KGator

Exactly, a headshot or something with the same accuracy (planned) on a vital organ at that range with a sidearm is unlikely. Her best choice would be center mass but then what . . . it probably wouldn't have killed him, it would have ended her career (possibly led to incarceration) and been against her morals (character arc). In the end, she wasn't the wolf just as he said. And he knew that.

What seemed like a promising start to the movie ended up a confusing mish-mash of dreck. This seems like a movie that never figured out where it wanted to go or what it wanted to do. It ended with more questions than it began with and . . . thanks to the trailers everyone watched it with a lot of questions!!! Clooney was typical Clooney and the female characters were fine but the plot did them no favors. This movie had real potential but apparently no vision to capitalize on it. The more time goes by from seeing it the bigger waste of time it seems to have been. And a complete waste of some pretty good actors in lame, predictable and boring roles.

One of my favorite animated films ever. Clever, tense, heart wrenching, etc. The humor was very well done and then ending is so emotional that it gets to me every time no matter how many times I have seen it. It's a shame this movie didn't do better at the Box Office because it is clearly a classic film in my opinion. I'll one up Ethan's A+ with an A++!!!

Unlike Seven Pounds, this movie will probably get a lot of attention due to the topic involved. If you don't think this will cause a lot of writers to refocus on the concussion topic in the middle of the NFL playoffs you are mistaken. They will be looking for football topics to talk about. And if this movie is actually good? Look out . . . this plays into the fears of just about every mother and father who have young children who want to play tackle football. At the very least this will increase the number of people who are legitimately concerned about the long term dangers of the sport. This movie might do surprisingly well.

It seems like the consensus on this thread is that this wasn't a great, groundbreaking film but it was a solid, enjoyable Spy flick that deserves more than it seems to be getting box office wise. I guess this just goes to show that its not just about making a good movie but you have to make a movie in a genre or with a hook that people care about in order to find success these days. I don't see a lot of movies at the theaters these days but a sequel to this is something I'd definitely give the benefit of the doubt to on my future viewing list.

This was a good movie. I really don't have any complaints. It was stylish and interesting and I thought the acting was serviceable to good. Hammer was fine, Cavill played his character convincingly. I thought Vikander stole the show while Hugh Grant was a charming addition. There was humor spread throughout the film and several laughs along the way. The starring trio had good chemistry. All in all a pretty good film considering what Hollywood normally puts out. Unfortunately, I knew the film would not do well. The setting (Cold War Europe) is just not an interesting time for this day and age. Mission Impossible smartly moved their timeline to the present but unfortunately UNCLE couldn't (or wouldn't) do the same. And the result was a bland set of bad guys and a potential catastrophe that just lacked any real tension. I would give this movie a solid B and on the verge of a B+.

I believe you are mistaken. Lets examine just the south. The largest southern states like Texas, Florida, the Carolinas and Virginia all have state codes that set the start date of schools no earlier than late August. That's over half the population of the Southern region. Combine that with the other regions who historically start around Labor Day and you have a clear majority of students starting AFTER mid August. Perhaps "vast majority" was overstated since its probably no more than 70% or so of students nationwide. But that's still an awful lot of kids who have the ability to catch movies any day of the week for another few weeks. And college students can usually catch movies whenever they want anyways. They are their own category since their schedules vary from student to student, semester to semester and they can have free time on various days. They still tend to go out at night and on weekends though despite this extra freedom during the day. By the way, when younger I attended junior high in Memphis and Dresden Tennessee so I am aware that some areas start school earlier in the year.

The vast majority of school districts in the US start around Labor Day (1st day after or a week or two prior). Thus most kids are still out of school for another few weeks.

I remember this film. There was nothing remarkable about it, I watched it almost two decades ago and I remember the scene where the lion drags the man out of his tent and into the darkness. This is back when Val Kilmer was one of my favorite actors and he did a good job. I remember less about Micheal Douglas but its rare that he gives a bad performance. The subject matter is somewhat limited. I remember the movie doing a good job of displaying the pressure Kilmer's character was under and his family back home gave the audience even more reason to hope his character survived. The Lions were pretty intimidating as depicted (considering they weren't remorseless robots armed with lasers or unstoppable alien monsters). B-/C+

