Big big fan of this movie's box cover. I really enjoy Michael Douglas with a shotgun. Unfortunately, I have never seen this movie. Every time I go to rent a movie or buy a movie, I always see this box and get happy. I'll have to check this shit out.

I rented The Fountain on Blu-Ray and Downfall on regular 'ol dvd.

looking forward to both.

best jim jarmusch film involving tom waits

the italian lady who gets w/ roberto benigni is super fine.

Agreement. Frustration comedy is hard to pull off, even in the digital age. Loved the nod to the old Disney "red carpet" logo at the front of 'Presto', even though the style of the short is all Tex Avery.

If you buy the DVD, catch the Easter egg doc celebrating the PIXAR crew's "geekiness."

An interesting look into the life of heroin addicts.A very funny film and the surreal imagery presents itself well throughout the film.Overall,I liked it quite a bit.

As Spielberg says in the DVD featurette: "I didn't set out to make something bigger or better..." Oh how right he is.


________________________________________________________________________________
___



A lot of fun, a bit of a throwback to His Girl Friday and other social/romantic comedies. Funny stuff without being cloy, every player is just right for their role, and Jon Krasinski looks comfortable playing something other than The Office's Jim. Another nice notch in the director chair for Clooney.

This just bothers the hell out of me. If he didn't set out to make something better, than why would he make it? The only reason to create another sequel, or so it seems, would be to continue the epic story and pay homage to the original film. I feel like Spielberg knew this movie sucked, yet decided to make it anyway merely to get a shit ton of money. What other reason would there be to create such an awful film like this? I hear Ford is on board for another one as well. That one I will not be seeing.

If you went into it looking for a good time you probably had a good time. If you went into it with an overly critical eye it probably sucked. It's a one time use only popcorn movie. You never have to see it again, but the first time is pretty fun.

Spielberg speaks on the DVD again and said he had real no intention of doing another one, but Ford pestered the hell out of him and Lucas to do it. Then, everyone decided it would be "fun."

But it's sad that it barely tries to be as good as the other films that ultimately copied Raiders (King Solomon's Mines,The Mummy, etc.)

Spielberg is one of my favorite directors. I went into it looking to love it. I hated every single minute of it.

I loved Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It was funny, entertaining, lots of stunts, lots of ridiculousness. It's pure Indiana Jones. I don't get what everyone else was expecting?

Everyone expected Raiders, which is still one of the greatest action films ever made.

Personally, I enjoyed Crystal Skull as a fun popcorn flick, and found myself liking it more the 2nd time around. In fact, I think it's on par with Last Crusade (which has great character chemistry that almost makes up for the weak finale) and worlds better than Temple Of Doom (which has spectacular action sequences, but damn did I hate the 2 sidekicks).

THIS IS FUN!!!

This is such a massively BS rationalization. I've been reading exactly this "Oh, it was a popcorn movie..." line from people who enjoyed it ever since the Summer, and I just wonder what the hell goes through people's minds. If you liked the movie (not specifically you, Vamos) fine, who cares?

People enjoy the Alien vs. Predator movies, and anything involving Schwarzenegger and guns, as well - it doesn't mean they're good movies, though. Just entertaining. There's nothing wrong with being entertained and not seeking anything more, but why oh why do the people who enjoyed this movie have an ongoing need to tell the rest of us that we were wrong to expect something more of a series with a pedigree involving Spielberg, Lucas and Harrison Ford?

I mean, what's the thinking, there? That I'll suddenly slap myself in the head and say, "Oh gosh, you're right! How dare I have expectations of people who've led me to have expectations of them? This is the most brilliant movie ever, as long as I pretend it was made by idiots who got lucky."

I've been watching the Wall-E special features. As usual with these types of things, my appreciation for what Pixar does has grown exponentially.

Interesting little featurette on the evolution of the human characters. They started out as alien blobs of jello. When that wasn't working, Pixar changed them to humans, but a lot of the jello blob characteristics remained.

