High Plains Drifter is an amazing movie, and Clint Eastwood can practically do no wrong... in front of the camera, at least. The less we talk about him talking to that chair the better.

I've never actually heard of High Plains Drifter.
Is it similar to Eastwood's other films? I'm only asking because I'm afraid to look it up and end up spoiling myself like I've done before :lol

It is a pretty typical Eastwood movie, yeah. He does sorta make the same movie over and over just with a different wardrobe each time but it's still a good movie.

I've noticed, but they're pretty fun, usually. I'll see if I can watch it~

Anyway, I considered watching How To Train Your Dragon since everyone is watching it's sequel, but I can't watch it, so I'm bitter, so I watched X-Men: First Class, instead.
I still enjoyed it, but things started to get confusing if it's supposed to be in canon with the original X-Men trilogy...

My favourite is the Dirty Harry franchise, where it was the same movie over and over and the only changes were how many windows people were thrown through :lol

There's a drinking game here :lol

That is actually a brilliant idea :lol

Let's all play the Dirty Harry Drinking Game, just take a shot every time somebody is thrown from a window :lol

If you're still concious by the third movie, you can take a shot every other time to give yourself a pat on the back.

Maniac (2012)

Well, shit this was a good movie. Very stylish, the reviews weren't kidding when they said it was an art film like picture. The acting was very good and Wood is pretty damn believable as Frank. Honestly this is probably my second favorite role of Wood's behind Ryan from Wilfred. All the other actors do a good job as well, Anna (played by Nora Arnezeder) being the second best of the film. The music is good and the effects are pretty good as well. Overall, it lives up to the hype and is a phenomenal movie.

So the next question is: is it better than the original? It's hard for me to say. This one to me had the better story and the relationship between Frank and Anna was much better. Both versions had believable relationships, but this one felt more fully developed. On the other hand though, I prefer the effects of the original as well as the gritty tone it had. LA does come off as being dangerous in this version, but the NY of the original just felt like a place you didn't want to go to. Plus it had good old Tommy Savini behind the effects, you know you're in for a treat with him on board.

Both films are great, but the remake is honestly the better film. It comes down to the fact that it simply has the better story and relationship in it, both being the biggest factors that hold the movie together. The effects and tone of the original are superior, but they don't hold a film as much as a story does. So I must say that Maniac 2012 is indeed superior to Maniac 1980.

P.S. This remake is awesome for showing The Cabinet of Dr. Calagari.

Alien Resurrection - WTF was I think when I decided to rewatch this piece of garbage? It is stupid, way too cheap looking (the CGI aliens are bad, really bad), it gives the ending to Alien 3 the middle finger, and the movie just gets worse as it goes on. This is an insult to not only the entire franchise, but an insult to HR Giger and O'Bannon as it just spat over everything they did. There is absolutely no reason for Ripley to be in this thing and the cast are as bright as coal. I give this **** stain a 2/10 and that is for Ron Perlman. Oh, and that human Xenomorph is one of the worst abominations to come out of the franchise until the PredAlien.

I watched Edge of Tomorrow yesterday, and wow, that was a great movie. Definite 10/10.

I saw some of "Walk The Line" a few days ago, it's a pretty good movie on Johnny Cash's career actually.

2007's "Transformers."

There are a thousand reasons why I should hate this film. But I just can't. I was lucky enough to attend the opening screening in Rhode Island during BotCon 2007, and it was one of the best experiences I had as a fan.

The human subplots are pointless & ridiculous but the action hooks me every time.

7/10.

I'm going to watch the 1989 Batman movie once I finish watching the first Star Wars movie.....

On another note, my Disney marathon was brought to a halt

Well, Star Wars is technically Disney...

Kill Bill and the first 3 Bionicle movies are technically Disney.

And so is a good chunk of Power Rangers. Heck, a proper Disney marathon could go on forever.

Shame on you. Both of you. :lol Also while we are at it: some of the Pokemon movies are technically Disney

Rewatched War of The Worlds (the 05 one) on Bluray the other day:

War of The Worlds, speaking purely from a spectacle point of view, is best described as "refined". In essence what War of The Worlds is, is a horror film, a bleak tableau of post 9/11 paranoia but what I love is that it is still able to get in so many blockbuster money shots at the same time. Spielberg effortlessly shifts his gears, even in the biggest, most chaotic and CG heavy sequences it feels like Spielberg is in full control, conducting the worlds most haunting opera and when he suddenly strips it all back, lowers the volume and racks up the intensity it still feels right at home sandwiched between the bombast. This is a film about the fear of the unknown, a pessimistic critique of humanity and their approach to survival and it's told through well dressed basement sets and the repetition of visual and audio motifs.

