What was the last movie you've seen?

[Retrodude]

it's sad to think there are people out there who think this is a "good movie." Acceptable way to pass time, perhaps, no better or worse than anything else, but not a "good movie."

Define "good". To me, if a film is reasonably entertaining and doesn't make you cringe, that's enough to qualify. But then, my standards are kinda low so if I thought a movie was bad, that means it was too bad even for me. Fortunately, that doesn't happen too often.

[Mendoza]

Texas Chainsaw: 6/10

I really wanted to like this movie, but the third act just falls completely apart.

The concept of doing a straight direct sequel to the original movie was a great idea since it hadn't been done before. Hooper's own true sequel is more of a send up than a serious horror movie. I like that movie a good bit, but I had always wanted to see a serious sequal.

This starts out well enough, but falls into a lot of the same problems that the remake and remake prequel did.

Major Spoilers.

Trying to make the family and leatherface sympathetic at all is just a complete mistake. The remake did this as well, though it was executed a tiny bit better. The family is lynched, but their a bunch of murderous cannibal freaks. They deserve to die. Trying to make them out to be the victims is just inept. also having the lead simply forgive leatherface for butchering her friends is just asinine

The ending is damn near completely nonsensical. The end credit stinger was funny, but that was about it.

Better than the remake prequel or any of the sequels after two, but not better than the remake. Such a wasted opportunity.

[Pulsar_t]

it's sad to think there are people out there who think this is a "good movie." Acceptable way to pass time, perhaps, no better or worse than anything else, but not a "good movie."

Define "good". To me, if a film is reasonably entertaining and doesn't make you cringe, that's enough to qualify. But then, my standards are kinda low so if I thought a movie was bad, that means it was too bad even for me. Fortunately, that doesn't happen too often.

Transformers is not good. Fast & Furious is not good. Saw is not good. To me Iron Man is passable entertainment and about the only comic stuff I put up with. It's hard to quantify mainstream taste without being elitist about it. Maybe oneday there will be a mathematical formula to account for taste

[Luke]

Wait. Did you write that review?

[dsheinem]

Wait. Did you write that review?

It's a fairly good review, whoever wrote it. I have some quibbles with a few of the things they missed, but the basic argument about this film and these films is well put. That said, they (and almost everyone) give far too much praise to The Avengers...

[Pulsar_t]

Wait. Did you write that review?

I wish

[Retrodude]

It's a fairly good review, whoever wrote it. I have some quibbles with a few of the things they missed, but the basic argument about this film and these films is well put. That said, they (and almost everyone) gives far too much praise to The Avengers...

The thing about The Avengers is that you really only got the full impact once and now that all the films are on dvd, no one can ever get the full impact again. What am I talking about, you ask? Think back to May of 2008. Iron Man comes out and is the best Marvel film since X2, then, at the end of it, there's the reveal that The Avengers is coming. Every comic book fan on the planet wet themselves with excitement. All the hints, teasers and slow, deliberate buildup for the next four years only made people more excited until finally, in 2012, The Avengers was released amongst an avalanche of hype and was widely hailed as the most awesome superhero film of all time, largely because after four years of pent up excitement, the emotional release made for an unforgettable experience that can't be duplicated.

It's a great trick, but they could only do it once. Any future "phases" in this series, while they might be great, won't be the same because that buildup isn't there anymore. For that brief period immediately following the release, The Avengers was lightning in a bottle and although DC might try the same trick in the buildup to Justice League, I doubt it will have the same effect.

[dsheinem]

It's a fairly good review, whoever wrote it. I have some quibbles with a few of the things they missed, but the basic argument about this film and these films is well put. That said, they (and almost everyone) gives far too much praise to The Avengers...

The thing about The Avengers is that you really only got the full impact once and now that all the films are on dvd, no one can ever get the full impact again. What am I talking about, you ask? Think back to May of 2008. Iron Man comes out and is the best Marvel film since X2, then, at the end of it, there's the reveal that The Avengers is coming. Every comic book fan on the planet wet themselves with excitement. All the hints, teasers and slow, deliberate buildup for the next four years only made people more excited until finally, in 2012, The Avengers was released amongst an avalanche of hype and was widely hailed as the most awesome superhero film of all time, largely because after four years of pent up excitement, the emotional release made for an unforgettable experience that can't be duplicated.

It's a great trick, but they could only do it once. Any future "phases" in this series, while they might be great, won't be the same because that buildup isn't there anymore. For that brief period immediately following the release, The Avengers was lightning in a bottle and although DC might try the same trick in the buildup to Justice League, I doubt it will have the same effect.

You said nothing about the film itself here, just the response to it by fans after years of built up sexual tension. It was a marketing triumph, no doubt.

The film is not a good "stand alone" superhero film - Wheedon's writing relies far too heavily on the assumption that viewers would have seen the earlier films about individual characters and it makes the in-film character arcs seem very rushed and largely uninteresting, as is the dialogue and relationship building. I think that if you view it after seeing Captain America, Thor, Iron Man 1 & 2, Hulk, and whatever else precedes it than you can think a bit more highly of it probably...but as a film on the strength of its own merits? It was pretty average.

[BitFaced]

It's a fairly good review, whoever wrote it. I have some quibbles with a few of the things they missed, but the basic argument about this film and these films is well put. That said, they (and almost everyone) gives far too much praise to The Avengers...

The thing about The Avengers is that you really only got the full impact once and now that all the films are on dvd, no one can ever get the full impact again. What am I talking about, you ask? Think back to May of 2008. Iron Man comes out and is the best Marvel film since X2, then, at the end of it, there's the reveal that The Avengers is coming. Every comic book fan on the planet wet themselves with excitement. All the hints, teasers and slow, deliberate buildup for the next four years only made people more excited until finally, in 2012, The Avengers was released amongst an avalanche of hype and was widely hailed as the most awesome superhero film of all time, largely because after four years of pent up excitement, the emotional release made for an unforgettable experience that can't be duplicated.

It's a great trick, but they could only do it once. Any future "phases" in this series, while they might be great, won't be the same because that buildup isn't there anymore. For that brief period immediately following the release, The Avengers was lightning in a bottle and although DC might try the same trick in the buildup to Justice League, I doubt it will have the same effect.

You said nothing about the film itself here, just the response to it by fans after years of built up sexual tension. It was a marketing triumph, no doubt.

The film is not a good "stand alone" superhero film - Wheedon's writing relies far too heavily on the assumption that viewers would have seen the earlier films about individual characters and it makes the in-film character arcs seem very rushed and largely uninteresting, as is the dialogue and relationship building. I think that if you view it after seeing Captain America, Thor, Iron Man 1 & 2, Hulk, and whatever else precedes it than you can think a bit more highly of it probably...but as a film on the strength of its own merits? It was pretty average.

Maybe if they find loopholes in the movie contracts for Spiderman, X-Men and Fantastic Four...

[Luke]

Wait. Did you write that review?

It's a fairly good review, whoever wrote it. I have some quibbles with a few of the things they missed, but the basic argument about this film and these films is well put. That said, they (and almost everyone) give far too much praise to The Avengers...

I'll get back to this after I run a few errands, but opinions on the movie aside, I thought the review itself was terribly written. D+ at best.