The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[dag]

Tonight, I attended the world premier of Cloud Atlas. Land and Andy Wachowski and Tom Tykwer all said a few words before the screening, and then introduced the entire cast. The entire group sat in the theatre with the audience, and at the end of the film were given a standing ovation.

Already, I've read some very strong positive and negative reactions to the movie. I read the novel at the beginning of the year, and this was perhaps my most anticipated movie of the year. I think the extremes on both sides of the debate about this movie should be ignored. The film is intellectually ambitious, and provides a unique artistic opportunity to the actors, all of whom portray multiple characters, sometimes different races and even gender.

Unlike the rigid (and appropriate) structure of the novel, the film immediately and constantly flits from one storyline to the next. I think this was necessary. It also emphasized the interconnectedness of the characters and their stories. So the movie never stays with one storyline for very long. Occasionally, a character from one period provides voice-over (and there is a lot of voice-over, with the movie keeping the novel's epistolary narrative) for a different period.

I thought the movie's structure worked. I also liked the use of the actors appearing as different characters across the separate stories. But sitting here, a couple of hours later, a dispassionate reflection makes me say that that while the film was indeed satisfying, I can't honestly say it was revolutionary in its vision. Certainly, very interesting, well-paced (the film is nearly three hours in length), and definitely worth seeing. But, yes, the book is better.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by dag

Last night I attended the North American premier of Paul Thomas Anderson's highly anticipated The Master. I regret to say that I feel this film was overly long, unfocused, and badly in need of tighter editing.

[Show spoiler]

As expected, it is a technically accomplished film. It looks great. Phillip Seymour Hoffman does a great job as the pseudo intellectual but charismatic charlatan who attracts a following of gullible hangers-on. I hate to admit it, but Joaquin Phoenix is outstanding as the alcoholic drifter, a nobody who unexpectedly becomes attached to this unusual group.

The movie is terribly long. There came a point where I wondered how much more the director could show us to make his points. Certainly, Anderson treats his audience as adults, which is all too rare in Hollywood. But the extended scene featuring Phoenix walking back and forth across a room, under Hoffman's instructions, to describe a window and a wall made me feel that's how the audience was being treated.

Thanks for your thoughts. Was PTA there and did he or anybody else discuss the film afterwards? Also, how does it compare to his other films (most of which have long run-times)?

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by dag

Tonight, I attended the world premier of Cloud Atlas. Land and Andy Wachowski and Tom Tykwer all said a few words before the screening, and then introduced the entire cast. The entire group sat in the theatre with the audience, and at the end of the film were given a standing ovation.

[Show spoiler]
Already, I've read some very strong positive and negative reactions to the movie. I read the novel at the beginning of the year, and this was perhaps my most anticipated movie of the year. I think the extremes on both sides of the debate about this movie should be ignored. The film is intellectually ambitious, and provides a unique artistic opportunity to the actors, all of whom portray multiple characters, sometimes different races and even gender.

Unlike the rigid (and appropriate) structure of the novel, the film immediately and constantly flits from one storyline to the next. I think this was necessary. It also emphasized the interconnectedness of the characters and their stories. So the movie never stays with one storyline for very long. Occasionally, a character from one period provides voice-over (and there is a lot of voice-over, with the movie keeping the novel's epistolary narrative) for a different period.

I thought the movie's structure worked. I also liked the use of the actors appearing as different characters across the separate stories. But sitting here, a couple of hours later, a dispassionate reflection makes me say that that while the film was indeed satisfying, I can't honestly say it was revolutionary in its vision. Certainly, very interesting, well-paced (the film is nearly three hours in length), and definitely worth seeing. But, yes, the book is better.

This is good to hear. I was hoping it's not overly complicated and easy to follow (with all the storyline switching). For example, I recently watched Roland Emmerich's Anonymous and it switches timelines without any kind of annotation at all. Frustrating.

[Foggy]

On The Road - Sounds like the clipped off 20 mins did nothing to improve the film.
The Master - I was really looking forward to that one
Dredd - Agreed
Cloud Atlas - Glad the film actually manages to hold itself together a deliver. Although, do you think the film would be easier to follow because you've read the book, or is it a safe one for newcomers.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I felt it was about paranoia and how you think people perceive you. With the scene with the parents being very accusing of him, the father giving him the rite of passage through the mini-chickens but screwing it up. His wife leaving him halfway through the film, the baby getting ill and the lady next door being unable to draw her eyes away from his terrible parenting even during sex. His boss using every conceivable part of his body in the machine.

