I haven't presumed anything, it's a fact that most of the superhero films last year made several top 10 lists on this site. Wasn't talking about Sean in particular.

Even if I am prejudiced in the opposite direction, that doesn't change the point. It's not big budgets I have a problem with. I'm pumped for Man of Steel. It's the obvious disconnect I'm seeing between the director of an event movie and the action sequences in an event movie. This has never been a problem with Snyder, so there's no reason to assume it will be this time. But does anyone on here really believe that the action in Avengers represents Joss Whedon's singular vision? It feels to me more like getting a coke from the vending machine. Action as prepackaged product, provided by Marvel incorporated. Bullet to the Head's action may seem low key in comparison, but it certainly doesn't feel like a corporate product.

The action in Resident Evil is Anderson's singular vision, like it or not. And he put his sweat into crafting those sequences, shot by shot. That's what I enjoy watching. Characters, developed or not, are not real. But Anderson's hard work IS real, it's a tangible thing. People on here may not be hateful toward lower budget action flicks, but the way people are describing Bullet to the Head as forgettable just proves the prejudice. Forgettable in terms of production - yeah, that I agree with. But I'm the kind of guy who watches my favorite movies over and over again, pretty much infinitely and pretty consistently. So the way I'd judge Bullet would be more like, is the action still entertaining after multiple viewings, do the performances retain their energy, etc. Bullet holds up extremely well in that regard.

Out of the Past is pretty forgettable after one viewing. But it resonates.

One last thing I'd assert is that Looper is not really an action movie. It's a sci-fi concept thriller which happens to include some shooting, but it doesn't build itself on action sequences. It doesn't showcase action. Nothing wrong with that, Rian Johnson can do what he wants. But it's not even trying to be much of an action movie, so why defend it as such.

I think perhaps you made the right decision here.

Yet you still watched all of them? Even I haven't seen all his movies, and I'm a fan.

It is my personal belief that "Walter Hill can do better" is not a valid criticism from anyone. Most people have never seen a Walter Hill movie, or if they have, don't remember or can't recall his name, or wouldn't connect Bullet to a movie they saw 30 years ago anyway. I heard his name for the first time 6 months ago; he's one of the more obscure talents of his generation. The point being, someone who isn't familiar with Hill would probably find Bullet a lot fresher than you do. I showed it to someone who hadn't seen any Hill, he said he thought the style was off the chain and unusually energetic. That's the only perspective I care about. Movies make money off of people like him, not off people like us. None of us are even close to being "average" moviegoers, not even Vexer, the average moviegoer doesn't see as many movies as he does, not even 1/10th as many as he does. I feel the need to remember that most moviewatchers are not like you or me. I think about that when I judge a movie.

seriously? maybe he's obscure to your generation, but not mine. his movies did pretty well(and he wrote Alien, I would have thought you would have heard of him from that alone)

The rest of your post is odd, guess you can excuse any weak effort of any director by saying 'its a good movie if you haven't seen any of their other movies.'

After seeing Olympus Has Fallen I find myself thinking about Fuqua's wok. In some ways his main counterpart is F Gary Gray. Both got their start in music videos and both tend to make genre pics that for the most part rise above the conventional. Both have misfired on occasion (Fuqua wit King Arthur, Gray with A Man Apart although studio meddling with both films also contributed to that). But on the whole, while not auteurs, they're both good examples of directors for hire who manage to go above and beyond.

But what kind does he use?



Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I feel like I've enjoyed Fuqua's style much more than Gray's, but I think it's a pretty fair comparasin.

I thought A Man Apart was pretty good, wasn't really that big on "Be Cool" though.

2103 will get good when Evil Dead gets released

90 years?! Lame!

How do I describe 2013 so far.......?

Meh.

That said, there are films later this year that I'll be checking out, like Star Trek: Into Darkness and possibly Iron Man 3 (I didn't like the 2nd film, so this one has to be spectacular to pique my interest). Otherwise, it looks like 2013 is another year where my primary sources of entertainment are gaming and television (just over a week until Game of Thrones season 3 starts).

As for the whole "taste in films" line of conversation: just accept that each of us will have differing tastes in films, though there are some that many of converge on in opinion. I don't bother Vex about his taste because I respect his right to his own opinion no matter how much it differs from mine. That doesn't mean that I won't argue with him on film topics, however.

That's cool, I don't mind the the occasional argument

I meant 2013 haha

I'm just trying to imagine Hill's own mindset, I feel it's something close to that. It figures that any director eventually becomes tired of trying to measure up to himself.

Unless you're Tarantino

Can't argue with that.

I hope you're not too attached to anybody.

There are no minor characters to whom I'm deeply invested in, if that's who you're referring to. As far as major character demises: having read the books, I already have a pretty good idea as to whose funerals to prepare for this season.