Prometheus is one of the few movies where I recognize many flaws and logic leaps that turn people off, but am so enticed by its big picture that I still have a great time enjoying its ride. (3 stars for me too, although a 3D rewatch is coming up soon) And for the film, Ridley Scott is amazing as a director. Its visual is matched only by Life of Pi this year I think. Let him not quit as long as he continue to direct the shit out of a movie like this one (Although he should keep a closer watch on his writing staff).

Alien 3 just left a bad taste in my mouth.

Alien 3 was actually the first entry in the series I saw, so I didn't have that issue. I wasn't that impressed with the directing of Prometheus, it had a few decent moments but nothing remarkable, normally I can accept leaps of logic if the film is at least entertaining/compelling, but it was neither of those things, it was just a disjointed mess of a film that only reinforced to me how far downhill Ridley's career has gone.

I can't agree more. What a let-down - don't get me started, it's already bringing back bad memories. That would definitely be the main contender for biggest disappointment of 2012 - so little of it made any logical sense - and its utter disregard for anything remotely resembling "science" is simply inexcuseable. To get you started: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2012/06/11 ... tial-list/
See now I'm angry again, and there I was thinking I had finally got the abomination that was Prometheus out of my system!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... BWnTW4rL0U

I didn't like Alien 3 not because of its continuity from other films (which is the main reason of JB's disdain) so I didn't have that issue either.

Our opinion of what is well directed seems to be vastly different, so let leave it at that.

I don't like Alien3 (even though I think parts of it are very interesting) because it's a wallow in unrelenting, unceasing, pitch-blank nihilism. It's the cinematic equivalent of seeing your family members shot

There is one particular aspect of the story in Looper that has even greater power given recent events in Connecticut. It's present throughout most of the movie but really comes out in the scene where



Thoughts?

Yeah that was a pretty stark and shocking moment but part of what I appreciated about the film was it's ability and willingness to incorporate darker and grittier moments like that into a film that is primarily escapist in nature without undoing the adrenaline rush completely. And contrary to what some are saying on here, I felt that some of the film's more surprising and outlandish elements actually managed to make sense if you took the time to mull it over a bit. I still have some catching up to do as far as the past year's releases (as I've probably mentioned like 1000x elsewhere, there aren't any major theater chains nearby where I'm at) but for now, I think I'm gonna agree with James assessment of Looper as the best film of 2012, which probably surprises exactly no one on here.

Well, Sci-Fi is probably my favorite movie 'genre' (i.e. anything that's not strictly Comedy or Drama), but I was hardly blown away by this film. Everything seemed to flow in a very logical manner to a very logical conclusion. As much as I wanted to love it, I merely liked it.

Interestingly, I felt the same way about many of the 'marquee' films of 2012's final quarter about which James (and many other critics) seemed to rave:

- "Argo" -- Despite Ben Affleck's great ability at crafting suspense, the fact that I already knew they were going to successfully get out of Iran alive worked against it for me, and dogged me all the way through.

- "Skyfall" -- Yes, it's definitely better than (the somewhat unfairly maligned, it seems) "Quantum of Solace," but I still didn't think it was anywhere near as good as "Casino Royale." And now that everything from the old 007 series is now in place (Q, Moneypenny, and a new M), I hope it isn't back to the same old business-as-usual routine for the franchise, to which they've fallen prey in the past.

- "Lincoln" -- This was middle-of-the-road Spielberg for me. I found it a bit talky, as well as a tad preachy. And can we all just come out and say it now? Spielberg just isn't capable of making a 'serious' drama feel multi-dimensional. His tendency to give in to the pull of sentimentality is just too great... even if he manages to get away with it sometimes ("The Color Purple," "A.I.," "War Horse").

- "Django Unchained" -- As much fun as it was, I couldn't help but feel that the film rehashed a fair amount of elements from both "Kill Bill" and "Inglourious Basterds." Maybe now that he's finally made an actual Western, Tarantino can spread his filmmaking style out a little more.

Completely with you on this one. Liked it without loving it.

Thanks for the spoiler.