Probably not the greatest observation, but for a first time viewing it's ok.

It's a good observation; I had much of the same thoughts (despite my last post about it ).

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

There's still quite an adventure to be had diving into his filmography.
The Straight Story is a must. I put it off forever and regret getting around to it so late (relatively, that is)
The Elephant man is quite an achievement too!
The Pilot for Twin Peaks (maybe the best pilot I've ever seen IMHO)

These next three are must sees but difficult to fully appreciate first time around (at least for me)
Lost Highway (mind bending)
Inland Empire (much hated, shot on hanheld three hour mind@$&k)
Wild at Heart (definitely a visceral experience!)

These next two are for diehards:
Dune (the notorious flop, with much unintentional humour)
Twin Peaks (just falls flat with none of his usual flair)

Seen the bolded ones above, in addition to "Mulholland Dr," "Eraserhead," and his short films collection. There's still a bunch of Lynch that I haven't seen, but "Elephant Man" gets the high points from me (at least because it's sane ), and I've always loved "Dune."

"Inland Empire" ranks as the weirdest film I've seen, and it left be feeling rather ambivalent (I put it in the #100 spot on my least favorite movies list ).

"Blue Velvet" is next in my rental queue.

Originally Posted by dag

I saw Dredd today at TIFF. I will say that this was not terrible. It was, to put it more positively, a guilty pleasure. But let's not mistake this picture - or this character, for that matter - as some philosophically profound statement. I've never been impressed with Garland. This movie does frequently look very cheap. It's just a way to spend an hour and a half watching guns being fired, nothing more.

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by dag

Tonight, I attended the world premier of Cloud Atlas.

[Show spoiler]Land and Andy Wachowski and Tom Tykwer all said a few words before the screening, and then introduced the entire cast. The entire group sat in the theatre with the audience, and at the end of the film were given a standing ovation.

Already, I've read some very strong positive and negative reactions to the movie. I read the novel at the beginning of the year, and this was perhaps my most anticipated movie of the year. I think the extremes on both sides of the debate about this movie should be ignored. The film is intellectually ambitious, and provides a unique artistic opportunity to the actors, all of whom portray multiple characters, sometimes different races and even gender.

Unlike the rigid (and appropriate) structure of the novel, the film immediately and constantly flits from one storyline to the next. I think this was necessary. It also emphasized the interconnectedness of the characters and their stories. So the movie never stays with one storyline for very long. Occasionally, a character from one period provides voice-over (and there is a lot of voice-over, with the movie keeping the novel's epistolary narrative) for a different period.

I thought the movie's structure worked. I also liked the use of the actors appearing as different characters across the separate stories. But sitting here, a couple of hours later, a dispassionate reflection makes me say that that while the film was indeed satisfying, I can't honestly say it was revolutionary in its vision. Certainly, very interesting, well-paced (the film is nearly three hours in length), and definitely worth seeing. But, yes, the book is better.

Sweet! I'd love to see these at some point. Thanks for the reviews!

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

There's still quite an adventure to be had diving into his filmography.
The Straight Story is a must. I put it off forever and regret getting around to it so late (relatively, that is)
The Elephant man is quite an achievement too!
The Pilot for Twin Peaks (maybe the best pilot I've ever seen IMHO)

These next three are must sees but difficult to fully appreciate first time around (at least for me)
Lost Highway (mind bending)
Inland Empire (much hated, shot on hanheld three hour mind@$&k)
Wild at Heart (definitely a visceral experience!)

These next two are for diehards:
Dune (the notorious flop, with much unintentional humour)
Twin Peaks (just falls flat with none of his usual flair)

Seen a few parts of Inland, pretty crazy stuff, I'll probably give it a watch, but it won't be for a while. I have Wild at Heart on my sky+ box ready to watch.

[Foggy]

Final Top 20 list, many absurd choices to be found here, I try to keep my final 20 of any list pretty diverse, by keeping it one film per director.

