What were the last movies you watched?

[M_Robbins5]

Ebert wrote about video games. He wrote bull**** about a medium he hasn't even experienced himself, but he wrote.

That is the single biggest reason why I hate the guy.

[LiveHomeVideo]

Still talking about Ebert?

Look, I get the opposition. I understand that sometimes he can be a closed-minded twit. But what I also understand is where he comes from with a lot (not all) of his opinions. I like him because he's not saying things to join the crowd or to get a check. If a movie sucks in his opinion, he'll say so. If a movie is good in his opinion, he'll say so, and why. He speaks his mind. And for me that's enough to like him as a critic, even if I don't always agree with him.

[www1221]

Ebert was(is?) on TV thats why I know him. I never read or listen to any of his stuff I just have seen him on TV

[SheSaidSheSaid]

Ebert was(is?) on TV

He's probably still on TV somewhere, in some fashion. But the "At the Movies" franchise was handed over to two different critics (Roper also out).

[LiveHomeVideo]

While my mom was watching Tim Burton films and not "getting" them for Halloween, I was watching a probably forgotten 2006 movie, "Monster House" for my film review series.

While not the best I've ever scene (far from it), it's got potential to be a pretty good kid's flick. It does get rather dark very early on, but instead of spoiling it here, I'll just tell you that if what looks like what happens really did happen, this movie would probably get a PG-13 rating.

It's still got a silly concept (a house that eats people? Really?), but it's still inventive with it. The movie's also surprisingly retro, though I'm wondering whether it's set in the 80's or 90's. Can't be modern day, since nothing looks modern.

It's the second animated film to use a lot of motion capture, and it really brings like to the characters that otherwise look like claymation.

I don't like the characters though, simply because they are either really extreme or really dull. But what do you expect from an average-grade, CGI-animated flick?

7/10

[SheSaidSheSaid]

88 Minutes

Oh my various gods, this movie was horrible. One of the worst I've ever seen. If Mystery Science Theater were still around, it would be a prime target for their lampooning.

[www1221]

Silent Hill(1) is boring and thats it

88 Minutes

Oh my various gods, this movie was horrible. One of the worst I've ever seen. If Mystery Science Theater were still around, it would be a prime target for their lampooning.

Another movie to add to my "To Watch List"

[Lowlander2]

Looper was pretty great. Probably in the top 5 movies of the year.

The concept might have sounded silly, but it definitely works very well and creates some pretty good characters out of it. The juxtaposition between the two time periods of the one main character creates an interesting, evolving conflict. And the ending, while one you've seen at least a few times before, is still very attention-grabbing. Very good.

Only problems were some of the cinematography (some shots just looked silly) and the pacing of the second act, which was very slow. But definitely recommended otherwise.

[SheSaidSheSaid]

Another movie to add to my "To Watch List"

Just as long as you know what you're getting into.

It's weird, because it starts three of my faves (Al Pacino, Alicia Witt, Neal McDonough) but oh...it hurt to watch. It hurt real, real bad.

[Mega-Tallica]

Just as long as you know what you're getting into.

It's weird, because it starts three of my faves (Al Pacino, Alicia Witt, Neal McDonough) but oh...it hurt to watch. It hurt real, real bad.

Can't be worse than The Son Of No One. Why, Pacino? Why must you hurt your legacy with these god awful movies???