Hatebox

Lol, I've become so desensitized. Thanks, pop culture.

I think we're at the point where if we have to ask that question about a big movie, it'll be PG-13. But I guess the original would probably scrape that rating now too? EDIT - well, apart from the eye-gouging.

They should use this quote for the poster.

If it has the same meditative tone as the original, those would be great numbers. But I suspect they'll put a bit more action in this one.

Yup, I'm officially excited now. Cruel of them not to give us even one cityscape shot, but it's safe to say Deakins is bringing his A-game here.

I'm not really a fan of hers, but she was good in Under The Skin. It was a deceptively demanding role.

That synopsis is expected, given the punch-up story between Gosling and Ford, but nice to hear it confirmed I guess. Probably the most logical route for them to go given this is effectively a soft reboot. I hope Ford tries for this movie. He was okay-ish in TFA but I want him to be better.

Hey, I'd be the first to agree with that. The world has gone mad thinking it's a great movie.

Please let's not descend into defending the Prequels. They're just not worth it.

I'm more curious to see R1's second weekend drop than I have been for a movie in a long time. My friends' reactions to this movie are all over the place.

I really have no idea what legs will be like for R1. It really didn't strike me as particularly kid-friendly, and I heard a lot of people grumbling as they left the theater. On the other hand, my Facebook friends are creaming themselves over it.

Damn. Looks like I'm going to have to be a stick in the mud, but I thought it was a total clusterfuck. I really wanted to like it, especially as the girl I was with was clearly having a whale of a time, but I'm at a total loss as to why they thought this story was worth telling. I guess I like the idea of delving into the more obscure aspects of the SW narrative, but I just couldn't care about any of the characters (Felicity Jones was fatally miscast) and the last half hour was a cross cutting mess. I will say one thing though: it looked great. I loved the scenes on planets where they showed everyday life — the places felt real and lived in, not just a chance for the moviemakers to show off CGI creatures. But yeah, looks like I'll have to chalk this up to another Jurassic World where I'm resigned to thinking everyone's insane for loving it. Oh well.

Fans are still suspicious and non-fans wouldn't care much by definition. But with Villeneuve and Deakins behind the camera yeah, maybe film fans should be should be a lot more excited.

So this is what the denial stage of grief looks like.

Kind of annoying that it's sitting as high as 30% and a 5.2 average so far. If it's going to be bad, go all out.

Damn, you quoted me just before I edited it to reflect that on further consideration.

Interesting — FilmCritHulk, who I've a lot of time for and thought would eat this up, has some massive reservations about it: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/12/15/hulk-vs.-the-many-la-la-lands

Blade Runner is my favorite movie. This still doesn't feel real. But it's in about as good a pair of hands as you could ask for, I suppose.

We already know audiences won't watch Will Smith unless the film itself has some appeal, and the rest of the actors in it won't make any difference. Passengers is more interesting. If it cruises past 100m then you could argue Lawrence and Pratt's stars will shine even brighter for saving such a dud.

But it's presumably getting bad reviews because it's shit. Non-critic WOM exists too, and it hits drama hard.

Oh, didn't realize it happened that soon. Very misleading marketing if so... and we all know how much audiences like being fooled by marketing.

Yeah, if it's what I think it is I'm surprised at how liberal they're being in revealing the movie's general arc.

Yup, we have another Tourist on our hands.