I really hope they didn't kill off Loki. I hate it when superhero films kill off their villains, it means they can't return all teamed up. Which may not make for the best film itself, but I demand the potential. I demand the potential for Loki to work with Dr Doom like he keeps doing.

Well it looks like Loki will be the A or B villain of the Avengers movie.

I can't read that. It's mysteriously obscured by a blackened veil for which my judgment will not permit me to permeate.

The post credits scene for Thor was a tad more ambitious than the post credits scene for the other three.

Better?

That was one of my major problems with it. I'm not against those kinds of movies, but they have to be done right. I never really felt like I was watching found footage, it still seemed like a movie, just done in the most cost effective way imaginable. Even Cloverfield felt more genuine as a "found footage" movie.

Still, despite that, I gave Survival of the Dead a shot. It was slightly better, thanks to being an actual movie, and the characters were generally more likable. However, it felt like a typical cheap zombie flick, not a Romero zombie flick. The eating scenes that were lacking in the previous movie were there, but not really up to similar scenes from the first three movies, and some of the characters made mindbendingly stupid choices, even for this genre.

Oh, and when we first see the female lead, she's masturbating in a jeep. Real classy.

I have challenged myself to watch every single episode of scrubs from start to finish. I think I'm in the 80s, I have 100 episodes left to go.

this isn't healthy

e: i love the show though!

I finished that marathon when I was in college. I was meant to be studying, still, it's a wonder at how I passed.

I watched Let Me In and I don't know what to make of it. I really enjoyed the film but it just seemed a bit bizarre and half the things that was in it felt like filler to me.

Took my Mom to see Water for Elephants for Mother's day. Of course we all grumbled about how much better the book was, but the real problem was Robert Pattinson's inability to look anything other than bored. Well, that and Reese Witherspoon being way the fuck too thin for the 30's. Seeing Hans Landa in yet another creepy/bad guy role was nice, though. He plays a delightful sociopath.

I just watched Casablanca. Excellent Bogart classic!

I love the book, and while I don't really have a problem with Robert Pattinson, I've said from day one that he was a terrible choice. He is literally the last fucking person I wanted in that movie. It should have been a one man show performed by Hans Landa. That would be wonderful.

I've done that for Futurama and Blackadder. And sometimes I watch films twice in a row, once without commentary and once with.

The 3rd Pirates of the Caribbean movie. I remember slightly enjoying it when it came out, but when I saw it yesterday everything was so confusing. They had so many sub plots and side characters, what the hell were they thinking? I hope the new one is better.

Pro: The new movie won't have Will and Elizabeth

Con: The new movie is basically a cash in on Johhny Depp

I thought the trailers for the new film were actually pretty meh-seeming. Like it lacked the vigour and snap of the other films.

And that.

Well it can't be worse than 2, 3 was confusing but 2 was just bad.

I remember 2 being better than 3, but I also remember enjoying 3, so I just dont know anymore.

Pro: The new one is based on the same book as Monkey Island was. Which should make it even better than the original, which was simply based on Monkey Island.


On Saturday night I saw the original The Italian Job. Utterly hilarious and ridiculous in ways that only films from the '60's can be. Even moreso than the early Bond films. After it ended, we discussed it and could not come to any conclusions as to whether they were being intentionally silly, or whether they were following contemporary film-making standards.

Most recent episode of Psychoville. They killed Mr. Lomax! Not Mr. Lomax!

For people who don't watch the show i.e. everybody, Mr. Lomax was a cantankerous casually racist blind octegenarian toy collector. That's funnier than it sounds.

Saw Mary & Max last night. When I started watching it, I thought it was definitely a film I would like. And while I did like it, I didn't like it as much as I thought I would.

The thing is, because it was a small indie movie it seemed to go out of its way to be inaccessible. And though it was pretty funny ("I would like to be responsible for all chocolate in Heaven, but I cannot, on account of my atheism." *Pop*), it piled on the gloom a bit thick, in a way that didn't really gel with the inherently comic characters. Plus the reliance on letters and narration meant the few times you actually see characters speak were a bit jarring. Ultimately, I enjoyed Max's half of the story a lot more than Mary's, probably because he looked more like a real person.

Still worth a watch though, and since we have psychology students, animation fans and a Jewish atheist here, I expect some of you will have seen it already.

I haven't seen Mary and Max, but I have seen Harvie Krumpet, which was Adam Elliot's previous, Oscar-winning, short film. Pretty much every thing you said about Mary and Max applies to HK too.

I saw On Stranger Tides the other day. I did quite enjoy it, I thought it was much better than the 2nd and 3rd films. Apparantly there's going to be yet another Pirates film, which is abit disappointing. I didn't think that they left it open to another film, it felt like the story closed quite well. But then again so did the first film...

2 was easily the worst POTC film. It just ended badly. Which is why I'm upset that On Stranger Tides is (apparantly) going to be the first of another trilogy.

