Thinner -6.5/10- Unfortunately, I haven't read the book yet but film wasn't too bad.
One of the very best yet shocking documentaries I've seen in my entire life. Not by chance does this movie hold an average 8.4/10 rating on IMDB and a staggering 94% on RT.
Watch the film. Educate yourself. And sign the following petition: http://www.takepart.com/cove/takeaction
Just don't get raped.
The Watch 5/10
Very average and only funny in one or 2 places. Vince Vaughn performance felt over the top not quite on the level of Jm Carrey though.
I'm going to see it in a couple hours. I'm very excite!
The Hobbit 10/10- It's a bit slow for the first half but man after that...pure awesomeness! Excellent movie. Loved the rock giants. I didn't see where the 48 fps was a big deal. Didn't seem unnatural at all. Only a few instances you could really noticed and that was in a scene with running water.
Here is my review of the highly-entertaining and original Girl Walk // All Day.
Looper 8/10, excellent film
But a few miss guided thoughts
The Hobbit - 9/10
Very good movie. Much better than I expected. I saw it in 48 fps 3D.
When I got used to the framerate, I can't be sure if I'm okay with it. Something about it feels "off" and I'm not sure if it's because of the newness of it. Entertainment Weekly best describes how I feel about 48 FPS, particularly when the accelerated fluidity made me more aware of unconvincing CGI and unconvincing body acting.
One thing I'm certain of, however, is that 3D is still pointless. The Hobbit incorporated it well, but I still don't like it. It just feels like a glorified cheap thrill that isn't better than 2D to begin with. TDKR in 2D IMAX was much more immersive for me.
Does the 48fps make the movie seem like that shitty option some HDTV's come with? Motion Flow?
(As a side note: I updated my thoughts on 48 fps in my last post.)
ps3freak: Yeah, man. My eyes are still throbbing from seeing the movie, too.
DrDreDetox: 48 fps gives you more attention to EVERYTHING. I imagine this is because the extra fluidity heightens your senses. As a result, CGI in a live action setting does not look as convincing in many cases and any body acting that isn't totally convincing becomes more noticible (for instance, a large scale battle that normally looks serviceable throughout might cause you to catch a few spots where someone's sword thrust appeared half-baked somehow if you were to watch it again in 48 FPS). 48 fps looks good when it isn't doing these things, though, but I dunno if it's worth it.
Check out that EW article when you get a chance, too.
I have about a week yet before I'll be testing it out. I'll see how it looks then.
Bowling For Columbine -7/10-
Once Upon A Time In America -9/10-
Kingdom of Heaven - 10/10
Brilliant movie, can't expect any different from ridley scott.
The Hitcher (2006 remake): 6.8/10
You know what, I'm gonna go out on a limb and defend this movie. Why? Because of Sean Bean. He really made the movie enjoyable for me. Now, this is a biased score because I have not seen the original yet, but this is my 2nd viewing of the movie on blu-ray format. The transfer looks amazing. The sound is good (especially when NIN's 'Closer' kicks in) and I love the cinematography of this film, especially the sequence where they meet Ryder and it's pure downpour, but shot so sexy.
That being said, I'm a little confused at why he needed to kill people? Is it a game? A high for him? Does he want a challenge? It's kind of hinted that he wants his victims to overcome him, but nonetheless, it feels like there could have been a lot more explained about him. I would gladly develop a character more for a remake. But Sean Bean is the perfect badass and the climax is sort of weak. I expected more and a lot of the shit that girl was put through could have been avoided if she had pulled the trigger when she had the chance to. Maybe that's why it has such a low score.