Looper at number 1 is a interesting on an island choice that is fairly unique as it doesn't show up at all in many top ten lists. It is okay but I would pick Argo as the best science fiction film over Looper as the events in that movie are just as invented as Looper's but it had more tension and suspense and got me much more involved in it's fictional universe. If I had to pick the best made picture of the year it would be The Deep Blue Sea with Rachel Weisz and Once Upon a Time in Anatolia which were two films along with The Master that I am still thinking about months after watching them while others not so much.

Here is a weighted list from someone at Hollywood.com who added up 50+ reviewers top ten lists showing the score alongside with 10 points for a 1st place and 9 points for a 2nd and etc.


1. Zero Dark Thirty: 291
2. The Master: 202
3. Argo: 170
4. Amour: 152
5. Beasts of the Southern Wild: 132
6. Lincoln: 156
7. Moonrise Kingdom: 152
8. Silver Linings Playbook: 109
9. Holy Motors: 104
10. The Dark Knight Rises: 74

Life of Pi: 71
The Avengers: 63
Skyfall: 61
Django Unchained: 56
Looper: 40

Um, surely it's common knowledge by now? They certainly made no secret of it when marketing the film, since it's based on a true story.

I wanna give iljitsch the benefit of the doubt and make the assertion that he (or she) was perhaps... joking?

If anything, I didn't get the joke. Was the original spoiler complaint serious? It seems stupid to complain about spoiling and then do it yourself immediately. Taking a joke spoiler seriously would be a strange way to go into a movie.

There is no such thing as common knowledge. For any fact you can think of, there are millions of people that don't know it.

(And BTW, I canceled my subscription to the paper after the review of Perfect Storm gave away the ending, and the reviewer shrugged off my complaint using that argument.)

Ah, but it was a southern!

Come now. Would you cancel a subscription to a paper if they happened to mention that the Titanic hit an iceberg?

That's not a spoiler. Sorry. The facts surrounding the hostage crisis in Iran have been well-documented over the course of 30+ years.

Thank you, Chocolate. More proof that people just need to do their fucking homework before seeing a certain movie rather than just being blindly taken in by a trailer or TV spot.

On the one hand you have spoilers where nobody who didn't see the movie could have known the ending, and then all the way on the other side spoilers where pretty much everyone knows what happened even without seeing the movie. Obviously the Titanic example is close to that side of the spectrum. (Did you know there is a movie called "Titanic 2"? If ever there was a movie that didn't warrant a sequel... but it's actually an unrelated movie about a ship called "Titanic 2".)

But like I said before, there's no such thing as common knowledge. There's always people sick the day they cover "famous ships hitting icebergs" in school. I can imagine that in a review of Titanic, it's necessary to mention the ending, because 99% of the viewers walk in knowing how the real story ends, and it's important to understand how the film makers address that situation.

But most of the time, there's no or little added value in mentioning the ending, even if it's the same as in the book (which isn't always the case, so saying it is is still a spoiler for people who've read it) or the same as in real life (few things are as well-known as the story of the Titanic). Also, what's the point? Usually, mentioning the ending or a major plot turn doesn't make the review better even for people who don't mind spoilers, but they make it a lot worse for people who do care.

And if you insist on spoiling, it's easy enough to say so a few lines beforehand (in print) or use the spoiler tag (on a forum). There are some cases where some level of spoiling is hard to avoid, for instance when reviewing TV seasons, where it otherwise becomes impossible to say something about later episodes.

Also, rehashing the plot in reviews is overrated. Why retell the story? I trust the reviewer to tell me whether the story is competently told. I care more about the characters, setting and mood and overall quality of the movie.

Actually I think many of the reviewers and movie goers may need to go back to school with crediting Argo any degree of accuracy. It is a good movie thriller and is more or less alternative historical fiction like Inglorious Bastards. Instead of the American heroes ending WWII leaving out the Red Army we have American heroes saving embassy staff instead of the benefactors. The big spoiler is the real hero of the story is Ambassador Ken Taylor and Canadian Foreign Affairs in Ottawa. Tony Mendez did nothing and his plan was scuppered as too elaborate by Canadian officials who got people out using their own resources. You should not be taken in by a movie or a trailer.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... d-straight