20:

[Show spoiler]Brick

19:

[Show spoiler]Die Hard

18:

[Show spoiler]127 Hours

17:

[Show spoiler]Submarine

16:

[Show spoiler]Raiders of the Lost Ark

15:

[Show spoiler]Kick-Ass

14:

[Show spoiler]Requiem for a Dream

13:

[Show spoiler]Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

12:

[Show spoiler]The Thing (1982)

11:

[Show spoiler]Memento

10:

[Show spoiler]Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

9:

[Show spoiler]Battle Royale

8:

[Show spoiler]Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn

7:

[Show spoiler]A Clockwork Orange

6:

[Show spoiler]Fight Club

5:

[Show spoiler]The Big Lebowski

4:

[Show spoiler]Apocalypse Now

3:

[Show spoiler]The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

2:

[Show spoiler]Wall-e

1:

[Show spoiler]Reservoir Dogs (Of course it is, what else did you expect)

Might comeback a spruce up the list with some pictures and reasons, granted my laptop not die on me next time

[Abdrewes]

@Al the Strange, Inland Empire took me two viewings to appreciate. Although I must confess the second time around was under less than ideal viewing hours. Upon learning my grade for a certain class at 2AM, I couldn't get back to sleep and just watched Inland Empire, I was hooked into this strange nightmare for the duration of it's 3hrs.

I can't stress this enough, The Straight Story is a masterpiece. It's indeed a straight story told patiently, no mind-f@&k to be had here, but it's one of the sweetest and most observant movies about the bond between brothers and the atonement for ones sins.

Considering your tastes I'd say Blue Velvet and especially Lost Highway are up your alley. Lost Highway is just a demented, sinister experience. It's the first of Lynch's identity trilogy.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Final Top 20 list, many absurd choices to be found here, I try to keep my final 20 of any list pretty diverse, by keeping it one film per director.

20:

[Show spoiler]Brick

19:

[Show spoiler]Die Hard

18:

[Show spoiler]127 Hours

17:

[Show spoiler]Submarine

16:

[Show spoiler]Raiders of the Lost Ark

15:

[Show spoiler]Kick-Ass

14:

[Show spoiler]Requiem for a Dream

13:

[Show spoiler]Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

12:

[Show spoiler]The Thing (1982)

11:

[Show spoiler]Memento

10:

[Show spoiler]Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

9:

[Show spoiler]Battle Royale

8:

[Show spoiler]Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn

7:

[Show spoiler]A Clockwork Orange

6:

[Show spoiler]Fight Club

5:

[Show spoiler]The Big Lebowski

4:

[Show spoiler]Apocalypse Now

3:

[Show spoiler]The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

2:

[Show spoiler]Wall-e

1:

[Show spoiler]Reservoir Dogs (Of course it is, what else did you expect)

Might comeback a spruce up the list with some pictures and reasons, granted my laptop not die on me next time

Damn! I really have to go see Brick.

[dag]

Hi. Just a few responses.

Paul Thomas Anderson was indeed at the TIFF screening of The Master. He said only a few words, because the screening was running nearly an hour behind schedule. I left as the credits rolled, so I'm unsure if there was any Q&A after the movie.

I'm afraid I can't compare The Master with much of his previous work. I think of his other movies I've only seen There Will Be Blood (which I very much liked). To reiterate my earlier comment, this is very much a film targeted towards adults. There is absolutely no dumbing down here, and I think the director is expecting you to work out what the characters are actually thinking. I appreciate that a lot. I just felt that, in this case, the movie's length worked against it.

I don't believe it necessary that you first read the book in order to understand the film adaptation of Cloud Atlas. Obviously, the directors had to make some changes to translate the novel into film, and I was fine with that. They are, of course, two completely different media. You may (or may not) find some of the dialogue difficult to follow in the two future storylines, but, really, a viewer shouldn't be intimidated by the film's structure, and you absolutely won't be confused by what is happening. The stories really do fit together very well.

Again, my very brief takes on the movies I'm seeing at TIFF are simply my opinion, and we all know each of us could watch the same film and react completely differently. That's one reason we all enjoy coming here to talk about movies. Cheers!

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by dag

Hi. Just a few responses.

Paul Thomas Anderson was indeed at the TIFF screening of The Master. He said only a few words, because the screening was running nearly an hour behind schedule. I left as the credits rolled, so I'm unsure if there was any Q&A after the movie.

