Movie you saw last.

[Ace!]

When he started working with Scorsese he really became an actor. There are directors who just understand how to push actors, how to make them work. Before Gangs, he was just a pretty boy with one decent face/attitude and a few choice roles under his belt (when you look at the shit he did pre-fame, it's intense. Baskeball Diaries? A Boy's Life? Gilbert Grape? Those are Big Boy actor roles, and quite a good run for the adopted kid from Growing Pains).

But Scorsese pushed him and actually made him worth watching as an adult. And now? He's actually a draw for me, in part because he chooses challenging roles and in part because he's become a damn fine actor.

I will also say that anything Daniel Day Lewis is in is going to be worth watching. Have you seen Age of Innocence? Another Scorsese that showcases DDL's other acting side: as a romantic lead. It's also a gorgeous movie and one of my favorite Scorsese films.

[Mustin]

Me: What's wrong?
Sweetie: It's just been a rough day.
Me: How bad is it?
Sweetie: It's almost Mission: Impossible 2
Me: Oh, shit...

Yes, "Mission: Impossible 2" has become something of a euphemism around here.

I'm going to watch the 3rd one soon. We'll see how that goes.

"Face Off" used to be a guilty pleasure. There are choice scenes for sure but I'll just YouTube them. I just got rid of the movie because the joke just wasn't funny anymore.

DiCaprio isn't bad. But after "Inception" and "Shutter Island" he's not a "I'll see anything with him." I hated those two movies so much. I also felt like they were very similar movies, which I know pretty much no one would agree with.

Poo.

[Ace!]

I can't see the comparison of Inception and Shutter Island at all. I guess the only comparison is that I loved them both. Shutter Island was my favorite movie of 2010.

[joe_cam]

I am eagerly, EAGERLY awaiting Pappy's post about Wrath of the Titans.

[Mustin]

Just watched "Red State." It was awesome! Sad that Silent Bob has retired from film making. Alas...

My download of "Sucker Punch" failed. Maybe tomorrow.

eat a daick!

[Ace!]

I love small, quiet movies that don't really tell a complete, clear story. Movies that don't hit the plot points you expect them to. Movies that are about regular life. Terri is one of those movies. Beautiful, quiet, full of ambient noise, Terri is about a fat kid and... his principal is in there, he has some encounters with other kids, and that's about it. There's a story arc and a little character development, but everything is handled so eloquently yet so casually. There isn't a major conflict besides the conflict that is ever present: being a teenager. It doesn't do any of the stereotypical things you'd expect a movie about teenagers to do. When they drink heavily and take drugs, no one dies, no one gets hurt, no one goes to the hospital. They just wake up hungover. Because that's generally what happens when you're 15 and you drink.

I really liked it a lot.

[Jesus]

I am eagerly, EAGERLY awaiting Pappy's post about Wrath of the Titans.

Much against my better judgement, I'm seriously tempted to burn five dollars see this as well despite the looming expectation that it's going to royally suck.

Especially after they completely fucked over the first one.

[Ace!]

The only thing that is actually making me want to see this one is how much I actually enjoyed parts of the first one, even when there were parts that were actually shitting on me. Everything that wasn't an action sequence was terrible, and every action sequence that wasn't scorpions was a lot of fun. I really enjoyed Medusa and, admittedly, the Kraken.


My wife and I went to see The Hunger Games today.

The Hunger Games was great. Let me get that out of the way first. I'm just not sure if it was a great adaptation or a great movie. Like, did I feel so strongly about it because I had the details in the book helping me flesh out the story? Or was it actually a great movie? We've been talking about this all night, so I think I'm actually leaning towards it being a great movie.

First, everything it did right. This was about as true an adaptation I've ever seen. And, even better, it wasn't just a true adaptation, it was an adaptation that worked as a film. The powerful moments were powerful in all the right places, all of the story's plot points were delivered and the final product was a great, single piece. You could look at the ending as a pathway for a sequel, but I think, had it (and the book) ended there it still would have been a great story. The events of the next two books aren't really necessary to understand the point of the book.

The biggest point that my wife and I discussed (and that has been discussed all across the internet) was about

SPOILER - click box below to reveal

Rue and her life and death. The book had a lot more that developed her relationship with Katniss, but the film didn't do so much there. At the same time, perhaps the strongest thing about this adaptation was how almost nothing suffered from a Mr. Exposition. The novel is all first person, so characters are developed and the world is shown through interior monologue. The film doesn't have that advantage, but instead of forcing shitty writing into the proceedings, it decides to do what film is most famous for: Showing instead of telling.

