What was the last movie you've seen?

[dsheinem]

I just took a look at Abram's full TV and movie credits and I don't think I've ever really enjoyed a single thing the guy has written, produced, or directed. This is one of the brightest new creative talents in Hollywood according to some people?

Yes. Yes he is. If you're not a fan of his work, that's fine, but I'm sure Alfred Hitchcock had his detractors too.

That's an asinine comparison. Hitchock's career earned him almost universal critical and popular acclaim, and Abrams seems to primarily have some of the latter and almost none of the former.

I hate to trot out Metacritic in cases like this given the problems of its system, but I don't know what other statistical measure one might use. JJ Abram's body of work is a "66" on their scale with only one film (the first Star Trek) cracking into the 80s at all. Abrams has been nominated for zero Academy Awards for his efforts, and none of the films he's made will ever be in the discussion of "best films of all time" or even "best films of a decade".

Hitchcock, by comparison, has an entire Wikipedia entry dedicated to his awards, both popular and critical (and posthumous).

So yes, no doubt Hitchcock had his detractors - but they were far and few between compared to those who have seen Abrams' work. You can't compare what many people consider to be one of the greatest directors of all time to a mediocre current hotshot who has coasted on the reputation of a TV show that knew how to do "to be continued..." really well.

[Retrodude]

Methinks thou doth protest too much. I get it. You don't like his stuff and you can't stand how popular it is. I feel the same way about people who praise garbage like The Hangover then imply there's something wrong with me because I prefer The Green Hornet.

[Luke]

Who doesn't have detractors?

JJ ain't no Hitchcock. That's like comparing me to Wayne Gretzky. We both played hockey, but I'm nowhere near his level.

And wtf does the Green Hornet have to do with Dave's post. While on that subject, almost everyone involved with the GH has stated they regretted doing the film. I thought it was okay, but the people involved don't like it.

[dsheinem]

Methinks thou doth protest too much. I get it. You don't like his stuff and you can't stand how popular it is. I feel the same way about people who praise garbage like The Hangover then imply there's something wrong with me because I prefer The Green Hornet.

I don't "protest too much". What does that even mean here? I am making a qualified and informed judgement of his creative talent based on a knowledge of the history of cinema and its various visual and narrative techniques.

The Hangover and The Green Hornet are both shit.

[Luke]

The Hangover and The Green Hornet are both shit.

100% right.

[Hobie-wan]

The Hangover and The Green Hornet are both shit.

100% right.

I haven't seen The Hangover and don't really want to, but I did see The Green Hornet. Britt was a fucking asshole except for the last few minutes of the movie. I just wanted to punch him in the face for being a dick to everyone all the time. He didn't grow as a character and he was completely unlikeable. Kato was obviously written to be brain damaged for not leaving any of the 483 times he should have.

[Luke]

I haven't seen The Hangover and don't really want to.

Not a fan of it, but tons of people who aren't me are. So why not give it a shot? At worst you can blame me for saying "Hey why not give THE HANGOVER A SHOT"?

[AmishSamurai]

I haven't seen The Hangover and don't really want to.

Not a fan of it, but tons of people who aren't me are. So why not give it a shot? At worst you can blame me for saying "Hey why not give THE HANGOVER A SHOT"?

The first one is good. The second is kind of a rehash and "Hey we'll keep referencing the first because you liked the first please laugh and like our movie T____T". No real hope or interest for the third.

Just came back from Star Trek: Into Darkness. Spoilers below:

I liked it as a re-imagining of Space Seeds/Wrath of Khan, but Benedict Cumberbatch is a terrible actor and his role as Khan weakened the film altogether. The only character type Butterscotch Cremebrulee can play is the aloof, insufferable know-it-all like he does in Sherlock, with occasional emotional outbursts so he can go "LOOK AT ME GUYS, I'M ACTING!" And while it may have been excusable in the 70's, I feel like since they're doing an alternate-timeline reimagining of the series it wouldn't have hurt to give a Sikh Mystic named Khan Noonian Singh an Indian actor. If JJ Abrams absolutely needed a British actor, at least use a British-Born Indian like Naveen Andrews or for in-general Sendhil Ramamurthy. Though evidently Abrams was trying to keep the use of Khan such a secret that even Bandersnatch Custardpie didn't know he was playing him until they started filming and all related merch has him as John Wilson.

[Retrodude]

Star Trek: Into Darkness

My expectations for this one were pretty high and I wasn't the least bit disappointed. Those of you who hated the previous film might find this one a bit more palatable since the visual aesthetic is somewhat closer to TOS and the story matches the tone of classic Trek a lot more.

I wouldn't say that it's better than Wrath Of Kahn, but I would say that it's equal to it. It's true that the actor playing Kahn bears no resemblance to Ricardo Montalban physically, but he did sound remarkably like him vocally, which is good enough for me. Also, the explanation for how Kahn showed up years earlier than in TOS matched my prediction and makes logical sense so kudos for that. Finally, the ending leaves you begging for a new TV series, so I wish Paramount would quit playing around and do one. All in all, another great effort.

[indecks]

Gosford Park

I love me some Downton Abbey, and this could have easily been "Downton Abbey: The Pilot Movie"

I thought it was great, but I don't think anyone should ever cast Ryan Phillipe in any role ever. How he landed Reese Witherspoon is a mystery.