Precisely.

No. I never said it was a good movie, I just said that if you think it was some kind of complete and utter trash that's because you let your expectations control your viewing experience.

You could have said, "OK this isn't as good as I wanted or expected it to be but instead of being overcome by my disappointment I'm going to try to eat my fucking popcorn and watch this silly, enjoyable, but entirely forgettable movie."

I went in expecting a fun time, knowing that it was going to suck (because I read reviews before I go to movies so I know what I'm getting into, and don't have overwhelming expectations so that I'm not inevitably disappointed), and I enjoyed myself. Never want to see it again, but it's definitely not a terrible movie. I work at Blockbuster, and believe me there are much, much worse, less entertaining movies out there.

The same reason so many who did not enjoy it seem to have an ongoing need to remind the rest of us that do that it's garbage.

But that's the point: It is garbage, given its pedigree. From any other filmmkers, it might get a higher grade, but it isn't from any other filmakers, and there isn't any other franchise name on it. Defending your enjoyment of it is one thing, but to do so by telling people their expectations were too high is inane. How am I not supposed to compare this to the others and find it wanting? How does that work?

I was expecting it to be in the same ballpark as the first two. That's all. Sure, there were some cool tricks and exciting moments, but the writing was awful, the acting was awful and the plotting was awful. And trust me, I've been on the "go to a movie and have fun" kick for the last few years, abandoning the moody drama crap I keyed in on for years. Hell, one of my favorite movies this year was "The Ruins". Loved it.

The *idea* and storyline of IJ 4 was very good. The execution of the film itself was appalling.

Touche.

God to know the rhetorical equivalent of a fifth grader answering "because" to every question now counts as a riposte.

This movie played at a theater here over the weekend. Couldn't make it. Doesn't seem to be in print. Can't even find it on youtube.

Dick van Dyke plays a guy who commits crimes to help raise money for a philanthropist, the big heist set for Christmas eve.
Barbara Eden's (Agent 99) first role.

Why is this thing not available?!

Wow. I never heard of that one. Note Composer "Johnny Williams", before becoming Spielberg's bitch.

Les Enfants Du Paradis
I went into this expecting it to be a bore with it being three hours and all,But I liked a lot of this. I found the story to have a lot of well written monologues and some hilarious scenes. Also,all the pantomime stuff is absolutely stunning.A fine film.



My little sis wanted to see this so we rented it. This was my second time watching it and I just don't see where this film deserved to be up for as many Academy Awards as it was.The dialogue is ridiculous("Honest To Blog".C'mon nobody talks like that.)and the film is just to simple.J.K. Simmons is ok in it though.But,really I wasn't a big fan either time I watched it(It actually got worse on the re-watch.).

First thing I thought after getting done watching Crystal Skull was that Spielberg didn't give a crap about it and was basically phoning it in. There is no way Spielbergs heart was into making it, and Lucas should never be allowed to write another line of dialog ever. That said it was still mildly entertaining some of the chase scenes were fun and i live right near where they filmed in New Haven so those scenes had an added level of interest.

But if you only think of 2 of the first 3 as popcorn flicks, as I do, you wouldn't have been disappointed by #4. If anything, I would've been surprised had it been any better.

Spielberg specializes in popcorn flicks. He's a brilliant popcorn flick maker. Nearly every single one of his pictures is a popcorn flick and quite a few of those brilliant popcorn flicks are some of the greatest films of all time. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a popcorn flick, certainly, but it's also Spielberg's absolute worst film.

Not enough time to discuss as much as I'd like to right now. Just wanted to drop in and say Encounters at the End of the World is a brilliant film. Was starting to fall asleep, put it in figuring I'd have to turn it off within ten minutes and go to bed, next thing I know it was 2 hours later and I'd finished it. So good.

Contest: how many times can you say 'popcorn flick' in one paragraph?

Ahem, but yeah, I totally agree with this. Why would they make monkeys help out Indy? He doesn't need any fucking help (unless, of course, it's from Sean Connery)! Especially from monkeys!