There is no opportunity in the script for Katniss to explain how Rue is her surrogate sister, because how would you have a scene like that? Her death is still powerful, even though they only had ten minutes of screen time together instead of thirty. At the same time, a lesser adapter (and the more common one found) would have just had Katniss rescue Rue from the net, cutting out all of their time together, because that single act would still show the world that she was different enough, leading to the riot in District 11, leading the 11 boy to save her, leading to the District 11 stuff from Catching Fire, etc. But these screenwriters clearly had respect for the source material, and they wanted to actually make it a film, instead of making it a film version of the novel, if that makes sense.

Every opportunity they had to tell instead of show (like a novel does), they decided to show and not tell, and I love them for it. This does, unfortunately, lead to my biggest disappointment: The child faced dogs in the climax. As a reader, reading about monsters based on the dead children fucked me right up. That felt like the best possible conclusion: Here you have killed all these children, and now weird monster animals with their faces are hunting you? That's terrifying and brilliant. Unfortunately, there's no way to express that without it sounding a little silly. So, the way they did it was the best possible, I guess. My hope is that they're saving that for the final installment, during the sewer chase, when maybe they can get the actors back to clearly portray their characters as monsters, making the metaphor terrifying and clear. I'm just a little bummed out that they didn't do it here, in part one.

So, in the end, I think it was actually a great movie. It succeeded in every way that a film can succeed. It didn't rely on sweeping violins, even when it had plenty of opportunities to do so.

SPOILER - click box below to reveal

Rue's death was handled with a quiet dignity, even musically, and the reunion stuff with Peeta was also underplayed. In the hands of a lesser writer/director those things would have been played up and ruined.

The silence was one of the things I appreciated the most about the movie. It was clear in its juxtaposition between District 1 and District 12, and the juxtaposition between the games and the viewers of the games. It never beat you over the head with anything, and it never tried to work hard to make you feel differently than you naturally would feel. There was very little emotional manipulation, and that's something that I was really worried about. This film was nice and quiet.

So, in the end, the only thing I'd change was the director. And that's not even fair. I would change how he held the camera. I had heard so much about the shaky cam, but I was shocked to see how much the camera shook on normal, every day, static shots. An old man eating meat off a bone? Shaky cam. People standing in line? Shaky cam. Scenes that are absolutely still and don't need to rely on any kind of kinetic energy or motion? Shaky cam.

Thankfully this becomes more measured and is used far less frequently after the first ten minutes, but man. Those first ten minutes actually worried me.

So. Hunger Games. One of the best adaptations of a source material I've seen and, in the end, a damn fine movie.

[Mustin]

Ended up watching G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra last night after Red State. Fucking awesome! It was awesome. Just awesome. I think they really paid attention to the shit fest that was Transformers and say, "Hey, let's not do that." There was plenty of fan service, super hot girls with perma-cleavage, crazy guns, shitty one-liners and some great fight sequences with just enough shakey cam to not piss me off.

A+ will do business again! Looking forward to the second one, though there's a different director (the guy who did the Beeb's, "Never Say Never," which has a 1.5 rating on IMDB), role replacements (no 3rd Rock kid for Cobra Commander?!) -- but at least they got Bruce Willis this time(?).

We'll see.

[Jesus]

The only thing that really irked me about the first movie was that Wayans bro. I can't even remember which one it is because they all do the same shit. And there he was doing his usual goofy side-kick schtick.... which was never funny to begin with. Then some asshole thought it'd be a cool idea to write a shitty romance subplot between him and Scarlett. Ugh.

But anyhoo... It does look like this sequel has the potential to learn from its mistakes. For example... Swapping Wayans for The Rock. It's winning already. Now if only we can get Jinx and Lady Jaye together for a shower scene after a hot sweaty workout...

Mustin: Bruce Willis is playing General Joe Colton: The Original G.I. Joe. So imagine John Mclane with like forty plus years of hardcore military duty under his belt and enough patriotism to choke Capt. America.

And lets not forget the most important lesson of all:

Because knowing is half the battle.

[joe_cam]

Just watched "Red State." It was awesome! Sad that Silent Bob has retired from film making. Alas...

We did that movie for a Netflix'd night a few months back. I really liked it, but it seemed the rest of the group wasn't as fond of it as me. I thought it was a great attempt at a "different" movie where people actually acted and there was action and all that actual movie stuff.
And he's not retired yet! Still has one more movie coming.
Plus rumors of an eventual Clerks 3 which I would absolutely LOVE to see. Rumors of a rebirth of the Clerks Animated Series as well, which I would also love.

