@cmdrmonkey That's what I mean...you don't personally like that, but it's extremely popular with people who enjoy the superhero genre. Most of the major comic book "events" are centered around multiple characters, so fans of the genre have been waiting a long time for these kinds of flicks...Infinity Gauntlet, Secret Wars, Infinite Crisis, Blackest Night, Civil War, World War Hulk, Secret Invasion, Siege, etc., etc., are all examples of very popular multiple character "events". It's not a big deal if you don't personally care for it, but it is a very popular form of entertainment for people who do.
The post credits scene was the kicker for the movie. That's when the real things start happening in the avengers series.
Cabin in the Woods This movie was hilarious. It had one of the most absurd premises I've ever seen, and I'm pretty sure it epically trolled anyone expecting a serious horror film.
I'm sooo curious to how it got such a decent rating on imdb. And other movies that were just as absurd got worse ratings. At least there were some boobies. And the red hot was hot.
Oh don't get me wrong, it was seriously stupid movie. And I think a lot of the hilarity was unintentional. You could tell where they were trying to be funny, but that's not what I was laughing at. When I say it was funny, I mean it was funny in the same way Human Centipede or Snakes on a Plane were funny. Funny in a "how the fuck did this turd ever get made?" kind of way. The premise about kids getting murdered by a secret government agency to appease angry gods was so retarded, it has to be seen to be believed. I was also puzzled when I saw that it had a 90% on RT and a 7.6 on IMDB. Anything above a 5/10 is being way too generous. Also, what the fuck was Sigourney Weaver doing slumming it in this thing? I give it a 4/10, mostly because the redhead was cute and the retarded premise made me laugh. Clearly somebody thought this premise was very clever, when in reality, they went full retard.
I was trying to think of why weaver did this movie too when she popped up out of nowhere. Like if it was some oddball link from one of her old movies or something. Couldn't think of anything. The movie itself had some tie-ins with old games. http://i.imgur.com/jpBdSh.jpg http://i.imgur.com/FjaeGh.jpg Although it's not like anyone would know that upon viewing the film normally.
Hmm.... shit. I guess I must've saw it back in May. I don't even remember seeing it by now though.... The oldest movie I remember seeing is the fake Aliens prequel and Dark Knight Rises.. Given how unmemorable it is, maybe it isn't worth the $12. Is this new Cabin in the Woods anything like the stupid one with the Boy Meets World kid?
Talking about Cabin Fever? Nah, cabin fever was actually a true horror gore movie that was made campy purposely. This movie is like... you could tell it wasn't going to be a horror movie to begin with. And people says it has a twist.. which you knew to expect something out in left field from the beginning of the movie. I'd say it's like some bad sci-fi/fantasy style movie. I've seen comments like "This is the best horror movie I've seen in a while!" In which I have to shake my head. Like cmdr said, a writer probably thought he was being clever, and I suppose some people ate that shit up, but it didn't fly for me.
Like Khaid said, it's not really a horror movie. It's some off the wall sci-fi thing, but not in a good way. It has one of the dumbest premises I've ever seen. I'd put it up there with Snakes on a Plane, Human Centipede, and the Happening. Everyone was smoking crack when they greenlit it basically.
The Peace Maker I thought George Clooney was miscast for this movie. He was way too cocky and he made Nicole Kidman look crappy as well.
I figured out the Sigourney Weaver reference. Joss Whedon wrote the craptastic Alien 4, the worst of the Alien movies. Ugh. That was the one I saw in the theater where the film burnt up in the projector, and the movie was so bad anyway everyone just got up and got their money back instead of waiting for them to load a new reel. Joss Whedon is very hit or miss. Sometimes he comes out with good stuff like Firefly, and sometimes he craps out a big turd like Dollhouse or Cabin in the Woods. Usually it's when he thinks he's being cute or clever that pumps out a big deuce.
He also did Firefly and Serenity which I loved. I'm not a hater. I just think his stuff is very hit or miss.
Drive on Blu-Ray Drive itself is an awesome film than anyone who enjoys crime dramas should see. It's stylish, brutally violent, well acted, well edited, and has great music. It's one of the best crime dramas in years, or ever for that matter. That being said, I wasn't impressed with the Blu-Ray itself. It had assloads of previews, more than just about any movie I've bought. I think there were 10 previews you had to skip through just to get to the menu. Why the fuck do they make you sit through that shit as a paying customer? And the video quality seemed barely above DVD. I think it was in 720p. It didn't look that great on a large TV, let's put it that way. The extras weren't that great. Mostly just interviews with the cast over shots from the film. The DTS audio was pretty damn good. I'll give it that. But for $20, I expected more. As much as I love the movie itself, I'd say hold off on the Blu-Ray until it hits bargain bin prices.
I have it. It's audio is indeed more impressive than the visuals. The sound design was actually excellent. I bought the Drive and The Tree of Life Blu-rays about the same time, and Drive suffered a bit in the comparison, as The Tree of Life is reference quality or near reference quality in multiple areas. The audio quality of The Tree of Life is beyond belief, perhaps the best I've ever heard. Luckily, the camerawork and an especially skillful and artistic use of color in Drive still makes it look quite good even though it's not elite in terms of picture quality. I do think you are underrating its picture quality a bit, however. It's a very nice looking movie, just not top end.
I bought Drive on Bluray a month ago because it was $15 and because I support good movies by buying them. I used to buy a shit load of movies just because they were cheap, but never again, only stuff I like now. Anyhow I haven't watched it on blu-ray yet. I really doubt that it's 720p though, it's probably just the camera filters/post processing of the movie being softer than most modern movies. That said, on an OT rant I really think 1080p is overkill sometimes and makes movies look a bit too over detailed and less artistic. I really, really want a 4k monitor, but not a TV. Maybe for console games, but consoles wont be pushing those resolutions until the generation after next (if there is one), so any tv higher than 1080p seems stupid to me, yes, even very large TV's. Right now I find 1080p can cause things to look too sharp on any TV under 50" unless viewed much closer than most people would. I sit pretty close to my 46" TV and still find 1080p movies are usually "too detailed". Perhaps Drives soft approach is the answer to bringing the art back to modern movies?
The Exorcist I hadn't seen it in years, and I still think it holds up remarkably well. Even if you don't believe in the supernatural, this is still a deeply disturbing and suspenseful film.