I'm afraid I can't compare The Master with much of his previous work. I think of his other movies I've only seen There Will Be Blood (which I very much liked). To reiterate my earlier comment, this is very much a film targeted towards adults. There is absolutely no dumbing down here, and I think the director is expecting you to work out what the characters are actually thinking. I appreciate that a lot. I just felt that, in this case, the movie's length worked against it.

I don't believe it necessary that you first read the book in order to understand the film adaptation of Cloud Atlas. Obviously, the directors had to make some changes to translate the novel into film, and I was fine with that. They are, of course, two completely different media. You may (or may not) find some of the dialogue difficult to follow in the two future storylines, but, really, a viewer shouldn't be intimidated by the film's structure, and you absolutely won't be confused by what is happening. The stories really do fit together very well.

Again, my very brief takes on the movies I'm seeing at TIFF are simply my opinion, and we all know each of us could watch the same film and react completely differently. That's one reason we all enjoy coming here to talk about movies. Cheers!

Fair enough to all

What else are you planning to check out at Toronto, or is that all you're able to check out?

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Final Top 20 list, many absurd choices to be found here, I try to keep my final 20 of any list pretty diverse, by keeping it one film per director.

20:

[Show spoiler]Brick

19:

[Show spoiler]Die Hard

18:

[Show spoiler]127 Hours

17:

[Show spoiler]Submarine

16:

[Show spoiler]Raiders of the Lost Ark

15:

[Show spoiler]Kick-Ass

14:

[Show spoiler]Requiem for a Dream

13:

[Show spoiler]Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

12:

[Show spoiler]The Thing (1982)

11:

[Show spoiler]Memento

10:

[Show spoiler]Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

9:

[Show spoiler]Battle Royale

8:

[Show spoiler]Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn

7:

[Show spoiler]A Clockwork Orange

6:

[Show spoiler]Fight Club

5:

[Show spoiler]The Big Lebowski

4:

[Show spoiler]Apocalypse Now

3:

[Show spoiler]The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

2:

[Show spoiler]Wall-e

1:

[Show spoiler]Reservoir Dogs (Of course it is, what else did you expect)

Might comeback a spruce up the list with some pictures and reasons, granted my laptop not die on me next time

6/20. Could be worse, right?

To be fair, I have seen only 1 out of the 14 that didn't make it (Reservoir Dogs).

[Abdrewes]

Wow, Battlefield Earth is an incredibly bad film. As densely Packed with greatness The Godfather is, Battlefield Earth is bad. Full Review (or something resembling one) will be coming shortly, let my just shower off my disgust.


Okay, here's some atrocious dialogue I jotted down, unfortunately I couldn't note all of the groaners because it would have taken me five+ hours

*"The green and the blue skies they told me this planet was ugly but this has gotta be one of the ugliest crapholes in the entire universe

I couldn't agree with you more -JT

I hate these puny undersized planets the gravity is so different-leader

One does get used to it -JT

The human animals grossly undersized-leader

Don't make very good eating" FW

In meeting:
"Dog animals did prove to be mire cooperative than man animals for some reason they weren't as useful when it came to manual labor"-John Travolta

"I was trained to conquer galaxies! To do any thing else would be a lie!" screams dreadlocked John Travolta

A machine beams the psychlo language into his eyes
"It's a god machine

No it's a language machine

This may be our only way out of here"

"Our race is dying and will soon be gone forever"

"I'm gonna make you as happy as a baby psychlo on a diet of gerbango" pleads a hooker w a foot long tongue.

"If we don't take back our planet, the last of our humanity will become extinct"

"These are flying machines weapons of some kind"


Battlefield earth is definitely one of the most mind numbingly bad films one could ever see. Characters speak in plot points and mythology. The camera is tilted in every frame, at all times this made me sick and I'm still reeling from the effect. When an establishing shot of the Library of congress appeared, I wondered what measures the government must take immediately to keep the building from sinking on one side, I guess D.C is actually a swamp. Many times I yelled "hold on! You're gonna fall, grab on to the bar!" when characters were in rooms. Just baffling!