I read the book before the film and there is no resemblance whatsoever between the two. The only thing they have in common is Blackbeard's boat name (which is an unfair similarity as that was the name of his boat in real life) and the fact that there is a fountain of youth in both (but the fountain's completely different in the film, compared to the book).

I thought alot of things were just in there for the sake of it. Like the Spanish Fleet who destoryed the Fountain. They literally only appear four times in the film and at the end (After a poignant destruction scene) they just waltz off. It felt to me like they were just there to keep the story going rather than actually being important in their own right. And Jack's Father's appearance seemed to follow this as well. He appeared after an exciting fight scene to stop Jack being killed and literally disappears after given him the information to carry the story on.

I thought it was much better without Will & Elizabeth. Although I did find the new boy & girl quite annoying by the end and I wasn't sure what happened to them in the end. I thought that Serena dragged Philip under the water at the end of the film, that she was taking him to the fountain of youthand she was going to save him. But my boyfriend thought that she was taking him under the water to kill him quickly and mercilessly.

I didn't really like Barbossa as much as I have done in the past. Previously I have thought that he was one of the best characters but there was something missing in Geoffrey Rush's performance this time. And I didn't get that Blackbeard's sword was the source of his magical power until Barbossa had it at the end.

I keep meaning to watch Psychoville. My friend adores it.

Sorry for the excessive use of Spoiler tags. ^_^;;

- Rexy

I thought it ended quite well, but then again I tend to like cliffhanger endings, when no-one else in the world seems to.

The last ten seconds were the best ten seconds of the movie, but the thrust of the cliffhanger developed before that wasn't so good.

I don't see how anyone can say 2 was the worst PoTC film when "At World's End" exists.
However, the more I learn about the attitude Verbinski and Depp had going into the Pirates franchise, the more I understand why the movies turned out the way they did.

The PoTC franchise aren't as much pirate movies as they are fantasy movies with pirates.

Because at least At Worlds End was fun.

I've seen a lot of weird shit, but Silent Singer creeps me the fuck out.

I thought At World's End was boring and disjointed. At least compared to Dead Man's Chest.
Most of the film consisted of diplomatic/pseudo-political debate between Pirates/Traders/Supernatural Entities. The fact that Davy Jones could be forced into servitude, that his magnificent Kraken could actually be killed kind of deconstructed the lore into something cheap. Also, I contend the existence of the Brethren Court. At that point, I felt we were drifting dangerously close to the new Star Wars kind of territory. Averted only by the lulziness of the court's behavior.

I'm saying all of this in comparison only though. I enjoyed the film quite a bit. I just felt they weren't nearly as clever or balanced with the story as they could have been.

I haven't really seen any new movies in a while. We're rewatching Sons of Anarchy via netflix and still enjoying it.

Personally I felt that was a result of the film's overall theme: the whole "the age of pirates is dying" thing.

I watched Requiem for a Dream last night.

Oh My God I don't want to see that again in about forever.

I've heard a lot of people say Requiem for a Dream is seriously depressing, but I'm curious to watch it despite my young age. Is it that bad? Will it scar me for the rest of my life?

I'm curious. D:

Have you read the book? I think Hubert Selby Jr. is a hell of a writer, but a little difficult. I'd lump him in with Cormac McCarthy in that you feel like opening a vein after finishing one of his books.

I read the book before I saw the movie, so I wasn't that bothered by it. I don't think it's that bad. Sad, but not life ending. Plus it has a few pretty good laughs in it.

Requiem's a great flick. Part of why it's so great is how much it rattles your cage. Aronofsky's films are very provocative, which makes them difficult to watch for some.

I felt that way about Aronofsky until Black Swan. That movie was balls.

It wasn't so much that Requiem was depressing. I can do depressing easily.

It was the intensity. It just kept fucking going.

The only part that really got to me was After Sara's friends go to visit her in the psych unit and she's pretty much unresponsive and it cuts to the shot of them sitting on the bench, weeping openly. That was pretty tough.

Yeah, I would have been fine if it was just Harry and his girlfriend's sections, but the bits that really got to me were all in Sara's sections.

I think that's where Aronofsky fucked up. In the movie Sara was as she is in the book, so her story was gut-wrenching. But Harry and Marion just didn't jive with their literary counterparts. Harry was a pretty likable guy in the book, and you end up feeling pretty horribly for him. But Marion? Selfish cunt, through and through. Yet in the movie they tried to spin it so that she's some poor emotionally wounded girl who's substituting drugs for love, and really, none of this is her fault. Maybe Aronofsky did that because he was afraid of the backlash he would get if he was true to the book, I don't know.

I might watch it then.

Anyways, just watched Due Date. Thought it was quite enjoyable and funny. Galifianakis is probably one of my favourite actors.

Jackass 3. Man, the nostalgia of the early '00s hit hard. Stupid as hell, but goddamn funny.

I didn't care for Black Swan. Everyone was telling me how fucking tits it was. I saw it, and I just kept asking myself "Why do I care about this? Who gives a fuck about ballet?"