[joe_cam]

Double post, yay.
Got a free ticket from Disney to go see John Carter. The wife would obviously have to buy a second ticket.
Is this a worthwhile venture? Should we go check it out? Is it worth it?

[Jesus]

I enjoyed it. It might not be that great but I didn't think it sucked.

Just keep in mind that this is based off of a short pulp story that was written OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. If you can see it for free, then go for it. No harm, no foul.

[Ace!]

Ended up watching G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra last night after Red State. Fucking awesome! It was awesome. Just awesome.

I told you. Best action movie of '09 hands down, and one of the best action movies of that decade.

[Jesus]

...one of the best action movies of that decade.

Yeah and we already discussed, ad nauseum, how it wasn't.

Edit:
Before you start writing checks with your mouth that your ass can't cash, here's a list of action films from 2000-2009.

If you mean to tell me that you cannot find one film out of that entire list that you feel is superior to G.I. Joe, then I'm just going to simply call you out and say you're full of shit.

[Ace!]

Well, I did say "one of the best" of the decade, but okay, let's play this game. No kung-fu/period pieces and no comic book movies, because those are different genres. When I say Action I mean Steven de Souza, Arnold one-liner, explosions fire and unlimited ammo action. I mean hyper-extensions, crushed heads and a core set of values and rules. I mean the 80's or a step forward from there. Most of these films listed below are on par with G.I. Joe or are right under it or right above it. Basically, these are the picks of the decade that I would choose to watch over G.I. Joe or as a double feature with G.I. Joe. These are action movies that love being action movies.

2000: Only two films, Time and Tide and maybe (MAYBE) Versus are perhaps better than G.I. Joe.
2001: Jesus Christ, is this list for real? Pootie Tang is not an action movie. Maybe Formula 51. Brotherhood of the Wolf as well.
2002: Equilibrium, Minority Report? Although the latter is more a sci-fi drama thriller than an action movie.
2003: This one is easy. Bad Boys II, The Rundown, Once Upon a Time in Mexico.
2004: Nothing better, but certainly a few on par: Torque and B-13
2005: Again, on par: xXx: State of the Union
2006: Crank, maybe DOA, MI: 3
2007: Two almosts: Live Free or Die Hard and Shoot 'Em Up
2008: Doomsday, Death Race, Hurt Locker, Punisher: War Zone, Taken and Wanted (what a good year).
2009: Crankier

Ask and ye shall receive.

[Henry Jones]

Okay, I'm not going to get into the GI Joe discussion again. To me, the movie is as stupid as Moonraker and half as amusing, but it gets a pass because it has the name GI Joe on it like that's an excuse to be stupid. But Ace, your list is missing one vital title: MAN ON FIRE.

[Ace!]

I did think about that but 1) it's not really an action movie, it's a revenge thriller, and 2) there isn't really a lot more than a butt bomb (which, don't get me wrong, was RAD).

[Jesus]

I did think about that but 1) it's not really an action movie, it's a revenge thriller, and 2) there isn't really a lot more than a butt bomb (which, don't get me wrong, was RAD).

Quit splitting hairs with sub-genre's. If there's action, it can be considered an action film.

[Nodame]

Watched Wall-e.

Haven't you seen wall-e? You do something over and over again, day to day, and then, one day, you meet that person that makes you want to stop everything. Your heart beats fast, your eyes can't stop staring, you curiously grow. "WHo is this?" you say to yourself, "And why am I so compelled to want to be near this person?" To you, it's as if all the world is dead and gone, and its just the two of you. When this person leaves your presence, this is someone you're so compelled to follow, that you would travel across the galaxy to reach her, face new challenges and new fears along the way, just to be with that one, the one you love.

This is all from Walle lol. Wall-e taught me that irrational love breaks daily programming. I think of Wall-e as a metaphore of a person working a day to day job, stuck in a cycle, a routine, until this ... Attractive counterpart comes along that affects this person in such a profound way. This love is so irrational, that it breaks this persons daily routine . That counterpart has given him a spark...

Man... Pixar is good...

Of course, if Eve didn't like Walle back, walle would be considered a stalker. Thankfully, there was a spark!

[joe_cam]

So my plans to see John Carter for free have hit a roadblock. That roadblock being the theater the free ticket is for apparently pulled John Carter already.
NICE MOVIE, DISNEY.

Maybe we'll go see 21 Jump Street instead.

[Ace!]

Quit splitting hairs with sub-genre's. If there's action, it can be considered an action film.

