No Country For Old Men is an unintelligible cluster****.

Alien 3 isn't an awful film by any stretch of the imagination. It was a clusterfuck of a production to begin with but there are some great scenes and some great ideas. Just a shame we will never know how Fincher's true version looks like. The different cut on the quadrilogy box set actually makes the film worse but it wasn't an attempt to get close to Fincher's version, just expand upon certain elements and incorporate some stuff he did shoot.

I think Temple Of Doom is by far the best Indiana film. Sure we had Kate Capshaw screeching all the way through the damn thing but I loved the dark overtone and would still love to see the uncut version as it was trimmed over here in order for it to get a PG rating.

Odd thing with Silent Hill. I really rated it a lot even after watching it a few times but just a couple of weeks ago I watched it for the first time in about 18 months and it bored me. However it has some fantastic set design, effects and it followed a lot of the original games a lot (although I never got around to playing them personally so not sure how this claim stacks up).

Agreed. Apart from the very tenuous link of parts of it set in a forest with a witch, it is completely different from the first film and had some really great ideas both visually and thematically.

If it was billed as anything other than a sequel, this would have been much more liked.

I don't know about severe damage, but by killing off everyone that it did right at the start, I guess 3 was just destined to piss a whole lot of Aliens fans off. I'll admit it did really disappoint me on the first viewing anyway. As you say, the film itself is dark and entertaining, and spotting all the English character actors I know from TV among the prison's inmates was pretty fun too. The film did of course have a very troubled production and, frankly, it shows in the final product. All in all though, I think it suffers from Godfather 3 syndrome, as in it was never really going to live up to the standards of the two previous, universally-acclaimed installments in the franchise.

As for Resurrection, there's another fairly unpopular film I quite like too.

A lot of people I've spoken think it was the weakest Indy film by quite a distance...at least before Kingdom Of the Empty Skull came along anyway. Kate Capshaw and that bloody kid really piss me off to no end whenever I watch them but, c'mon, a guy gets his frikin' heart ripped out of his chest by a dude wearing horns - what's not to like?

That final scene with the rope bridge is brilliantly done too.

I like it just because it's really OTT and campy. Definitely the weakest of the movies with the original cast though. If I had to rank the six of them...

Undiscovered Country > Wrath Of Khan > The Search For Spock > The Voyage Home > The Motion Picture > The Final Frontier

...with all those shitty TNG films below all of them.

The sets are fantastic and perfectly capture the atmosphere and feel of the games.

It was still a really enjoyable film and all but, like Duga, I wish they could have made a movie from the Silent Hill 2 storyline, as it's nowhere near as confusing as the rest of the canon's story arc and yet endlessly open to individual interpretations as well. Would've been worth trying anyway.

I can't stand Dark Knight.

I'm a fan of Christopher Nolan but the Dark Knight is a big long mess. Plot line after plot line- You could make about 10 different films out of the Dark knight and they'd all be average. The part in Hong Kong was completely unnecessary and added about 30mins to the films running time!

I'd like to say, I'm glad somebody has the balls to say this. I didn't necessarily dislike the Dark Knight but it's nothing more than a better thank average action movie. The plot also seemed to be nothing more than the Joker seemingly randomly committing terrorists acts, and Batman grunting about it until he catches up with the Joker and accidentally kills him.

Plus, the ship with prisoners, and ship with people was amazingly unrealistic, and retarded.

I did like two face, though. Wish he wouldn't have died 5 minutes in after converting.

The film had some political context but it was shallow in comparison to say District 9, and albeit the action was good, I think 90% of it's quality is in it's hype.

Good movie, not excellent.

All right, here's one:

"David Lynch is completely overrated."

I first heard this uttered from a friend in cinematography who has a somewhat unusual taste in film, so I didn't take his words with much salt, but after watching a good portion of Lynch's '90s output, I gotta say:

David Lynch isn't just overrated, he's downright awful as a director.

Now, I know you're probably thinking I'm being a blaise curmudgeon, but I really like some of his work. Especially Eraserhead and The Elephant Man. He was able to cinematically capture the existential quandaries of life without resorting to the usual avant-garde cliches that can be pervasive with this medium. But the rest of his directorial "masterpieces" aren't inspiring in the least.

Mulholland Drive was a messy attempt at uniting vignettes; the ending is absolutely ridiculous and doesn't proffer any of the same satisfaction of the resolution in Eraserhead (the scene where his brain is returned to penciled form). Plus, the film wouldn't have caught half the eyes it did if Naomi Watts kept her clothes on the whole time.

Wild at Heart, while reclaiming the wondrous spirit of Nick Cage in the Coen brothers' masterful Raising Arizona, is otherwise just a sex-soaked turd. The "spiritual epiphany" is complete non-sequitur and pretty much ruins whatever warm and happy ending was owed. I have to say, Willem Dafoe is absolutely paramount as the irrational antagonist, it's just a shame he couldn't be introduced earlier and made the mother/daughter conflict at least somewhat interesting. Also relies on a nice rack to beef up the ratings.

Blue Velvet is Lynch's attempt at placating the cautious filmgoer while retaining some surrealistic ablation. It fails miserably at both. Also has some titties, but none memorable enough to care about. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me simply didn't make sense, at least as a standalone film. Plenty of boobs to be had, but the reasons for seeing them are lost on me. Dune and Lost Highway just sucked. There's really no excuse for either of those films to have existed in the first place.

I've never seen Inland Empire, and I don't plan on it. This guy's one overrated dud for me.

I disagree with you on Lost Highway, and Blue Velvet majorly. However, I've never been a fan of Mullholland drive, and agree with the fact that movie(even at the time of it's release) will be more known for lesbian sex than what it was trying to be.

However, I haven't seen Wild at Heart but it sounds EXTREMELY like True Romance, which is basically the massively underrated Tarantino epic. He didn't direct it but it was barely changed(just to be linear, and with a 'happy' end'), and I think far trumps Kill Bill, far trumps Jackie Brown, and far far trumps Deathproof.

I can definitely see the parallels between True Romance and Wild at Heart, but it's probably a bit closer to Tarantino's Natural Born Killers, in terms of interpersonal character development. And now that I think on it, I found Wild at Heart to be his next best to Eraserhead and the Elephant Man. The trouble is that there's this prevailing schema of "we're just too wild to stay apart" that Lynch violates unexpectedly. It's definitely worth a watch, just don't set the bar as high as those two Tarantino fliks (he wrote both, directed neither).

i found it to be mediocre, though i did enjoy Heath Ledger's acting in it

I am the same, it was pretty freaky to me the first 3 times I watched it. I still enjoy it but it doesn't have the same effect anymore. The sirens were the exact same I heard all the time at my parents rural town so I was creeped out every time it went off at home after watching the movie!