grudlian.

I might be influenced by young Han Solo being in both but I really did love the song Rules Don't Apply from the very unenjoyable Rules Don't Apply. I was very annoyed the song didn't get nominated for an Oscar.

I think I had to use Netflix's DVD service to see it. The miniseries is definitely longer and probably unnecessarily so. I'll save any other comparisons until Monday...supposing I'm still talking to you then.

I'm watching it tonight. So, I might get a head start on not talking to you. I have seen the miniseries which I wasn't so hot on but I've been meaning to watch this for a while.

I went into this movie thinking it was weird how all the adults were really famous, respected actors but none of the kids ever did anything notable after this movie. When I got to Alden, I realized I had seen several of his movies and couldn't place him in any of them. Then I saw he was Han Solo. I wouldn't say it depressed me but, it wasn't a great feeling.

This for sure. I didn't like this but its just a mess more than anything else. It's at once too long but also too short. It's not notably bad though. I will remember my reaction to it being released and bombing more than I'll remember the movie itself.

I could have sworn the topic title said TomSPanks earlier.

WAIT A SECOND! Is your name Tom S Panks and not Tom Spanks?

I managed a theatre for over a decade so I have a little information on this. Some caveats, my theatre wasn't a one screen in a small town and it's a different experience on what movies you get from a major chain multiplex. I also didn't work in the booking department and treated the content we got as not really my business. So, take this with a grain of salt. Generally speaking, a theatre will have a booker who works with the studios to get the movies that will do best. A theatre might be able to make some suggestions ("movie X isn't expected to be popular, but our clientele happens to love this type of movie...get it for us"), but it's generally up to the booker. For a big theatre chain, this can mean making a bunch of deals to reach some compromise. Both the studios and theatres want to make money. So, a really broad scenario might be the studio saying "If you keep movie X for another week, we'll cut you a break on rental costs" or "If you carry this small movie that won't make much, we'll give you an extra print of our big budget blockbuster this summer." Unless the studio is Disney, then they just demand whatever they want and theatres kind of take it. I know a couple notable stories on how specific movies got releases, but that's a very general way of how it works. For a one screen in the middle of nowhere, I think (and I'm speculating here) that you probably just get the biggest movie of that week or longer if it's a huge movie. Typically, most weeks have a really easy to predict box office winner. So, it's probably a really easy choice. No theatre owner is passing on Avengers this weekend to holdover A Quiet Place for a fourth week. What happens with an off week in March with no clear winner? Or Valentines Day weekend 2016 where you have normal Valentine's release How To Be Single vs atypical Deadpool? I don't know. You might be able to alternate showtimes and run two movies (but twice the film rental one week might really hurt a small one screen theatre). You might be able to push for a movie your specific clientele wants but there's a story where a theatre owner shut down for a week rather than show Jackass 2 when he got stuck playing it. So, I really don't know. Logically though, no theatre or studio benefits from playing a movie that got released years previously. There are still the limited releases to build word of mouth before a wide opening. There's still the occasional roadshow style opening where a very limited movie tours the country market to market but that's typically for very small movies that also wouldn't do well in huge releases. The last movie I can think of that had a roadshow style release that had large audiences wanting to see it was Paranormal Activity. All that said, I do know a projectionist of a one screen theatre in a relatively small town that does play old movies but it's a local charity/arthouse type thing. Their movies are typically 20+ years old and movies are sponsored by local citizens who request them. But that city also has a totally normal multiplex 15 minutes away. So, it's not exactly what this movie is trying to portray.

Oof. That is a very damning review of the book.

I definitely hear you with all this. Beautiful Creatures isn't doing anything new. That's kind of why I think having so much exposition is a waste because we've all seen it before. I wasnt suggesting this movie hints Ethan is a caster. He definitely isn't In this. In my suggestions to to improve treating Ethan's father, it might unintentionally hint he's a caster by being an outsider who finds himself in a magical city because that's how those stories typically progress. I'm curious how this differed from the book. Since Taylor Anne and you read it and you implied it's pretty different, what's the fundamental deal with the book?

