Cmasterclay

True. General rule for the 21st century: You never want to out-racist a movie from 1933. Shit is cringey on a rewatch as an adult. The rest still holds up, but yea.

Okay I know we're not allowed to talk about racism in this thread, but this is on-topic: To me, nearly the only thing keeping the 2005 King Kong from being a modern blockbuster masterpiece IS the old-timey, casual racism with the savage native shit in the first third. It's about two levels beyond dense for a 2005 movie. The rest of the movie is really damn terrific outside of the fact that Watts and Brody are a little boring. If this is half as good, I'd be pleased. Hiddleston is also boring, but Larson and the rest of the cast are usually excellent. I am shockingly excited to see it.

Split is the worst 2017 release I've seen (out of five) but even that wasn't half bad, just overhyped (HANNNNN!) Been a pretty good year for movies so far. Last year had a good Feb-April too, though, and summer turned out to be ass. Still, hopefully this adds to the good list!

I mean Jaws definitely terrified the nation, no argument here. But in their own ways, so did Godzilla, Planet of the Apes, and Jurassic Park. Hell yea, a good monster movie should be scary. That's the point! It actually is a reductive definition, but I really kinda like Grey Ghost's "Would it play on Halloween" thing. That's what I think when I think horror. But different opinions, of course.

I consider it more of a monster movie thriller than a horror movie. I'd put it closer in category to Godzilla or Moby Dick than a horror, but I can see the argument for it.

According to BOM, the highest grossing horror movies are Sixth Sense, Jaws, Exorcist, and Ghostbusters, but I don't consider Jaws or Ghostbusters horror films in the traditional sense at all. There's a very legit chance that this becomes the third highest grossing horror movie ever.

Absolutely one my age I know is pumped for this movie, but my parents are super pumped for it (and they usually don't see CGI blockbusters that don't have Star Wars in the title) so I'll see it with them. There's a chance I miscalculated and maybe this will play well with older adults. The Kong brand might have bigger pull there, and with good reviews.....

I think I'd probably be played by Vin Diesel.

Reading everyone else loving it so much just makes me sad I was so, so disappointed in what this turned into. I just don't see how the third act is any different than any generic comic book movie at all except for one very unsatisfying death scene. It has two trash villains and a bunch of kids we have reason to care about doing cheesy superpowers. It turned from something intriguing and new into another superhero team up chase movie. It's why that show Legion is so lame to me to - I don't care to see another team of mutants come together. Holbrook was pretty great too, shoulda just rolled with him the whole time. It was an A movie for an hour and a half but by the end it turns into a B- for me.

Unreal for Get Out and kinda unreal for Logan - I know alot of people were predicting this kind of number but considering what the last one did and how X-Men has been on the downswing over Apocalypse is very impressive. Also, The Shaq is balling like it's the 2000 Finals again.

I thought it was....okay. More to the point, I thought the first 2/3rds, up until the farmhouse fight scene, were pretty outstanding. A great neo Western with character, heart, brains, and some very well staged action. But man did the third act fall off a fucking cliff. Two new villains are introduced that we have ZERO reason to care about, one of whom is literally a mute clone, which has to be the most boring thing I could have possibly imagined. There's endless repetitive dialogue and action scenes that wear thin, some truly shitty special effects, and mediocre kids acting characters we have no reason to care about. It was telling a terrific Western story and then it turned into a silly comic book movie. It's okay to be a silly comic book movie, but for about an hour and a half this wasn't, so it kinda sucked. Also, I know everyone is going gaga over Wolverine dying...but eh. Frankly, I think it would have been more interesting to have him live. This is like our tenth time with this iconic character. In the end, his arc was that he was a cynical tough guy who is really good and finds a reason to fight. That's been his character arc for the last nine movies! Did we really have to hear that again, with an anticlimatic death scene tacked on to "end it all?" Seriously, 10 movies with this character for him to have the exact same arc as always and get killed by a nameless clone introduced 2/3rds into the final movie by getting impaled with a tree branch. That's it? We spent all that time with Wolverine for that? Kinda lame, IMO. I'm not one to tell filmmakers what they should do with their art, but that shit just did not land for me.