This might be the best war movie of all time. It blurred the lines between good and evil. Barber's Adiago for Strings will forever be associated with this film (and it was used to spectacular effect). What an incredible cast of actors. Defoe, Berenger, Whitaker, Sheen, Depp, John McGinley, Keith David, Kevin Dillon, Francesco Quinn, etc. While written to have lots of action and converging storylines, it probably best exemplified the cares and confusion of the average grunt in Vietnam. By far Stones's best work IMO. The pinnacle of Sheen's career. Back when he could still act, before the drugs and partying stole his focus (though he still has his comic timing). Though I used to go to the movies a lot in HS, this is the one movie I can remember watching back then. It struck such a chord I can still picture seeing the end credits at the theater. A+

A great film and one of my all time favorites. The film is almost worth watching just for the soundtrack. Lots of tension, a believable romance, great action scenes, compelling characters and a gritty (non-hollywood style) ending. This may not have been DDL's best performance but he does a good enough job. I thought Nathaniel's father and brother were well played which made the ending even more bittersweet for me. A good film to attempt to imagine the brutal life that early pioneers had to endure (though they didn't have that cool music playing in the background). A+

The wrong person didn't win the fight. The problem was that the winner was the only one to show up ready to actually fight. The loser just seemed to show up for a paycheck whether he was healthy or not. The reason there was no controversy outside of certain fans is that the fight was not even close.

I liked the first film. I'm surprised they didn't capitalize on this sooner. But then again it wasn't a breakout hit, just profitable. I'm interested in giving this a chance.

I agree completely. A lot of people like to blame marketing for a movies lack of success when really it has been marketed enough, it's just that the genre or story doesn't attract enough viewers. There is a point of diminishing return with marketing. Either a concept hits with an audience or it doesn't and all the extra marketing in the world won't change that. This probably won't be a bust but if I had to choose between bust-disappointing-average-surprising-breakout . . . . I'd predict disappointing (based on budget and studio hopes).

I give this a borderline A / A-. I also thought it was the best superhero movie of the year (though GOTG was more fun). Although I like the character, I wish there had been less Wolverine and more time spent on the other characters. McAvoy and Fassbender are on top of their game as usual. I really enjoyed the future flashes with the older X-Men fighting to the end to buy time (though yeah . . . the time-physics of it don't necessarily make sense). I thought those scenes had a great dark tension and sorrow in them as well as great action. Hopefully this will pave the way to an even better series of films for this franchise in the future.

Alien 3 was bad because it was simply a worse rehash of the same basic plot with less likeable characters and less action and tension. This movie was like a corny, cartoonish reboot that essentially spit on the memory of the first two movies. My lasting impression of this film can be summed up like this, "What was the point of that???". D

I give this movie a B-. There are parts of it that worked and some that didn't. Some interesting characters and others that seemed like an afterthought. As far as people saying this film didn't have plotholes . . . that's complete and utter denial. I have not seen a larger collection of plothole discussions for a film on the internet in my life. My favorite part of the movie was the the Tsunami planet (Millers Planet) but it was probably as scientifically defensible as Guardians of the Galaxy (spare me the fantastic theories how it "could" have happened and just pretend it can - it's easier that way). The end of the movie does seem go full fantasy-mode putting the story ahead of everything else. I liked some of the twists and this movie did leave me thinking about it for several days (even if it seemed like the more I thought about it the less sense it actually made). Maybe it was intended as some grand tale of morality and life intertwined with science, humanity and technology but in the end it is closer to interesting popcorn science fiction movie than epic, thought provoking production. I thought the cinematography was well done but the score was either too light or too heavy handed and never "just right".

I'm like you (not with the weird preview number dreams . . . you might be in dire need of a vacation) without interest or animosity for this movie. I was planning on watching it on cable or DVD but who knows . . . with the favorable reviews and WOM I might break down and see it if I get bored.

Well after his performance in Terminator:Genesis I'm sure Jai Courtney will be looking for work on the cheap!

Harry Potter consistently made about 30% of its box office revenue in North America and did not decrease with each sequel. It was more up and down based on the individual movie (Its true that when adjusted for inflation the first one WAS the most successful but the last movie was the second most popular). For Ice Age there was only a $35 million difference between the highest and lowest domestic gross (though this grows to almost $80 million when adjusted for inflaction). However we are talking about the latest Terminator. Ice Age at its lowest will almost double what T5 made domestically (with only 2/3rds of the budget) while making more overseas than T5 will make worldwide (for the last 2 iterations we are talking almost double the worldwide gross of T5). You have a point but your examples largely fall in the category of the larger scale films like the Transformers and POTC examples. For Ice Age (when the foreign revenue easily made up for the declining domestic gross) you are talking about $900 million dollar movies. And Harry Potter . . . holy moley . . . the worst grossing Potter movie was bringing in $800 million even back in the early 2000s!!! They might be a step down from the obscene profits of Transformers and POTC but they are just a notch or two below. What we are talking about with the Terminator Franchise is a steadily declining (and consistently so) franchise that is losing its original fanbase and while still having an enormous budget to create the CGI necessary for the films primary characters (the terminators). Just going by the trend can you really make another movie and assume you will drop another $15-30 million in profit in NA and make up for that overseas when the chances are that this current movie probably won't be in the black for several years (after DVD, digital downloads, Cable and broadcast rights revenue are collected). I just don't see any studio gambling on that when they can just reboot or remake some other stale franchise instead for less risk.

