Llike you, I don't really want to see the next two Hobbit films. The first Hobbit felt like the Phantom Menace to me, and while I was watching it, I was thinking of ways I would have made it better. (The giant orc-dwarf battle is one of my favorite parts of Tolkien's appendices to the Return of the King, and was the one addition I loved)

The Lord of the Rings movies are actually one of the best movie adaptations of books. Even if they don't get the exact events all the time, they got most of the important ones and the spirit, especially the Extended Editions. While there are certainly a few problems (Faramir's character arc in the movies is different from the books and reception on that was mixed), the books of the Lord of the Rings are certainly worth reading.

Lilo and Stitch

Round noses. Round noses everywhere.

I honestly thought the world we see at the end would've made a much better film. I liked The World's End - I just thought it was too similar to Hot Fuzz/Shaun of the Dead and didn't really do anything unique.

I prefer 'The Hobbit Padded Like Hell For The Sake of Sucking Your Wallet Dry'. Seriously: They're adding a female Elf love interest for absolutely no reason other than to add even more characters and make the runtime even longer. My god - in the next film alone we're appentely going to be spending forever stuck with the forest Elves and the town just outside the Lonely Moutain.

I eagarly await the inevitable fan-edit that severs this bloated lump into the single three hour film it should have been (too long for moviegoing audiences? Then have an intermission. There are so many films these days that are crying for a break in the middle).

Oh right, the last film I watched.

The Omen

The problem with horror has always been that its easy to do. All you need is something that everyone finds creepy (possessed children, demons, zombies - the more overused the better) a few jumpscares, and an abandoned location. Throw it all together on a cheap budget and you are guatenteed some sort of profit.

Real horror however is actually incredibly hard to do, because it invoves originality and subtlety. These are two things The Omen has (improbable Preist-impaling and glass-panel decapitation aside), even though its been ripped-off so many times you wouldn't think it.

I like watching films that would never be made today because it makes me feel smug. I look at Alien where we don't see the monster until 20 mins in, and Close Encounters of The Third Kind where not a single person gets killed and I know that these wouldn't be made today because Hollywood think we'll fall asleep into our popcorn if there wasn't at least one murder in the opening scene - and to an extent they are right.

It depresses me when people say The Wickerman sucks because they didn't jump or find it scary. After forcing them to slap themselves hard in the face, I remind these people that The Wickerman is not supposed to be scary - but disturbing and chilling. That's what Horror was originally like back in the 18th Century, because a book can't really startle a reader - but they didn't need to because Bram Stoker, Mary Shelley and Edgar Allen Poe knew that disturbing the reader will make them remember the piece. And its clearly worked because I'm talking about them right now.

I counted only one jumpscare in The Omen, and it was effective because I wasn't expecting it. The film hadn't performed a sucession of 'fake-outs' - designed to send the audience to sleep until the second act when the jumpscares are actually caused by something frightening. Its not trying to outwit the viewer by suggesting that something is going to jump out at the protagonist, only for it to be a bat - then the protagonist turns round at the ghost goes 'Boo! Gotcha!'

Its ironic that so many Horror films have copied from The Omen - but they've missed the subtelty and atmosphere of the film. I suppose its like that with every rip-off....

The Intermission is a lost art. The only reason cinemagoers have heard of an Intermission is because of Monty Python And The Holy Grail. Like many things in that film, people misunderstand the joke. Its not about how intrusive Intermissions are - the joke is merely that its a really stupid and inappropriate place to put an Intermission. But because of it people think the Intermission interferes with the cinematic experience.

Uh, no. I'll tell you what interferes the cinematic experience: Your bladder exploding within your gut causing you to bleed from the mouth and ruin the upholstery. Your throat sticking to itself so you can only communicate in Klingon.  Your arse becoming so numb you have to stand up and say "I'm sorry. All this spectacle is nice and everything - but I think my posterior is broken".

I recently saw a play that didn't have an Intermission. Everyone in the vicinity was clearly getting restless, as they probably needed to make use of the lavishly decorated toilet facilities, the well-stocked bar, and the large foyer with plenty of walking space. When the play ended, everyone was like "What? Thats it?" They didn't feel satisfied, and they were grumbling about their burst bladders. The play's Director clearly wanted to maintain the atmosphere and intesnity of the piece, but it was being diminished even more than an Intermission by dragging on.

I suppose theatre keeps the Intermission because the whole affair is more expensive civilised. Seats are pre-booked, there is usually only one stage in the building, and there are no smelly poor people to nick your seat beause the theatre oozes more snobbery than the fox-hunters AGM. It would probably be a pain these days to keep everthing in order when my local multiplex is basically like: "Give us your money, get in, sit down, watch your stupid film, then bugger off"

Tombstone

I haven't seen that many films in the Western genre, but this makes me want to rectify that. It starts out a little slow, but when the bullets started flying, I was transfixed until the end credits. And the film is all the more enjoyable when you realize that pretty much everything that happened in the film is based on historical fact.

It's got the right mixture of drama and camp to keep you really interested in the serious while having you laughing (in a good way) at the absurdity of some scenes. It's a bit on the bloody side at times, but if you watch westerns you're probably used to that.

In the end, this comes out highly recommended from me!

Youtube @TheRealSonjira I consider it a personal defeat if my pee is not perfectly clear every time.]

I'm so glad that every single home video release of 2001 keeps the Intermission. I wish more DVD's did that. Its great going to the bathroom and getting a drink knowing that the film is still rolling (and, if there is music, still hearing it) but its giving me a few moments to get myself hyped for the second act.

Yeah, that's basically every Western in a nutshell. Well, the good ones anyway...

Osmosis Jones

Disgusting scenes were expected, but other than that it was okay. I never seem to understand bodily humor.

Oh and by the way, yeah I saw this at school.

One element that I really like about this film is that it takes the whole human organism and represents it as a sort of community filled with artery highways and the zit is a night club where dirty stuff gathers. By dirty I mean that there are triple breasted strip teasers...........

The animation done by Warner Brothers mixed with live action reminds you of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".

I agree with that.  I am disappointed that the 154-minute version is so hard to find, and that DVD is the perfect opportunity to offer it.  Most releases are the shorter, 139-minute version.

By the way, tell me you like my lego cuusoo project based ont he movie:
http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/38921

1D: this is us.

Youtube Channel Flickr #LoveWins