Was fucking awesome. I haven't seen a movie great in such a long time. Gonna pick up a copy sometime this week for myself, a buddy of mine rented it and we're both gonna buy it. It was funny, it was a comedy, a horror flick, and drama all at once and worked so remarkably well. Great stuff, diffenently one of the tops for the year. 

Loved it. every part that was added I loved...

Spoilers, I guess, here on in.

...except I have mixed feelings on Saruman being killed on top of his tower rather than the original film being closer to the book and leaving him there for all eternity. (In the book he later escapes and is killed in much the same way as in EE, but that's besides the point). But I like how it made the seeing orb (can't remember it's correct name) make sense being in the water... alot of the additions made me happy this way, making things make more sense.

My fave addition was The Mouth of Sauron, which confuses me why it was cut, since it was excellant.

Now I need to get the EE of the first two films, which I missed. Hope those are as cool as this. 

IMHO the first two films have betetr EE:s, especially TTT (though FOTR was almost perfect in the theatrical anyway). 

Yes, I felt that the EE's of the first two films generally worked better than the ROTK EE, despite suffering from the same pacing problems (there's a reason we don't see the EE's in the cinema, and it's not just because of the running time). Although I hated Fellowship's extended Hobbiton intro, which was pants IMO. 

because I thought the theatrical felt disjointed and not very smooth. The EE fixed that up. 

Gilda - Had to see this after being gobsmacked by Rita Hayworth in Lady From Shanghai. On its own, it's a decent low level noir film which would have been better with a better ending and an actor like Bogart in Glenn Ford's role. Still, it provides for further gobsmacking as Rita Hayworth looks absolutely stunning. And she knows she looks absolutely stunning. That combination makes it a breeze to sit through the film.

The Killers - Saw the 1946 version with Burt Lancaster and Ava Gardner. This is a damn fine hard edged noir film, just the way they should be. Whilst nothing that comes afterwards matches the sheer brilliance of the opening, its a very well made and engrossing film that would have to be one of the masterpieces of the genre. 

I saw Finding Nemo last night. I honestly wasn't expecting much, but it turned out to be an amusing and entertaining film.

I also watched The Butterfly Effect (the DC, not theatrical version). I have vague remembrances of people saying it sucked, but I rather thought it was good. But people were probably talking about the theatrical version, which apparently had more of a Hollywood ending to it. From the descriptions I've heard of the theatrical ending, the DC ending really makes a lot more sense and fits in better with the movie. But then again, I'm a sucker for introspective films, so I'm apt to liking this one. 

can I ask why you thought it would suck?

Just interested. 

Pixar movies for me have a habit of looking like they are going to disapoint me by sucking badly, when I originally heard the premise for Monsters Inc. I thought it sounded crap, saw the trailers, got interested, went to see it and loved it. Same with Finding Nemo. And while I haven't seen the Incredibles yet I fully intend to in the next few days as the trailers have convinced me that it might actually be a good film. :)

I think it is just an aversion to some of the stinkers Disney has put out over the last few years. While I know that Pixar only makes good films, I see the Disney logo on the first teaser trailers and it sends me into a cold sweat. 

I assume you're refering to Nemo.

Quite frankly the premise didn't sound interesting to me. I mean, a fish swimming through the ocean looking for his lost son? It sounds like a boring story and boring visuals.

And people had mentioned that they thought it was funny, but not as funny as other Pixar works. My sense of humor is rather warped--and comedies that are supposed to be "uproariously funny" tend to only hold one or two laughs for me--so I figured I wouldn't find it amusing at all.

So by this point I'm thinking, boring story, boring visuals, unfunny--why bother?

Except, of course, I was wrong. 

I want to see The Incredibles when it comes out on DVD, as that looks like it will be amusing, too. (See? It's not that I'm not interested in kid's movies; I'm just not interested in kid's movies that I'm not interested in. Make sense?) 

i can't understand how people would think it sucked. I mean, I know it stars Ashton Kutcher, but the general premise is so good that the film couldn't easily be crap.