There are two things that let the film down on this front, and firstly is the aliens. For a film that leaves us in the dark, and on the left foot, for pretty much the whole run time it was a shock we'd see the aliens at all but most shocking is how unthreatening the aliens are outside of their machines. Maybe that is the point, but all the drama is lost when you're struggling not to laugh at how goofy they are and ultimately how pathetically they go down by the end.

Then there is the fact that Spielberg never seems to have a clear end game in mind with this movie and that ultimately not a single thing in this film makes a damn lick of sense, even within its own internal rules. It feels mostly slapped together which seems so at odds with the rest of the movie which spends so much time seemingly setting up some kind of long game that doesn't actually exist. With the way some scenes so casually disregard revelations and developments of scenes before them, I'm inclined to wonder if the film literally was just a series of set pieces slapped together in whatever order the footage was delivered in. At best you get a hand wave, if the film even brings up the inconsistencies at all.

Until Edge of Tomorrow happened, this was my favourite Cruise role. Spielberg never lets Cruise sit in his comfort zone for long, and Cruise puts a level care and detail into his performance rarely seen in any other character he's played. Ray is vulnerable, he fails, he's human and you completely forget it even is Cruise. This isn't a performance for glory, and I appreciate that.

Sadly though, War of The Worlds may be the most contrived film made in human history. The few times Ray is allowed to put his best foot forwards, he gets sequences so truly ludicrous it takes you out of the illusion all together. That is if you're even convinced by the illusion in the first place, since every near miss is a test of patience and an insult to your intelligence, how can I appreciate a more human Cruise vehicle if it seems impossible for him to ever lose? He's a character that knows sacrifice, but he never knows loss, and sacrifice is the lesser of the two evils as it presents a choice.

I also don't really get why everyone hates on Robbie, he's a titanic asshole sure, but that also seems sorta the point. He's full of teenage angst and it's literally the end of the world, how else would you expect him to act? Ironically he's also one of the few characters who seems to believe survival doesn't mean you have to be selfish, you could cite this as the naivety of youth, but his selfless actions yield much greater rewards than Ray's narrow minded swings at a survival where everyone is seemingly surplus. Robbie is our Spielbergian ray of hope.

Dakota Fanning's "Rachel" is the only character in this I genuinely can't stand, she's a total and utter brat who I think we're supposed to go easy on because she's only a little girl despite the fact that she makes Ray's life miserable throughout the film for no reason at all while achieving nothing to redeem herself.

War of The Worlds is a frustratingly inconsistent movie with some pretty major flaws - see: plotholes so fucking huge you could ride a Tripod through them - but I wouldn't say it is a bad film overall. It is a spectacle of a very different, rare, side of Cruise which, like Edge of Tomorrow, is half the reason this is so enjoyable. And with so many memorable set pieces, both of the blockbuster and horror variety it is definitely worth a watch, if only once. Sadly with the poor presentation of the bluray I'd say this is a film best rented on DVD, or only purchased on a higher def format if found in a bargain bin.

I hate that movie. Every scene with either Dakota or Cruise is down right terrible as they are such unlikable characters. But then, usually any movie Cruise is in is down right terrible because the man is just an unlikable in the real world as he is a dbag. I cannot believe people still give that man money by watching his garbage. The only movies he is in that are any good are Legend and Tropic Thunder.

I wouldn't say Ray is unlikeable, he's fallible and when he does something that makes you dislike him, it's on purpose.

But yeah Rachel deserved a slap.

Recently, I've been rewatching the Harry Potter movies. They're a lot better than I remember, but, at the same time, I wish they stuck to the books a bit more than they did (especially in regards to the Two-Way Mirror).

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

What more needs to be said at this point? The plot is a mess; too many ideas happening at once & almost none of them actually make sense. The characters are usually either pointless or annoying; the action scenes are exciting but too jittery to follow well & it just goes on way too long.

Is it a bad movie? Absolutely. Worst I've ever seen? Not really. Hell, I can't even call it the worst sequel I've ever seen.

4/10.

Yeah, unfortunately for as much as Revenge of the Fallen sucks, there is Dark of the Moon, which sucks even more. Of course, for every Dark of the Moon, there is Alien Resurrection, Alien vs Predator Requiem, Jaws The Revenge, and Moonraker.

GOONIES.
Truffle shuffle, opera-singing henchman, young Cypher from Matrix, Pre LOTR Sean Astin, 2012 TMNT Slash, Josh Brolin hi-jacking a pink bike with training wheels, Data, and Sloth are what makes this movie awesome. And The Goonies R Good Enough.

