Lando

It looks like Purge 2 is an upgrade from the original. Are these going to be the new Saw?

Whoa, this is from 2009?!?! I thought for sure this was going to be late-80s/early90s and not made within the past 5 years!

Contrary to what the ridiculous soundbite "You're the man now dog!" would lead you to believe, Finding Forrester is a good film.

Man, what a listless movie. It feels like nobody involved in it really cared about it, not the writers or the directors or actors. The best thing about this movie by far is that it ends with a Seal song (however, it's a so-so Seal song). Also, I like that the amount that they steal is $8,000,000,001.67. It's simultaneously a very even and specific number, like why not say "8 Billion" and then do something like $7,958,391,122.55 if you're not going to make it exactly 8 billion.

More like Encrapment amirite?

Man, I know people like to shit on bad CGI, but man early 1990s CGI could only make that thing look better.

Last night I started trying to explain this scene and my explanation made no sense, but not in a way that conveys how the scene itself makes almost no sense so I finally found it on youtube: Now in case you're wondering this scene is NOT altered from the screen, this is exactly how it appears in the film. It took my four viewings to figure out what was going on. Also, here's the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E-8updybCM

I kinda enjoyed this, not the scenes of the tire so much as the meta commentary aspects, but overall I thought it was provocative.

I said Twins, but meant Junior. Twins is enjoyable, Junior is not.

On a tangental note, I am a bit disappointed that they haven't done Twins yet and it has been the show logo from the start.

Oh man. I remember that I really liked the first one as an original, creative low budget horror film, but this one was a nonsensical mess. The only good thing about it was floating nudity.

Marry: Sum of all Fears Fuck: The Happening Kill: The Day After Tomorrow

I haven't see this movie, but I am suggesting it mostly because from everything I have heard it could be an interesting movie do discuss if they were able to get someone involved. Basically this movie is a Fast & Furious ripoff that was written, funded and produced by one of the worst subprime lenders of the recent mortgage bubble. He also tried to use it as a launch pad for his girlfriend's transition from a soap star to movie star. This film ultimately bombed costing $26M it only made $6M Here's the trailed, but if you're mildly clever you can find the whole thing on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-8qDoDrAC

Not only that, but the movie is usually also generally pretty well received and the poster acts as if it's common knowledge that the movie they're suggesting is garbage.

There is a brilliant movie series that follows a different character through each movie; the Danish Pusher trilogy (there is an English remake, but as usual stick to the original). These movies were made by Nicolas Winding Refin who is best known for Drive (and I didn't care for Drive, mostly because the dialog was very very awkward and flowed horribly). Pusher follows a low level drug dealer who owes a mid-level dealer a bunch of money and gets some cocaine on loan to pay him back only to have to dump it to avoid the cops. It follows him as he tries to avoid the cops, the drug dealer and get the money to get them off his back. Pusher II follows the friend of the 1st movie as he gets out of jail and tries to stay away from his previous life. Pusher III follows the mid-level dealer from the 1st 2 movies as he tries to expand his territory and move up the drug dealing chain I highly recommend all three movies whether or not you liked Drive.

I noticed this too. I also noticed that there would be times that the two men would decide that something was sexist, but that the woman on the panel gave a different interpretation that in some way empowered the woman and made it not necessarily sexist (for example in the "guy gets the hot girl" scenario she said it could be that the "girl gets the best guy") but was sort of out-voted on whether or not it was sexist. I think that this is a difficult subject to evaluate because it's hard to quantify. That's the appeal of the Bechtel test, although not perfect it gives some sort of measurable criteria for sexism. There is a danger in looking for sexism like this in that we might be able to read sexism into anything to fit our preconceived notions. Think about Ancient Aliens, the "experts" on the show have decided that aliens made contact with ancient people and in looking for evidence to support their idea they find evidence of extraterrestrials in just about every piece of ancient art. I think that is a very real danger of the same thing happening in any form of attempted interpretation of people's intent. None of this is to say that sexism doesn't exist in modern society, just it's hard to objectively measure and as a result our conversation on the subject is doomed to be sloppy. There is also the issue of trolling, which I won't get into.

So two things: 1. I recall that a Freakonimcs episode discussed the "old words make people walk slower" study and basically said that when the recorder of the data was blind as to whether or not people were primed with old words the difference disappeared. It appears to be the result of the bias of the researcher, not the subjects. 2. You call yourself a rap aficionado and discussed "Pop goes the weasel" and yet NO mention of 3rd Bass' classic Pop Goes the Weasel? Shame on you!

I think I found a movie that might explain it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1630036/ Courageous, it was released at the end of September 2011, it cost $2M and on opening weekend made $9M with an overall take of $34M Of course I could be looking to back fit patterns where none exist, but I have found that Hollywood frequently operates on a predictable pattern like this. Also, out of curiosity did you see Courageous?

I knew those were recently released (there was also one that was released about Jesus that did well), but the pipeline for making a movie is usually about 2-3 years. Those films were also were a big reason why I said that there was probably a successful movie a couple of years ago that set the ball rolling on all of these films. I'm invested in enough in this hypothesis to type up a couple of paragraphs, but not invested enough to go digging around on IMDB.

This can't be said enough, but the guy who directed the previous film and produced this one was kidnapped by Kim Jong Il in the 80s and forced to make a propaganda Godzilla clone. The whole thing is up on youtube, search out Pulgasari.

Hollywood is first and foremost greedy. I would bet you that some time in the past two years someone released a Christian movie that swept up at the box office and Hollywood executives decided that it was a hugely neglected market and decided to go after it.

This: Basically, these were a series of trashy Christian lit that Cameron adapted to straight-to-dvd quality films.

Just added to Netflix Instant

FWIW they just added the original Kirk Cameron trilogy to Netflix Instant

It has been a while since I saw this movie, but I remember it being more fun than The Lost World, but still pretty bad. To the best of my recollection Dr. Grant's character is completely different than in the first one and is now a wisecracking dino survival expert (though I guess surviving dinosaurs running wild once qualifies one as an expert as much as possible) and the Raptors are now essentially Gremlins...right down to the pack leader having a Mohawk.