty sure this film will be giving kids (and adults!) nightmares for weeks.

Sadly though, despite these brief moments, most of the action is just too poorly constructed to really praise. It wants to feel gritty and urban, when in reality it embodies the worst tropes of modern action construction. The camera refuses to stay still leaving the action feeling cluttered, incoherent and pretty much impossible to follow. Further problems still, given what this film is about, it wants to provide a RoboCop in "realistic" warfare scenarios which immediately falls flat because basically all he fights are robots, like he's in a cartoon. Honestly, even despite how dated the original now looks, this features action sequences so ridiculous (and so over processed in all of its hideous CGI gratuitousness) they feel completely out of place and clash with the films otherwise utterly serious tone.

I guess that is probably the most ironic thing, this new RoboCop, both despite how the original played out and how the marketing showed this one off, is actually much more satisfying cerebrally than the action romp you probably expected to get. I'm not sure whether to complain or not.

I saw the LEGO movie last night, and I couldn't believe how good it was.

This movie is in a nutshell, a love letter to anyone who played with LEGO as a child. You combined themes, you built your own models, and most importantly, YOU DID WHATEVER YOU WANTED. The LEGO Company has done an excellent job in crafting a PSA in the disguise of a 90 minute movie.

Batman effectively steals the movie from the minute he shows up on screen, and same goes for Superman to a lesser extent. This leads to one of my minor complaints. Where were the Marvel characters? I realize that this is a Warner Bros. movie and DC got top billing, but it would have been nice to see a couple of the Marvel LEGO minifigs at least make a cameo. We get TMNT, Simpsons, LotR, Harry Potter, and another DIsney property (which I'm not going to spoil here).

Bottom line, GO!!!

Saw Lone Survivor.

Lone Survivor has proven to be my most challenging review to write, since I started properly reviewing films in 2009. It isn't because it's some perfect vessel of filmic nirvana, actually as far as films go it isn't a particularly good one and I don't want to argue that the true events should cloud your judgement of the film version...but honestly it was pretty much impossible to keep the movie events separate from the real events themselves.

This is a tale of true heroism, a story of real people and whenever it feels like the political statements are too heavy handed, when it feels the movie may be tipping into all out jingoism, when you feel like the macho action beats are perhaps detracting from the actual point of the film or when it feels like another tale of the magical white man you're reminded once again - this actually FUCKING happened.

This is a story human limits, human spirit and is grounded in harrowing futility of life itself. Any flaws are pale in the comparison to what actually happened to the real men this film is based around and it's pretty much impossible to stay angry at a film that chronicles something this downright incredible.

Are the characters thinly drawn, is the pace downright terrible, are the tones and messages all over the map? Correct to all of them, but as a basic human being, a creature with a heart and a soul and a chemical imbalance in your brain that makes you cry at the end you just can't physically do it to yourself to say anything bad about this film. This ultimately, for me at least, basically makes the film bullet proof.

And I just find it ironic that so many other people seem to be able to turn off their emotions, and in turn entirely miss the point of the whole film. I've seen people make statements like 'war porn' which are so completely and utterly wrong in every single regard that I can't even accept that as an opinion.

This isn't a glorification of what happened during this operation, glorification of the men perhaps, but DAMN RIGHT. Are you saying the film should do otherwise? Considering why and how they ended up in the situation they did, if you do think otherwise, you may as well go get fucked. War isn't a clean cut down the middle black and white battle of good and evil, it's just as dirty and complicated as this movie presents it and I just love that.

Stylish enough to be visually interesting, but grounded enough to pack a serious punch. These are just four guys, and in the real world, no matter how elite you are - numbers are everything. Even though we know no one is going to survive but one, it's how they go down that matters.

And it does matter to us, and that is the key to the magic of Lone Survivor, and the reason why I think it's a bona fide masterpiece of cinema.

The LEGO Movie is awesome. Stop reading this post and go watch it.



























... What the flying, flaming, flamingo-legged $%@ are you still doing, reading this post? GO! GO NOW!