1) I'm sure even you can agree that there is a significant difference between billion dollar grossing franchises and those that struggle to cross $400 million when it comes to studio investment. 2) The Studio recognizes the weakening of the Transformers and POTC brands. This is why the studios are trying to figure out how to reignite the franchises. Bay going back to the directors chair for T5 and trying to possibly create an all-star cast, POTC delayed while trying to figure out a plot that isn't essentially a rehash of previous movies (which have grown stale), etc. 3) Any studio that relies too much on China for a large portion of their revenue is taking a huge risk. It essentially allows the Chinese government the power to control whether you succeed or die. Depending on when your movie is released, for how long and against what competition is the difference between 200 or 400 million dollars these days. If you don't think this is/has created an environment ripe for bribes and favoritism . . . you don't know human nature. 4) Both Transformers and POTC have lost around 40% of domestic revenue from the pinnacle of their franchises. Studios receive a significantly higher percentage of North American revenue than foreign revenue due to tarrifs, less generous distribution deals and the fluctuating money market. This goes to the point of scale. When you are talking about movies like Avatar, FF7, Avengers, POTC, Transformers then you are talking about such LARGE amounts of money that a smaller percentage of a lot of money is still a lot of money. However this doesn't apply the same to films that fall below half a billion. Remember that every country (except a few like China) has an additional marketing cost that eats into that nations box office profit. Basically, POTC and T4 can be disappointments locally and still make money overseas. This can be a diminishing return though based on costs (which rise as directors and actors want a bigger piece of the pie) and the previously mentioned inherent problems with overseas revenue. This does not apply to the terminator franchise which does not operate on the same revenue scale as your examples. The flip side is if the movie is newer and there are EXPECTATIONS of growing BOTH the domestic and international revenue. Extremely popular franchises can also make a lot of money in sponsorships and licensing but that's a case by case basis.

Those movies were new (well in Godzilla's case a reboot). Terminator is a franchise with a trend of diminishing returns domestically. When they Hollywood starts making movies that disregard the local market altogether is when you will see foreign box office have that kind of pull. Do you think that making $30-50 million less in box office for each successive movie in your home market makes for a good return on investment? The hope is that PR2 and the next Godzilla flick INCREASE their domestic share. If they were EXPECTED to drop like all the subsequent Terminators seem to do then there would be no sequels. If your China Revenue goes from $200 to $300 million but your domestic goes from $200 to $150 . . . your return is decreasing.

B+ I was engaged for the entire movie (though it did seem to get a bit hokey towards the end). I liked the attempt at both an action movie with a thriller plotline (a whodunit mystery). Will Smith was typical Will Smith and how about the Shia Lebouf character? Shia got to play a character as stupid and impulsive as Shia's real life personality!!! Good special effects and an interesting premise. It wasn't thought provoking but did cause a little pondering of the underlying themes of hubris and technology (though the morality themes were played down to create a typical hollywood production). All in all, watching it was time well spent.

As much as I enjoy the Terminator Franchise, this desperate hope that the international box office will save the it seems out of place. Perhaps the legacy of this series would benefit more if it were just allowed to end now. I don't see the current film building a strong base in place for future sequels. Who is going to invest in a movie that has to essentially give up on the domestic market and hopes to recoup its budget mainly from Asia and perhaps South America? China's return (a quarter of revenue) is not going to be enough to carry a sequel by itself unless it reaches FF7 levels. Without any way to revitalize the North American market the franchise has been (at least temporarily) terminated.

You do realize that you are citing "Back To the Future 2" as if its something you read out of your College Science Textbook right? There are a myriad of interpretations of time travel both in fictional works and in scientific theory. That's like complaining about Interstellar because they handled space time mechanics differently than they do in Star Trek.