The plot is very mind numbingly linear (to the movie's credit, time and space are fairly clear at times) and told through nothing but expository dialogue. What were the screenwriters taking when they wrote this script? Was everyone in the production either lobotomized or under the influence too? Someone could have said "stop." How did they get financing for this debacle? Is this a parody of science fiction.

The logic is just baffling at times! John Travolta beams intelligence into one of these humans and expects them not to use it against them? What!?

To see is to believe, just imagine the horrendous dialogue posted above told through the most ugly, garish visual style imagineable. Its an exceedingly bad experience. I sat there Clockwork Orange style vowing to sit through all of it. I had to fight the urge until the very end, "Do I really have to see the last seven minutes?" my reaction went from incredulous and shocked to just numbed and catatoninic, I sat there mouth wide open, I couldnt believe it gets worse and worse. Well, it has an accumulating effect.

When you find yourself yearning for the sweet joys of Dune or even John Carter, fill in the blank.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Final Top 20 list, many absurd choices to be found here, I try to keep my final 20 of any list pretty diverse, by keeping it one film per director.

20:

[Show spoiler]Brick

19:

[Show spoiler]Die Hard

18:

[Show spoiler]127 Hours

17:

[Show spoiler]Submarine

16:

[Show spoiler]Raiders of the Lost Ark

15:

[Show spoiler]Kick-Ass

14:

[Show spoiler]Requiem for a Dream

13:

[Show spoiler]Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

12:

[Show spoiler]The Thing (1982)

11:

[Show spoiler]Memento

10:

[Show spoiler]Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

9:

[Show spoiler]Battle Royale

8:

[Show spoiler]Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn

7:

[Show spoiler]A Clockwork Orange

6:

[Show spoiler]Fight Club

5:

[Show spoiler]The Big Lebowski

4:

[Show spoiler]Apocalypse Now

3:

[Show spoiler]The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

2:

[Show spoiler]Wall-e

1:

[Show spoiler]Reservoir Dogs (Of course it is, what else did you expect)

Might comeback a spruce up the list with some pictures and reasons, granted my laptop not die on me next time

Looking at all of your Top 100:

Own: 61
Seen a further: 16
In my Top 100 or in contention: 30
5 of my Top 10, including No. 1 (Mulholland Dr.)

[iam1bearcat]

The Five-Year Engagement (2012) - 4/5

i was surprised to hear almost universal negativity about The Five-Year Engagement when it was released in theaters and on blu-ray (especially this site's review). i knew it wasn't going to affect my enjoyment of the film as i am a pretty big fan of the cast (aside from Emily Blunt who i've never seen before) but i wondered, "what makes people dislike this?" and after a viewing at 2 in the morning.... i still can't see it oh well

the film is pretty much what you would expect from the title - a couple is together for five long years before getting married. however, i was surprised by the lack of "oh no, another issue!" popping up. the reason for the five years is essentially one stretched out, complex issue, which makes the film feel real and grounded in reality.

in the review on this website, the reviewer says this is a problem as the film tries to balance adult comedy, adult serious, dramedy, and goofballness and doesn't do it very well. i had no real issue with the mix of serious and gut-busting laughing, but to each their own. as long as you can enjoy switching genres, you should enjoy this.

Emily Blunt steals the film as every scene she is in, she rocks she's a real cutie and very, very funny. i don't find most women to be funny, but she kills it here simply with facial expressions and some very witty one-liners. she doesn't (and the writers thankfully don't) act like the typical woman comedian who's trying too hard. a big thumbs up to that!

i watched the unrated version which is a hefty 132 minutes but it never felt long or tedious to watch. Chris Pratt (who is TERRIFIC in Parks & Rec, a show no one seems to be watching ) adds some "gross" best friend behavior (and hilariousness) and later on becomes a very real and down to earth person - much like everyone else in the film.

some jokes don't always work, but many do and many gags and visuals are not overdone or ridiculous which make them all the funnier. the end is sweet and the supporting cast really makes the film because our main characters spend so much time with them. they're well written and well portrayed, which solidifies itself in realism.

definitely check it out if you're a fan of chick flicks, adult dramedies, or most Judd Apatow relationship films

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Final Top 20 list, many absurd choices to be found here, I try to keep my final 20 of any list pretty diverse, by keeping it one film per director.