Presumably, the real answer is they didn't think anyone would care. Logically, if Ethan has no mother and his father is institutionalized, Ethan would have to almost certainly live with a relative. Since I don't remember any other relatives being mentioned, Ethan would be out of town meaning there's no story. That's getting into "Why don't they just give the one ring to the eagles?" territory though. So, a couple easy ways to fix it in my mind. 1. Just give Ethan a relative. Making Viola Davis a relative would be the easiest way. Ethan lives with her and everything continues as it's presented. 2. Make Ethan move to Gatlin because his father can't take care of him and Gatlin is where his nearest relative lives. If you're already going to have all this exposition explaining the world of casters to Ethan, it makes way more sense to have him be an outsider. Then you can make the whole town more aware of the central conflict anyway. The outsider orphan thrust into a new magical world is a well worn ground, but I'm fine with it. Especially since this entire movie seems to be indebted to that entire genre and their twist on it is WHAT IF THE CIVIL WAR???? It would ultimately hint toward Ethan being a caster in a future books or sequels but, ehhhh.

I like Vengeance quite a bit. It's definitely my favorite of the sequels. You're right about everything and I'll even add the intricacy of Vengeance's plot is pretty great. But it really loses a lot of steam when it gets to the trucks in the tunnels in the final act. So, I always get to that final 20 minutes thinking "this is still going?" even though it's shorter. Die Hard is on another level though. The script is so economical that almost every line leads somewhere and if it doesn't, the line is at least a decent joke. I agree Willis doesn't have the chemistry with Reginald Vel Johnson that he has with Jackson, Willis and Vel Johnson aren't on screen together until the end and when they do properly meet, it is wonderful (admitting of course that Jackson is a waaaay better actor than Vel Johnson so there was never any chance of having equal chemistry). I also think Willis is better in Die Hard. I'm not even sure Willis has another scene in his filmography as well acted as his scene where he gives Vel Johnson a message to give his wife. Vengeance is great but Die Hard is basically perfection.

Oh, man. I couldn't even watch this whole thing. I can come up with some plausible scenarios for this but I don't remember this scene at all (I really checked out once I realised this guy was Han Solo). My understanding of character relationships is also kind of sketchy. For example, is Anna Viola Davis and is she related to Ethan?

As the resident crazy cat person here, my reaction to this was "We don't do this...I do have an old cell phone I don't use. Could I download some cat friendly apps for them to play with when I'm gone?"

Jeremy Irons is as good an actor as Alan Rickman (arguably better) but I think it's apt. Rickman is in Harry Potter (right? I've never seen them) and Irons is in this or Dungeons & Dragons. Rickman was in Die Hard and Irons was in Die Hard with a Vengeance.

The main problem with the movie is that it's not even interesting bad. I wish the movie had really given into the craziness. That's part of what made Emma Thompson so good. She was playing her role to the hilt (and I think a lot of the adults were good for what the script). The kids were playing it maybe too straight (which I get because for them this was their first big movie and don't risk your career on a big acting choice).

I forgot this scene. I might have to rethink my stance on this guy.

Maybe the Jump Street movies?

I've seen Hail Caesar but wasn't too into it other than Channing Tatum's dance sequence. I don't remember having feelings positive or negative regarding whatever this guy's name is.

This guy is supposed to be Han Solo?!? I know I'm late to hating Solo, but I didn't know I knew this guy. I thought they picked a nobody not someone who actively can't act. I've seen so many of his movies and he's utterly forgettable.

I either like Elvis legitimately good or really corny. So, Rubberneckin' is certainly a contender for my favorite.

I'm going on Cam Bert saying he moved to Hawaii when he was two. I don't recall the movie saying his age but he definitely says he had been in Hawaii for 15 years. I would assume Chad is supposed to be 22-23. Two years of college at 18, plus two years away in the military would mean that but I think Elvis was older than that in real life at the time

I'm just now watching this. Everyone has covered everything I want to say. Great job, everyone. What are your thoughts on Mike Pence calling his wife "mother"? That really creeps me out. Chad also says he has lived in Hawaii for 15 years. I don't think they mention any places between Hotlanta and Hawaii. Are we supposed to believe Chad is 17 years old?

Poor Zoey Deutch. Her agent must have really thought the paranormal romance for teens thing was going to last.

I haven't watched Blue Hawaii yet. So, I can't comment. But didn't people think Failure To Launch sucked when it came out?