HeartlineTwist

Which would be excellent, as my only gripe with this film is its got such a summer vibe to it, and it was released in the dead of winter.

Call me crazy, but I think its winter release is a LARGE contributor to its current success. It would probably still make money, but there's not a lot at theaters right now for this movie's audience.

Estimated total gross of $42 million this for opening weekend.

Hot fucking damn. That's awesome.

Stole that from DreadCentral.

According to an EW article I was reading earlier, that's the highest opening of a movie in 2009 thus far.

I am going to see it again in theatres. I liked it overall better than I overall liked Rob Zombie's Halloween. Which is to say I loved the first half of Halloween and despised the second half. This one I liked all of it, but I admit the opening 15 or so minutes was by far the best.

Everything pre-'Friday the 13th' title card was awesome.

The characters introduced afterward weren't bad, per se, but some of them were douche bags, so it seemed kind of weird.

I was thinking about it today, and I think I may want to go see this again.

It was good, but the way he was "finished" off ruined it for me. Personally, I liked Halloween better.

What bothered you about his "death"?

Why do people say that they liked the camera work, half of the time you couldnt even when he killed somebody.

This isn't true. At all. There are lots of times during the movie when you're like...what the fuck were you guys thinking, but it's not during the deaths...like...ever.

As for the horror movie discussion: horror movies, in general, have taken a turn for predictable with the staggering number of established conventions. I knew the dog was coming, but it still sort of got me. Yes, I know there are ways to still make movies scary, but you come to be able to predict where a lot of the scares are.

I know you guys hate this argument, but scary isn't ever what slasher films have been about. They're about the stalk and the not quite irrational fear that there just may be a boogeyman out there coming to get you. The "horror" of a slasher film is the slasher, not the things that creep and go bump in the night. At least for me, anyway. I'm taking a Horror Film Genre class in college right now. 's been pretty cool so far.

I enjoyed the movie for what it was. There were some really, REALLY funny parts (and I mean parts that were supposed to be funny). We got some pretty nice boobs. We got some pretty good kills.

If there was a major gripe I have with the movie, it'd be that every good possible scare moment or even decent kill is SPOILED BY THE FUCKING THEATRICAL TRAILER FOR THE FUCKING MOVIE.

The Last House on the Left remake looks like it's going to suffer the same exact fate. Still good, though.

I've seen much worse. Shit

Friday the 13th (this one):The Dark Knight::My Bloody Valentine 3D:Spider-Man 3 or (insert shittastic superhero film here)

American History X says otherwise.

And Ed Norton is damned well a big star.

Also, I love Robert Englund, but no one thought that Jack Nicholson as The Joker could be surpassed and Heath Ledger made people re-think if Nicholson was even good as The Joker. Englund is no doubt Freddy, but don't shit on a re-make without Englund without knowing anything yet. And fuck Keanu Reeves, no. That man cannot act and the role of Freddy is all about personality, of which Keanu Reeves has none.

I'm sorry but while Heath Ledger did a tremendous job as The Joker, he wasn't as good as Jack Nicholson. I will watch the re-make of both of these movies (Friday the 13th & Nightmare on Elm Street) but will have an incredibly hard time believing anybody else nearly as good as Robert Englund made me watch Freddy. Now I know somebody's going to probably rant why Ledger was better than Nicholson, but either way there is no possible way to truly say one was better, it's all a matter of opinion. I think this topic needs to get back on the topic of the re-make of Friday the 13th though.

Agreed. Looking at it objectively, Jack Nicholson's Joker just doesn't quite ever get past "Hey, here's Jack Nicholson in clown make up and a funny costume." Ledger's Joker is a LOT more than that. I understand it's a matter of opinion, but at the point where Nicholson's Joker reads more Nicholson than Joker while Ledger's Joker reads a lot more Joker than Ledger, I think there is at least a solid case for Ledger.

Looking ahead at the Episode Titles through Episode 14, there are some interesting things to notice.

Thought last week's episode was really good, now all I have to do is resist the temptation to download the new episode for the rest of the day.

Where?!

Also, this Entertainment Weekly article is top notch, if not VERY spoilertastic:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1550612_20...0257373,00.html

Actually, that's a good question. I know that Desmond sort of talks to Daniel when he's on the boat and flipping out with the sickness, but does he ever actually like...meet him to know that prior?

Since it's a week old in the US and three days old in the UK, I don't think we need spoilers to talk about last weeks plot any more.

I think you guys are taking the "you can't change anything" the wrong way. I'm pretty sure what Daniel meant was that the universe course corrects itself, so trying to change anything is pointless. I think they're on different timelines, otherwise Desmond would've remembered Daniel when he first arrived on the island.

The universe course correcting, in my mind, is a way of saying that you can't change anything. For instance, let's say X kills Y. You kill X, but Y will still die. You've, in effect, not really changed what you sought out to change.