I watched the animated Wonder Woman movie yesterday. Aside from Diana and Steve outright killing a bunch of guards instead of subduing them, I thought it was a great movie.

Can we please get a live-action movie, now?

Zack Snyder: Nope :p

Anyways, I am watching The Wolverine. And THIS time, it isn't the unrated version.

Isn't Diana a warrior first, and willing to kill if pushed to that point?

Even then, there was no need for her to kill those guards. Same with Steve.

I guess she just really hates guards doing their jobs.

Perhaps.

It was still a good movie.

Doesn't matter. She isn't the "I'm not going to kill anyone" wimp that Superman is. :lol

WW is one of my favorites of the DTVs. Probably just missed my top five at this point.

On the contrary, I think it shows a greater moral strength to have the power to kill your enemies and to choose not to do so. I prefer my superheroes to seek an alternative route for justice.

A movie review podcast that I highly enjoy reviewed those films a year or two ago, and they had something interesting to say. There was no CGI for the alien in Alien 3 (except maybe for the climax when it died). So that terrible CGI is actually terrible, HORRIBLE greenscreening of a puppet or suit.

(From wikipedia: The Alien is portrayed by both Woodruff, Jr. in a suit and a rod puppet filmed against bluescreen and optically composited into the live-action footage, with the rods removed by rotoscoping.)

Sad that they made practical effects look worse than terrible CGI.

Yeah, I already realized my typo but never fixed it here. It still looks terrible no matter how you slice it though.

Anyway,

Alien Resurrection - WTF was I think when I decided to rewatch this piece of garbage? It is stupid, way too cheap looking (the CGI aliens are bad, really bad), it gives the ending to Alien 3 the middle finger, and the movie just gets worse as it goes on. This is an insult to not only the entire franchise, but an insult to HR Giger and O'Bannon as it just spat over everything they did. There is absolutely no reason for Ripley to be in this thing and the cast are as bright as coal. I give this **** stain a 2/10 and that is for Ron Perlman. Oh, and that human Xenomorph is one of the worst abominations to come out of the franchise until the PredAlien.

Trans4Mers: Age of Extinction-

This actually might be the best live-action Transformers film to date. It does repeat some of its predecessors' flaws (goes on too long, too many human substories, high-octane action makes it hard to focus on what's happening where, incredibly unique robot designs) but things have improved a lot now. For starters, these humans are actually WORTH SPENDING TIME WITH. Mark Wahlberg is a great improvement over Shia LaBeef's relationship shitfest, and Kelsey Grammar is a great evil side character.

The robot redesigns are pretty good & we get to spend enough time with them all to make each character close to memorable. Although some fans of the Dinobots might be disappointed a bit.

8 out of 10.

That's reassuring. I was going to see AOE anyway but now I've got further motivation to see it in theaters. BRING ON THE DINOS! :D

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, oh god dammit!! Foul me four... FUCK YOU I'M NOT FALLING FOR IT AGAIN!!!

And the fact the movie only has one Decepticon is utter bullshit. He better have the best character development ever!!

I'm especially not going to see it (or TMNT) after this: http://www.thewrap.com/transformers-...el-bay-haters/

Transformers: Age of Extinction... I loved it. Objectively speaking, it's a terrible movie. The story is a bit of a jumbled mess, the Autobots are a bit more savage than I would have anticipated, and continuity with the previous movies is tenuous at best. For what we got, though, it was awesome. I found the protagonists to be engaging and likable, the villains were marvelous, and their interactions were entertaining. Stanley Tucci's character was an absolute joy.

I also liked the relationship and friendship between Cade (Mark Wahlberg's character) and Optimus. If you have a problem with this Optimus's savagery, this movie does justify it by having him be angry with the way that humans have been hunting Autobots and harvesting the metal making them for scientific purposes, but he's a bit psychotic. Bumblebee also gets some great character moments.

But you don't watch this movie for the human element. They might not show up until the final act, but you watch this movie for this reason:

MOTHER.

#@$%ING.

DINOBOTS!!

THOSE GUYS ARE OFF THE HOOK! IT'S LIKE MY CHILDHOOD CAME BACK TO LIFE, HIT PUBERTY, SINGLE-HANDEDLY DEFEATED AN ARMY OF ZOMBIE-NINJA NAZIS RIDING LASER-SHARKS, THEN DECIDED, "Screw it; I'm gonna be a legion of dinosaur robots," AND THEN DID!

*Eh-hm.*

My only gripe with the Dinobots was that they never spoke. I kept waiting for Grimlock to say, "Me Grimlock no bozo. Me Grimlock KING!" But, still.

MOTHER.

#@$%ING.

DINOBOTS!!