20:

[Show spoiler]Brick

19:

[Show spoiler]Die Hard

18:

[Show spoiler]127 Hours

17:

[Show spoiler]Submarine

16:

[Show spoiler]Raiders of the Lost Ark

15:

[Show spoiler]Kick-Ass

14:

[Show spoiler]Requiem for a Dream

13:

[Show spoiler]Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

12:

[Show spoiler]The Thing (1982)

11:

[Show spoiler]Memento

10:

[Show spoiler]Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

9:

[Show spoiler]Battle Royale

8:

[Show spoiler]Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn

7:

[Show spoiler]A Clockwork Orange

6:

[Show spoiler]Fight Club

5:

[Show spoiler]The Big Lebowski

4:

[Show spoiler]Apocalypse Now

3:

[Show spoiler]The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

2:

[Show spoiler]Wall-e

1:

[Show spoiler]Reservoir Dogs (Of course it is, what else did you expect)

Might comeback a spruce up the list with some pictures and reasons, granted my laptop not die on me next time

6 would be in my top 100
2 are in my top 50
6 are films i enjoy and would likely be in my top 150
4 i haven't seen
2 i've seen and have moments, but i don't think much of them

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

The Five-Year Engagement (2012) - 4/5

[Show spoiler]i was surprised to hear almost universal negativity about The Five-Year Engagement when it was released in theaters and on blu-ray (especially this site's review). i knew it wasn't going to affect my enjoyment of the film as i am a pretty big fan of the cast (aside from Emily Blunt who i've never seen before) but i wondered, "what makes people dislike this?" and after a viewing at 2 in the morning.... i still can't see it oh well

the film is pretty much what you would expect from the title - a couple is together for five long years before getting married. however, i was surprised by the lack of "oh no, another issue!" popping up. the reason for the five years is essentially one stretched out, complex issue, which makes the film feel real and grounded in reality.

in the review on this website, the reviewer says this is a problem as the film tries to balance adult comedy, adult serious, dramedy, and goofballness and doesn't do it very well. i had no real issue with the mix of serious and gut-busting laughing, but to each their own. as long as you can enjoy switching genres, you should enjoy this.

Emily Blunt steals the film as every scene she is in, she rocks she's a real cutie and very, very funny. i don't find most women to be funny, but she kills it here simply with facial expressions and some very witty one-liners. she doesn't (and the writers thankfully don't) act like the typical woman comedian who's trying too hard. a big thumbs up to that!

i watched the unrated version which is a hefty 132 minutes but it never felt long or tedious to watch. Chris Pratt (who is TERRIFIC in Parks & Rec, a show no one seems to be watching ) adds some "gross" best friend behavior (and hilariousness) and later on becomes a very real and down to earth person - much like everyone else in the film.

some jokes don't always work, but many do and many gags and visuals are not overdone or ridiculous which make them all the funnier. the end is sweet and the supporting cast really makes the film because our main characters spend so much time with them. they're well written and well portrayed, which solidifies itself in realism.

definitely check it out if you're a fan of chick flicks, adult dramedies, or most Judd Apatow relationship films

I blind bought this last week, so I hope to give it a as well soon. I like Emily Blunt and have yet to be disappointed by anything Nicholas Stoller has been involved in, so it seemed pretty safe to me regardless of the review here and disappointing performance at the box office.

[lDlisturb3d]

I know this is off top but have you guys been following The Walking Dead?? This show is epic!!!!!!!!! I just finished the 2nd Season and im so hooked its SAD

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

6/20. Could be worse, right?

To be fair, I have seen only 1 out of the 14 that didn't make it (Reservoir Dogs).

Wait...NO, NO, nononononononononono no



http://m.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YersIyzsOpc

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Looking at all of your Top 100:

Own: 61
Seen a further: 16
In my Top 100 or in contention: 30
5 of my Top 10, including No. 1 (Mulholland Dr.)

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

6 would be in my top 100
2 are in my top 50
6 are films i enjoy and would likely be in my top 150
4 i haven't seen
2 i've seen and have moments, but i don't think much of them

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

I know this is off top but have you guys been following The Walking Dead?? This show is epic!!!!!!!!! I just finished the 2nd Season and im so hooked its SAD

It's good, I'd just wish the writing was a bit tighter.