The grown-up version of "we're all gonna die" is "what is happening?"

How about "Tom also said he thought he could kick Arnold's ass?"

One of the characters in the film calls him out about how she Zooey said she didn't want a boyfriend, so I never quite understood the criticism that this film gets from that angle. If anything, this is one of the few films about a "nice guy" that actually calls the guy out on his bullshit.

If you saw the film for the first time today, chances are it would be an underwhelming experience at best, and a slog at worst, considering the two decades of notoriety behind the film.

How common is repeat viewing for superhero films? I feel like I never hear about people seeing these movies over and over. I guess these days it's not really necessary, since even the big hits are released on Blu-Ray a few months later anyways. It's not like back in the day when you might have to wait a year for the…

You boil down any movie to just plot points and it'll sound trite and dumb. That's not necessarily a defense of Titanic per se, but more of a criticism of the idea that knowing the story really tells you anything about the experience of watching the film.

Don't underestimate or dismiss style. If a movie's underlying formula is tried-and-true, it better enliven it with some style. At least "John Wick" and "Fury Road" have it, which is more than I can say for most Marvel movies, which are kind of bland overall, with meh action scenes. I don't think the stories themselves…

Blame the cable and satellite providers for compressing the hell out of everything.

I've been to the ShopHouse on Sunset a few times. It's fine, but I'd rather go to a real Thai or Vietnamese restaurant, of which there are no shortage in the area.

Why is he making them in this manner, rather than finishing completing and releasing them one at a time? Is it more efficient or cost-effective to make them this way? The LOTR trilogy was made this way, so it's not unprecedented. But still, I wonder what the reasoning is here.

"I also dislike its perpetuation of the idea that people if someone likes
the same band you like or the same book you like, then they must be
your soulmate"

When I first saw the movie, I thought the end was overly cutesy and I wrote the movie off. Then, I read a comment on a forum about how it's actually not a happy ending, and it shows that Tom is doomed to repeat the same cycle with this girl, and then it became one of my favorite films.

The first paragraph perfectly sums up why mainstream comedies suck. Even the R-rated ones just add some cursing and mildly risque elements to what are inherently pretty tame stories. At their core they're the same as most PG or PG-13 movies. This was also my observation about Deadpool, which only passes for "edgy" if…

"And is it really that devastating that their relationship doesn't work perfectly due to some bad timing?"

They don't need crossover hits. Look at the numbers for the biggest hits posted in the article. Those cost-to-earnings ratios are amazing. These filmmakers are not spending $100 million, they're spending $2 or $3 million. If those films make only $6 to $10 million they're already considered successes.

I was a teenager when Napster, Kazaa, etc. came about, and of course, I loved that I could download just about anything without going to a store (or paying for it). It was incredibly easy to sample new things and to find stuff I knew I wanted.

Why did they shoot this in English? What a dumb idea.

I hate when people say stuff like that. Why separate out the elements of a movie like that? Whatever you're saying is part of the reason why people liked the movie should be there if it elevates the film, right? "If it weren't for the good screenplay, acting, and direction, nobody would care about the movie."

D'oh, I FORGOT about that.

Avatar's real legacy is jump-starting the modern era of 3D films, and in its advanced motion capture and CGI. It wasn't the FIRST to do those things, but it did them well and in a prominent way.