avclub-7d26c14b4a096a0afc48154974c4b7d6--disqus
Iaimtomisbehave
avclub-7d26c14b4a096a0afc48154974c4b7d6--disqus

La La Land, aka the reason conservatives call us snowflakes. Where the bland white guy is somehow the lone safeguard against all who would desecrate jazz. Seriously, I did not give two shits about that unremarkable couple or their boring-ass romance. The cinematography was pretty, though.

That's technically true, I guess. But hardly anyone thinks of those films as being a continuous franchise. They certainly don't play that way.

Three Sherlock Holmes in the same series, though? They tend to stick with one actor.

If he can pull off the hair buns, then I suppose that's as good an option as any.

Plans change, though. It's a filmmaker's job to accommodate and adjust to a work's circumstances and setbacks. Trying to force the story to stay the same when it no longer makes sense to do so could end up being just as bad (or worse) as inventing something new.

Replacing her isn't even a real option for a character so iconic. Which leaves CGI-Leia or dying offscreen. A third option would be that she goes on an offscreen mission, as a commenter mentions below. Either of the latter two would be fine, IMO. What did they do for Paul Walker in the last Fast and Furious movie?

One scene is too many, IMO. Disney and the filmmakers will try and pawn it off as a tribute, but at the very, very least, it's going to be hugely distracting; one reason being that everyone in the audience but the little kids will know that Fisher has passed away, and the other being that the technology isn't exactly

Even without looking up his IMDB page, I can say with confidence that Rogue One was the worst movie he ever appeared in.

Was it, though?

For me this is actually the reason The Force Awakens works and Rogue One doesn't. The trio of young new characters in TFA is actually given the time to develop relationships with one another; they banter and quarrel and earn the audience's affection. Rogue One aspires to be a serious war film, which apparently in

Andie MacDowell was frigging charming in Groundhog Day and you're a bastard for suggesting otherwise.

It was pretty damn corny, but at least it was memorable, which is more than I can say for most of the dialogue that made it into the movie.

They were essentially reshot for the same reason. The studio balked at at an early cut of Rogue One that was deemed "too dark," which caused them to order extensive reshoots for the third act. Suicide Squad was also thought to be too grim (particularly coming after the widespread criticism of Batman V. Superman), so

Really enjoyed this review. The second sentence in particular made me laugh. I like the variety of negative reviews on this site; Jesse's friendly "this is terrible but let's give them some credit for x" critiques contrast nicely with Ignatiy's merciless, scathing takedowns.

Thanks for the response. We have different reasons for letting the show go, it seems. For me, the writing seemed to take a turn for the worse in season 2, with episodes that focused on hacky sitcom cliches (like the friend who gives transparently awful advice, which the main character inexplicably decides to follow

Little late to this, but I'm curious why you quit. I fell behind early in season 2 after being unimpressed with the first couple episodes, despite really enjoying season 1, and haven't gone back since. I would go to the AV Club reviews, and the episodes in question would be called "brilliant" or "devastating" by the

"I want to meet Sean Hannity, just so I can make it very clear I think he's Nathan Lane" is one of the more delightful non-sequiturs I've read recently.

I found Fantastic Beasts to be one of the most entertaining movies of the year. It has a slightly more grownup atmosphere than the Potter films, but Rowling's wit and imagination stay very much in tact, and the characters are all quite endearing.

He's extremely undervalued as a filmmaker, I think. And Master and Commander deserved to win Oscars; it's a damn fine movie.

Wow, that's insane. Your interpretation is actually way more charitable than where my mind immediately jumped to ("Is Trump actually claiming ownership of that guy?"). Maybe he intended to say "friend" after.