Wormhole

Hayden is bad, don't get me wrong, but everyone is bad in this. Portman, who I usually like, is awful, as is McGregor. I blame Lucas. The script is just soooo bad.

One of the defining movies of this generation. Some say that it has flaws, and it does, but every movie ever made has flaws. Most movies just aren't picked apart to death like this one has been.

This is one weird-ass movie. It's ambitious. Aronofsky's talent is on display. It's beautifully shot, although the CGI is weak at times. The "creation" sequence is brilliant. But the plotting of the movie is a mess. Like others have said, once the flood begins, the film truly derails. Not one scene on the ark is believable. It becomes a clusterfuck of badly-conceived family conflict and character beats. The actors do their best to make it all believable, but the greatest cast ever assembled couldn't save this script. C-

Edge is great.

Into the Storm looks hilarious. DUDE LOOK, MAH ARMHAIRS

The Exodus trailer has been getting good reactions.

Uwe Boll.

Use your imagination.

*googles Robert Redford* No deralments here. Dem Apes numbers be good.

Every Batman film has done at least $250M adjusted. P.S.: if you point out that B&R didn't do $250M adjusted, I'll lose my shit and turn into a giant green monster.

1) Batman is the biggest draw in Hollywood. 2) Scorsese is one of the most well-known directors in Hollywood, amongst whatever demographic from which you decide to choose. Not many directors are well-known by teenagers, I'd say.

There are so many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin.

Because the fact that it's not a black-and-white "root for the good guys to defeat the bad guys" affair is a good thing imo. The key to making a good action film is making the audience care about the characters, and this film made me care about characters on both sides of the fight. That's ambitious. It made me dread the violence, not look forward to it, like most films these days do.

Saw it for a second time today. Disagree with this. Koba shooting the guards. The tank shot. Dreyfus ducking for cover and seeing the kid dead. Humans struggling as apes carry them away when Malcolm went back for the surgical equipment. As for the two guys with Malcolm, I just assumed the apes killed them. Didn't think it was important at all. And as for the "there's no one to root for" argument: isn't that the point? You don't simply root for the apes or for the humans. You see that the two sides both have "humanity" within them and root for them to find peace, which is what makes the movie so tense and the action so impactful. Rooting for the apes at times doesn't mean you're rooting for humans to be put in cages.

And I agree with you there.

That was only part of your point. And that part of your point is indisputable based on the original's numbers. A film can't make that much money unless it's appealing to all four quadrants. But whether or not it's ingrained into our culture well enough to sustain sequels with similarly huge numbers is the part of your point I'm arguing over, and I don't think one grandmother/granddaughter pair reasserting their love for the film proves anything.

I got your point. No shit the original reached beyond the usual sci-fi demo. Its numbers are indisputable. But your example is still simply anecdotal evidence, and your anecdotal evidence isn't any more valuable than anyone else's anecdotal evidence. It proves jack shit. We all have our ideas of how the film is perceived, which is partially based on our experiences, but more so is based in confirmation bias. Those who don't like the film will remember those experiences which align with their views, but conversely, people who liked the film will also confirm their opinions through selective memory. As someone who didn't love or hate the film, I think that for a film that made so much money, it's not nearly as well-liked or ingrained into popular culture as it should be. It's not Titanic. Hell, I'd say it's not even The Dark Knight or The Avengers. I think the original was a bit of a novelty that did its business because of its visuals and look but not its storyline or characters, which is what people ultimately remember years later. I'd say the same for Gravity. I think that Cameron is going to have to recreate the novelty of the experience if the sequel is going to even approach the numbers of the original. He's Cameron, so there's a good chance he does. But that's all just my opinion, and we all know how much that's worth.

I can use anecdotal evidence too! My mother and sister hated it. Father and brother liked it, but didn't have any desire to watch it again. I definitely side with the "for the amount of money it made, it's surprising that it didn't make a larger impact on our culture" argument. If Avatar 2 is going to come anywhere close to the first's gross, Cameron is going to have to deliver a equally unique experience that becomes a WOM phenomenon like the first. And I think there's a good chance he does, because he's Cameron. But I don't think the sequel is guaranteed to be huge just because the first one was.

If they're going to make a movie based on the game rather than using an original storyline based on the characters, I'd prefer that they skip the first game and go right to the second.

Snowpiercer Godzilla

Apes is just as bleak. But, yeah, it was probably too weird to do good business here.

I'm not a fan of Clayface or Killer Croc. They're a little too crazy. I'm not sure WB would want to touch him after B&R, but I'd like to see a much more faithful depiction of Mr. Freeze. He's great in Arkham City, and he could be a really sympathetic movie villain. Hush and Black Mask could be good, too.

2938798723

Best film of 2013. A+

GFAEFT