Hatebox

I think the point of that scene was that he intended to kill Logan too (he justvran out of bullets). It's a bleak moment, he in no way sees Logan as a hero.

I got the trailer to Spider-Man before Logan. Whatever the movie ends up being like, it's a crap promo and the audience seemed nonplussed.

Liked it a lot, and I may even come to love it. For about the first half hour I was just bathing in the delight that a CBM like this exists, that they got away with it. All the Marvel and DCU bullshit will feel so much more tame and shallow after this. Jackman was brilliant, and it shouldn't be underestimated how difficult it is to keep such a dour performance compelling for over 2 hours. The R rating worked for this because Logan has an R rated personality. I also loved how palpable the violence was - at least at first. There's no sense of victory when he slaughters people, just destructive emptiness. I could have done without the clone, admittedly. Works as a metaphor I guess, but felt a bit deus ex machina to suddenly appear that late in the story. Having Charles die in the middle of an intense action scene may have been a mistake too, but after so many good moments between him and Logan that's perhaps a nitpick. I dont know know how soon it'll be before I watch this again, but it's absolutely among the best of the genre. And no fucking obnoxious universe/sequel setup!

Just got out. Yup, really good. In fact it's fucking surreal to see a SH movie that plays out the way it does. Jackman probably gives the best superhero performance yet. Comparing it with TDK feels futile though, like comparing No Country For Old Men with Heat.

The Shack sounds amusingly awful from some of the reviews I read. Based on a novel written by three people.

Snyder seemed to get away with turning Batman into a nihilistic, murderous dickhead for a PG-13 movie, so I'm not sure how much the character needs an R-rated movie anyway.

It's definitely interesting that of all the big studios, Fox is the one taking the most creative risks with its SH movies. Fox! Sure, you could argue they have the least to lose, but that's not how execs usually see things.

The only thing I've ever watched by Stuckmann was a video on 'how to make action movies better'. It was such unprofound, heard it a million times before garbage — " action films need good characters, just look at Die Hard" — but the comments section seemed to eat it up.

My guess is this was partly course correction for Godzilla's supposed lack of big monster action. Characters didn't get much of a look-in (even though you can have both!).

*Checks Jurassic World RT score* God, I forgot what an easy time that film had with critics...

About as good a start as could be expected. Will probably finish in the high 60s/low 70s.

Franchise wars are indeed awful, but they seem to fuel about 90% of the conversation on this forum.

It looks expensive to me. I know Lucy was a freak hit but I'm sure they're aiming for at least somewhere around there.

That's pretty much all the first and second movies were.

I feel like we're way past the point where anyone's particularly impressed by CGI in movies. With the progress of technology it's taken as read now. Good art direction is another matter, though.

Read the comments before watching the trailer, and it's a lot better than people were suggesting. But then I always said I'd be happy with a decent, simple 'alien kills everyone on-board' horror movie. Don't let me down, Ridley.

Much better trailer, although it's funny how much less compelling the big monster fight shown at the end is than the few glimpses of Kong from the humans' POV.

Even in the most regimented awards ceremony in the world you can still have colossal fuck-ups, apparently. I'd hate to be the guy who handed out envelopes right now. Anyway, haven't seen Moonlight or LLL but from everything I've heard the better movie won.

We need a 'fuck sake, China' emoticon.

Empire magazine had a running gag about the 'the 27 percenters': actors whose mere appearance makes a movie 27% more enjoyable. I'd say Paxton was one of those actors.

But 'overrated' means nothing. You could even quite like it and think it was overrated. ETA: (I'm not going to spend time going to bat for Whiplash, it's just a weird trend I noticed in contemporary criticism.)

Haven't seen the movie so have no opinion either way, but I've seen quite a few people double-down and say 'actually, while we're at it, Whiplash sucks too!' which I think is a shame. Especially as the people arguing that seem to think that film had a happy ending and was all that concerned with music.

I'm an Arab actor who's been asked to audition as a terrorist 30 times. If 'La La Land' cleans up at the Oscars I'm done : http://uk.businessinsider.com/im-an-arab-actor-whos-been-asked-to-audition-as-a-terrorist-30-times-2017-2 The backlash to this movie is getting weirdly intense. I should probably watch the damn thing by now.

I will say one thing for this movie: the fun arty posters they released are the ones they're actually using for mainstream marketing. Often studios just put them online for a bit of fan-love, but this actually followed through on the more compelling designs.

^ I didn't realise Franco was in this. I have no strong feelings about that.