Sorry man. Not even remotely. I'm not splitting hairs here. Or, perhaps, you're not understanding me when I say "one of the best action movies". Either way, we're having a communication breakdown, and since you're the one with the boner over the movies I rave about, it's important we figure this out.

When I say "action movie", I mean a Commando. I mean a Cobra, a Running Man, a T2. I mean an Invasion USA, a Marked for Death, an American Ninja 2. A Michael Bay Joint, anything scripted by Steven de Souza. I mean explosions, gunfights, one liners. I don't mean Oscar winners (with rare exception). I don't mean kung-fu, chop sockey, period piece films that have a foot chase or an impeccably choreographed fight scene.

You see how The Running Man and Hero can't be compared, right? You must. You see how Time and Tide and Bad Boys II can be, right? That's the distinction we're talking about here. One liners, explosions, action's action. That's an action movie.

When I express sorrow at the lack of action movies in the modern era, I'm not saying that there aren't enough Crouching Tigers or Avatars or (according to the list you provided...) Pootie Tangs. I'm saying there aren't enough insane, shoot first ask questions later, ultra violent, jingoistic action films like the ones we grew up with. I'm not lamenting the lack of summer blockbusters, I'm lamenting the lack of Commandos.

EDIT: And in the case of Man on Fire? Where was the action?

[Mustin]

I agree with Ace! here.

And I really need to see Man on Fire.

[Jesus]

Sorry man. Not even remotely. I'm not splitting hairs here.

Yes, you are... Very much so.

Or, perhaps, you're not understanding me when I say "one of the best action movies".

Or perhaps you do not understand how broad a scope the "action movie" genre is as defined by the rest of the world.

When I say "action movie", I mean a Commando. I mean a Cobra, a Running Man, a T2. I mean an Invasion USA, a Marked for Death, an American Ninja 2. A Michael Bay Joint, anything scripted by Steven de Souza. I mean explosions, gunfights, one liners. I don't mean Oscar winners (with rare exception). I don't mean kung-fu, chop sockey, period piece films that have a foot chase or an impeccably choreographed fight scene.

Okay. Within that context, I understand you completely. But once again all of those pieces fall into a sub-genre of action film.

You see how The Running Man and Hero can't be compared, right? You must. You see how Time and Tide and Bad Boys II can be, right? That's the distinction we're talking about here. One liners, explosions, action's action. That's an action movie.

The Running Man* vs Hero = Straight Action vs Wuxia... But they're still both action movies. Just different types of action movies. It's like comparing Wave Theory and Old School Oneup Mushrooms. Two totally different sounds but they still both fall under "Video Game Music". I'm not going to invalidate one or the other because I prefer one style over the other.

Anyhoo, what you are describing is still a type of action movie, not the fucking catch all definition of the action movie. Just because you have a personal preference for that particular style doesn't automatically make it the global definition. That's about as stupid as saying the music produced by The Smash Brothers, The Megas or This Place is Haunted isn't "real" video game music because it's not chip-hop.

* Side note: There are cinephiles out there who will argue that Arnold's movies are a sub-genre in and of themselves, but that's neither here nor there.

When I express sorrow at the lack of action movies in the modern era, I'm not saying that there aren't enough Crouching Tigers or Avatars or (according to the list you provided...) Pootie Tangs. I'm saying there aren't enough insane, shoot first ask questions later, ultra violent, jingoistic action films like the ones we grew up with. I'm not lamenting the lack of summer blockbusters, I'm lamenting the lack of Commandos.

That's perfectly fine and I agree with you. I feel our society has become so cravenly politically correct and ridiculously critical of the films today, I can see how those kinds of films would have a lot of trouble being greenlit. (Btw, I didn't make the list, I just yoinked it up for a point of reference)

And you're still a chump.

[Ace!]

Oh, I know you didn't make the list. What would be a better term for this particular sub-genre? I do agree that it is a sub-genre, given your comments. Applied to other genres, Star Wars and Star Trek are both sci-fi, so I guess that should apply elsewhere.

[Ybrik Metaknight]

Ha! Semantic nonsense!

[Jesus]

Oh, I know you didn't make the list. What would be a better term for this particular sub-genre? I do agree that it is a sub-genre, given your comments. Applied to other genres, Star Wars and Star Trek are both sci-fi, so I guess that should apply elsewhere.

I usually just call them "Straight Action".

[Jesus]

Quick tangent:

Da fuq?

[Mustin]

what the shit

[Ace!]

I'll admit it, the lightning song made me laugh.