These reviews are generally pretty positive but they also seem to be praising it as a movie that "gets to the point" and gives people a bunch of giant monsters smashing each other, which is kinda not why I liked the 1930s or 2005 King Kong so much - or 2014 Godzilla's first half, for that matter. So they don't excite me too much. I like the slow burn with well-earned moments of insanity. I'm sick of endless smashing insanity unless the point of the movie is artistic endless smashing insanity like Mad Max or John Wick. These reviews do mean I'll give it a chance, though!

Variety and THR are kinda big softies. I tend to look for Playlist, Indiewire, and The Wrap as good first sources, and then AV Club and Slate as my favorite reviewers. So far, Indiewire is mixed and Playlist was kind of a rave, so we'll see what follows. It's not gonna get Logan/Get Out reviews but it's probably heading for somewhere around Godzilla, which I liked. I also liked the grimdark, mediative pace of Godzilla, though, so who knows. This apparently is different.

That's probably the biggest compliment this movie can get!!

Frankly I was expecting outright 30% type bad since the second trailer, so anything in that PR/Godzilla range would be awesome relative to my expectation, tbh.

Looks like a schlocky gorefest more interested in the blood than brains, IMO. Kinda missing the point of the good ones. Straight up though if you didn't slap the Alien name on this it could have been any mid-2000s sci-fi movie that disappeared after two weeks. Like some old Jason Statham vehicle or something. But I'm rooting for it!! I obviously hope it will be great. I just don't feel it.

The tone of the marketing for this has been so confused. The first made it look like a creeping, slow burn war thriller like the first hour of Godzilla. The second trailer made it look like a full on action comedy. And the third one made it look like a B-movie monsters vs. monsters creature feature. I have no idea what to expect.

Arrival was the worst of this year's nine nominees IMO, and I love alot of sci-fi AND the director's previous movies. Just goes to show that maybe people have different tastes than you, and that there's not just some snobbish vendetta against big movies. Plenty of big populist choices have won.

Also, that Moonlight third act had that fucking amazing Chopped and Screwed version of Classic Man. That earns it points alone. Too bad remixes aren't allowed to win Original Song.

The Glass Castle could win her another Oscar, having read the book. Then again, it could be a shittier version of Captain Fantastic if done wrong.

Moonlight's cast is wonderful far beyond Ali and Harris, who were terrific I legitimately think that Trevante Rhodes has next big thing potential. Charismatic as hell, real, great in interviews, and a really good looking guy that happens to be jacked to all hell. Glad he's getting cast in alot. He can be a STAR. Andre Holland is awesome too. I really think the third act of Moonlight was just as spectacular as what came before it. All three acts are magnetic in complex, different ways. I can't wait to see it again.

One of the main reasons I like Gosling alot more than pretty much his entire generation of handsome white guy actors (Pratt, Cooper, Reynolds, Garfield, etc.) is because dude just seems to not give a fuck in the most fun way possible. I also love Channing Tatum for similar reasons- they're just more self-aware and seem to be having more fun with the entire thing than most. Tom Hardy is the best though, because while all those actors go for charming, he goes for terrifying and enigmatic. Also, he's the best actor, FWIW.

Okay, so that's two people. But a shit ton of people are doing the whole "Moonlight sucks" deal without seeing it.

Using live TV ratings in 2017 is usually kind of faulty outside of sports, and even within sports frankly, given how the number of Nielsen households has shrunk and millions of people use streaming/online/DVR broadcasts instead. It's a dumb metric. There's more entertainment options and more ways to watch than ever. Live tv ratings might be going to go the way of the dodo bird for the most part soon. They're still very useful to compare things with each other within the same year, but not year to year. Or we do we really think NCIS is the most relevant show on TV?

Outside of baumer, pretty much everyone who saw Moonlight loved or at least liked it, whereas LLL is more mixed in terms of general reaction. The people who don't like Moonlight have, for the most part, admitted that they haven't even seen it. Hmmmm, I wonder why they're shitting on it....