As for your second comment...hrmm. Interesting theory. At the same time, when on the island were they, though? It's entirely possible that too much time had gone by. I mean, Desmond was getting a little crazy toward the end there.

Spoiler: Click here to view

I liked the episodes, but I really need to know how their time travel works. At the moment it makes my head hurt.

I think it follows Terminator rules rather than Back to the Future rules. By that, I mean in Terminator there never was a timeline in which Kyle didn't come back to help Sarah Connor. That ties in with fate, and I think it's the same way in Lost. For example, there never was a timeline in which Daniel Faraday didn't go and visit Desmond in the hatch. Lost isn't like Back to the Future where Marty can go back to 1955 and see himself singing Johnny B. Goode etc. But then then Desmond being the exception to the rule fucks that up because there shouldn't be any exceptions.

But like I said it makes my head hurt. They need to clarify some stuff.

PRODUCER INTERVIEW SPOILER

When you say "intro" to Tropic Thunder, which part are you talking about, precisely?

Because I think I'll have to agree, but may agree either way.

The Valkyries in the trailer are hallucinations. I'm not familiar with the video game, so I can't really speak from experience there, but I didn't think the movie was all that bad. It was certainly acceptable. Would I see it again (the first time) knowing what I do now? Nah, I'd probably wait for DVD, but meh.

I thought the episode was pretty good. It had some really offensive "Did they just do that" moments, but it wasn't anywhere near as bad as last week because they firmly put you on the side of Wendy and his disapproval of Cartman's shit.

Looking back on it, I've noticed many seasons have had a somewhat lackluster episode somewhere early on in the first bunch. For some seasons, it's the first episode, for some it's the 2nd episode, and for some it's the third episode.

I don't really take this as representative of the season, even though it was an awkward episode and just largely not funny.

Just watched Batman Returns again and I believe the Penguin is an easily realistic character to pull off. If Nolan wants to follow down this path of Gotham corruption it's the most logical choice for a villian.

Want to add some explanation?

I guess the only reason I harp on this is there's a fine line between Penguin just being stereotypical Mob Boss #2 and actually, you know, being the Penguin. Even then, after Joker and Scarecrow/Rhas, it's hard to really pin him as a major villain or anything more than a background texture villain.

Why can't BATMAN seem like the villain for most of the third movie? Not insofar as actually attacking people and stuff, but I mean, that's how Gotham is going to see him. His redemption, if it happens in the next movie, is going to need to come at the hands of a pretty big villain.

The third Batman needs a strong, SINGLE villain with a patsy you don't have to do a lot of backstory (direct backstory, anyway) for. Superhero movies that try to focus on more than one villain more often than not end up being poor.

Finally saw this, by the way. LOVED it. May have to go back and see it on IMAX now.

I still find it funny that the people that are swearing to God that Mr. Reese means the Riddler is coming seem to ignore the more blatant suggestion of Catwoman being involved in the next movie.

In all seriousness, though, I have read the ENTIRE script now. I'm sure lines were changed for the movie, but I think that Reese actually gets referred to as "Mr. Reese," like...once in the whole damn thing.

I also think that the script doesn't make Harvey's fate any more or less ambiguous. Granted, you could make the case that Dent is consistently called Dent throughout the entire fucking script, even when he's Two Face, but you could still spin it as having a deeper meaning because Dent is dead, leaving only Two Face, etc.

I still think it's completely possible and logical for the Riddler to be used in the next movie without it being the Mr. Reese character.

As for why the Penguin would be a problematic character: Where's the fucking menace to him at the point where he's just a mob boss that looks funny and acts sort of like a penguin? That's probably why he wouldn't work well in Nolan's universe. As a background character, sure. But he'd never be able to carry a movie as the main villain short of a radical redesign by Nolan.

These haven't been good since they were R-rated. There, I said it. Scary Movie 3 was pretty good given its rating, but non-R-rated spoof movies just aren't that great, especially because they have been progressively dumbed down.

Given the budget of these films, I can see even modest returns being enough of a reason for them to continue. Shit, almost 90% of films don't make their money back, which is why studios rely on blockbusters to deliver and make back the studio's lost costs.

Doesn't mean the movie's not shit, though.

I've seen PLENTY of praise for the other actors. Shit, I've seen Gary Oldman get praise as well.

As for the acting, I know we haven't hit Oscar season yet, but so far, he definitely DESERVES it, especially just the nom. Oscar season this year isn't shaping up to be too terribly promising, either.

EDIT: I'm not implying Oldman doesn't deserve praise, I was mentioning it because Gyllenhal is about the only person that people didn't want to give any sort of praise for.

Hair is literally the least important part. You could probably get a pretty cheap wig and alter it for the hair. The make-up and costume is the most important part, IMO.

EDIT: Or, in other words...nice job.