I want to...but I don't have anyone to see it with... :(

Ditto... T_T

Hug?

Print this out and take her with you:

http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/...luttershy2.png

Or ask KamenRiderOOO to meet up with you in a theater halfway between your dwellings.

*Quick Hugs*

Really?

Maybe...

Why do you need someone to go to the movies with you? Honestly curious, not trying to be a tool. I generally prefer to see films on my own so I always find it odd when people insist they need others to go.

Never understood why people don't like going to the movies on their own. I go to the movies on my own all the time, yes because I have very few friends, but I'm never sat there in some crippling loneliness. I actually prefer it to when we go out in a big group.

I have to agree. What rule says you have to go to the cinema with another person? I like going alone. I can get absorbed into the film more when I'm there by myself. Don't have to talk to anybody or nothing that people do when they see films together.

I guess ultimately many of us are just used to it, sure there's nothing wrong with watching movies on your own, but in that case I would rather prefer to watch something at home than going to a cinema, there's something fun about chatting about the movie with a friend while going back home, to me that's part of the cinema experience.

But I guess I could try to go alone at some point, like I said there's nothing wrong about that.

I like having somebody to talk to about the movie afterward.

Speaking of movies, my cousin and I are probably going to redbox Riddick or Escape Plan tonight. Any recommendations?

Saw the movie "Ted," mostly against my will. I'm not a big fan of Seth MacFarlane and this is just a bit too much of his schtick for my taste.

On the other hand though, it has probably the best cameo I've seen since "X-Men: First Class."

The Wind Rises - Miyazaki has always been an oddball for me. His movies tend to be great, but at the same time, they have a habit of being to convoluted for my taste. Even my favorite movie, Princess Mononoke can get way to complicated for its own good in the long run. Sometimes it might just be that the movies do not translate well into English, or the lack of knowing everything in Japanese to culture to truly understand them. Either way, I sometimes find it hard to sit through his works if I am not in the right mood for them. Nevertheless, The Wind Rises is probably the finest work I have ever seen from Miyazaki. The movie sounds simple, as it is about a man who wants to create the greatest airplane Japan has ever seen, but its execution is done with finesse and radiant brilliance. There are so many complications to be found here as it shows the struggles of how difficult it was to make a plane that actually works well along with the suspense of knowing what is bound to become of these planes. The movie tells an incredible tale of a man who seems very serious on the outside, but the imaginations of a genius on the inside. One of the best things about this movie is that Miyazaki does not hold back and creates a serious realistic movie that not only feels different because it is set in the modern world, but also because there are moments where it seems to relate to Miyazaki's own career and his newly announced retirement. The only piece I can fault the movie for is in its pacing, as there are some moments when the movie did drag, but other than that, this gorgeous story is a fantastic send-off for the man that also showcases a side of Japan rarely seen before in cinema, if at all. Overall, I give this movie a 9/10 stars.

12 Years A Slave...damn what a cinematic masterpiece.

Just watched Thor: Dark World and really enjoyed it. I loved the Asgardians in it and wish that they would have used the Warriors 3, Sif and Heimdall more but the villains felt very lacking and some of the human support characters were too. The Thor and Loki scenes and the parts with Odin and Frigga were amazing. Also Stellan Skarsgard was really funny and great continuing after the Avengers. I love this version of Thor much better than the comics, I hope we get a better Thor 3 though.

Goodfellas - This movie is so good and is still Scorsese's best work. The characters are great, the acting is top notch, and the story is well done and extremely interesting. Joe Pesci does get annoying at times even though that is the point of his character. Deniro is great, but I definitely think Liotta is easily the best thing of the movie. I love the scene when Ray's character and his girlfriend are walking through the restaurant from the kitchen with the camera just following them as they god along. That might be my favorite moment in the movie. I also love the scene though when Deniro is interrogating people for buy a new car and a coat after the big heist. Overall, I give this movie a great 9/10.

The Thing - There is nothing more to say about this movie I haven't said already. My favorite Carpenter movie. 9/10.

The LEGO Movie was still awesome the second time around! ^_^