At least Boondock Saints has an inexplicably committed Willem Dafoe performance to provide occasional fun. This has no redeeming merit.

It never ceases to amaze me, when I watch movies like this, 'Smokin' Aces' or whatever Tarantino-aping nonsense is playing this or that week. Why do people go through SO much effort and time to make such perfunctory exercises in cinematic waste? Making a movie is SO hard, so why do you want to blow it on childishly…

Brilliantly put. Smug nonsense like this gets a pass all the time when people pass it as 'Grindhouse' and 'turn-your-brain-off fun' movie. Where it's neither and just a smug, 'look at us, we're clever!', POS.

Also, Moneyball was a terrible movie. Brad Pitt can't make everything great all the time.

He played an overweight,socially insecure, mild mannered geek. WOW. What range!! I've never seen an actor push himself to these extreme limits before. Clearly an expansion over his tremendous role in 'Superbad' where he played an overweight, immature,narcissistic geek.

Yup. Too bad the academy nominated Jonah Hill for an oscar instead. What were they thinking?

I think Drive is more remembered for its outstanding visuals and soundtrack than it is as a substantial film. I kind of agree with that as the film itself is pretty shallow but it is still a lot of dirty old ultraviolent fun

Stallone has no other option besides playing physical roles. Jackman gets offered all sorts of scripts so he can pick and choose. He was being serious when he said it. Did you see prisoners? Great example of jackmans' talent.

Green lantern was only the tip of the iceberg. There was also change up and the epic two-movies-bombing-in-one week combo of croods and RIPD. Ain't no way is he coming back from that one.

I was dissapointed in Avengers too. It's complete lack of substance and overuse of CGI. I still dont understand why every critic gave it a pass.

Its a proven calculus: Audiences will watch anything with special effects and a huge marketing budget. Especially china. So probably not anytime soon.

I'm with you on that one. Singers x men was one of the great examples of an exemplarary studio franchise in the early to mid 2000's. I prefer any of his movies to the million bland, generic movies that marvel studios puts out, who for some reason are massively popular due to some strange groupthink that I cant quite…

WHERES THE IPOD!!??? WHERE IS IT???!! YOU'LL NEVER GIVE IT TO AN ORDINARY PAYING CONSUMER!!!

Yup. No matter how hard they try, they will never beat Kutcher. He really set an impossibly high bar.

Norton had his moment in the sun but he unfortunately blew it by being a hard man to work with. Still, film buffs have a lot of goodwill towards him for his MANY great roles in the 90's and 2000's.

Perfectly put analogy. Well done, sir.

I don't know about that. His movies may have lost momentum but Spacey always held an esteemed reputation amongst the audiences,critics and his peers. Even after his numerous failures, he's still seen as a true 'actors' actor' and has never become a laughing stock or a has been. Sure, some of his movies don't work but…

Not at all. The first Star Trek is one of the greatest blockbusters of the last 10 years? Despite whatever fans say.

Hayden Christensen was the original Shia laBoeuf before Shia laBOeuf ever came on the scene.

See I disagree. Ewan mcGregor has gone nothing from strength to strength. Personally , I think James mc Avoy should have a role in the movie. He brings a lot of credibility to these types of roles.