Indiana Jones having a son and being helped by monkeys (not to mention the nuclear bomb and the fridge) set me over the top. Oh yeah, and aliens.

Young Frankenstein:
I haven't seen this in years. It's still as funny as I remember it and it was really a joy to watch. Everyone plays there roles really well here and this just might be my favorite Mel Brooks movie(although I haven't seen Blazing Saddles in a while.So perhaps that might change with a re-watch.).

Not that this wasn't telegraphable, but this should have been tagged, just for good netiquette. Actually, I knew this movie was in trouble the moment they featured the groundhogs.

Outdoing even Hook?

Blazing Saddles is my fave, but Young Frankenstein is agreed upon by practically everybody that it is his best film. Brooks & Wilder got into a huge fight over keeping "Putting On The Ritz" in.

They're both bad, but Hook has more redeeming qualities than Kingdom.


Any director should know he's lost his way when the very first shot of his film features CG prairie dogs.

'popcorn flick' as opposed to what? 'serious films'? Close Encounters and E.T. are serious cinema.

Who was for it and who was against it?

I enjoy most Mel Brooks films, but Blazing Saddles is definitely my favorite. YF comes in second. Third is probably History of the World Part 1. Fourth is The Producers. So many classics.

I agree. I don't really care for the label, either. The point of my post was that "popcorn flicks" can be serious cinema and that calling a film (such as Kingdom) a "popcorn flick" is no kind of excuse for its overall lack of quality. I rank Raiders of the Lost Ark right next to Schindler's List as one of Spielberg's best and most important films.

Was ROTLA influential yes? Was its influence beneficial? Hell no.

That was hyperbole on my part...I can't see anyone not liking it, if it's not considered the best...The fact that Brooks gets everything right in the cinematography, the story and in the timing of the jokes while capturing the look and style of the Universal horror flicks is what critics I've read point to as the superior qualities of the movie.

a) Hook is flawed, sure. but it's one of Mr. Williams better scores, in my mind.

2) Love the Santa incarnation of Owaga's avatar.

Evidently following a "b" with a ")" makes a face.

In Home Alone, Buzz is talking to Kevin and he goes, "Well One, yadda yadda yadda yadda. And B, yadda yadda yadda."

Made me think of it.

It's funny & all, but Blazing Saddles doesn't give me a fraction of the joy that YF does...

Aghast that one of those guys didn't want to include "Putting On the Ritz." It's the best bit of the movie.

I agree, it's a great score. Williams seems to think so as well, as he pretty much copied it for his Harry Potter score.

Glad you like the avatar.

Hook is effin' PAINFUL to watch.
Crystal Skull was, at the very least, a fun time.

Is Duel anyone else's favorite Spielberg? Not his greatest movie but it's definitely the shit.

Haven't seen it in ages and I'd probably still think Dennis Weaver was a crybaby, but it was a pretty great premise, well-executed. My ex drove a semi at the time so I knew the visceral thrill of being menaced by an irrational trucker

The Fountain

This was my first viewing...and it was done...high while watching it on Blu-Ray. Holy shit. Of course, this movie was visually stunning. Not just the scenes in the future with the tree of life, but the lighting and general atmosphere elements were very solid. Aronofsky's shows that he is a great director, if Requiem didn't pull you over the edge, this film shows that his direction is truly great and spot-on. The way he handled some of these scenes, was truly fabulous. The acting, I thought, was very good as well. Jackman was very convincing, his best acting yet. The sound design was great, not only was Mansell's score breathtakingly good but the other uses of sound worked extremely well. An example would be when Tommy is walking on the street and it's silent except for minimal sound of his walking...even though we can look around and notice that it would be extremely loud and then we he almost gets hit by a car, the sound comes all in. That's a great way to show that his mind was elsewhere. Anywho, I need to see it again. Won't get into plot points, but the screenplay is great.

Glad you enjoyed it, one of my favourites of the decade.