I got the feeling that there was a lot of unrealised potential that could have propelled it into being really brilliant, but most areas lack the 'magic' as it were. The overall effect is very good, but it could have been a whole lot better.

RPG, I understand exactly what you mean about not being too excited about finding nemo before seeing it. I also often get that with pixar movies, and then i'm proved wrong, The Incredibles for example was really enjoyable. I didn't really like Bugs Life or Monsters Inc. though (apart from when Mike is famous; on the cover of the magasine but under the barcode, hilarious :)). 

I thought it was pretty average, most notably cause of giant paradoxes in the whole time traveling shizat (can't remember in detail, but theres something about the prison scene that doesnt work, won't go into detail not to spoil tho).
I'd be curious to know what's different in the ending of the DC, cause the ending I saw sucked, instead of explaining the movie it just made it into something stupid. 

fair enough, i was just wondering. 

I've been thinking about the movie quite a bit since I saw it, and, actually, I was surprised at how few paradoxes there are. Thinking back on that specific scene, I can't remember any paradoxes there, either. If you think of one you'd like to share, I'd like to know it.

SPOILERS JUST FOR BAL ABOUT THE DC
I'm not sure where the two movies start diverging, but in the DC, he ends up in the sanitarium after going back in time and watching Kayleigh get blown up in her dad's basement. He asks for his journals, but he had used the first entry to go back in time, and he's told he never wrote any journals. He asks his mom to bring him some old home movies that his dad made, and uses one of them to go back in time to when he was still in his mother's womb, where he strangles himself on his own umbilical cord. Cue scenes of his mother screaming "no, not again", flashbacks of the psychic saying he had no lifeline and was not meant to be born, and flashforwards of everyone growing up with perfectly normal and happy lives.
END OF SPOILERS

So, err, IMO that works a whole lot better than what I've read about the other ending. 

The acting was great, the writing ranged from ok to great, but the visual design was friggin fantastic. It was consistent, creative, and attractive. If you watch the movie remember to stay for the credits at the end, they're gorgeous.

This was Jim Carrey's second second great performance this year. 

MORE SPOILAGE FOR RPG AHEAD!
Ah yeah, the DC ending sounds a bit better, to be honest I can't quite remember what happens in the original after he locks himself up with the movies... But I think its a happy ending with him surviving.
My prob with the prison scene: he uses a journal to make some scars appear on his flesh by going back to his moms kitchen and hacking away at himself with a knife, to make it look like he is getting holy stigmata or some such shit. Prob is, it's presented as if the scars just appear all of a sudden to the other people in the prison, when in fact for them the scars should have always been there in the first place... no? So why the hell are they surprised. Bleh. There were some other things like that but I can't quite remember anymore, they aren't really paradoxes, just badly exploited time travel stuff. 

Ah yeah I see. Indeed, that is insonsitant with the way time travel works in the movie. 

I have the DVD and was browsing IMDB about it... and, if you remember the character Beverly Marsh... the actress was probably just 12 then...

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/carriesconceptions/images/bev12.jpg
http://horrortalk.com/reviews/IT/bloodbath3.jpg

But now?!
-> http://i.imdb.com/Photos/HH/0673932/imdb2.jpg

Wow... 

There's always http://www.emilyperkins.com 

...what are you trying to point out? that she grew up? 

Was indeed.... incredible!

My only complaint would be that the killer machine v.10 didn't get to play longer than it did in the big city. 

The trailer didn't look promising but it was free so I decided to watch it anyways and I'm actually glad I did. I can sympathize with whoever was charged with making an interesting trailer, I'm pretty sure I couldn't do it. White Noise is a horror flick without being a slasher, which is refreshing. It attacks the genre from a new angle of EVP (http://dawghouse.topcities.com/evp.html). EVP is obviously interference but all horror films require a leap of faith like that.

The movie is all around a great horror film but there was one thing in particular that captured my attention. At one point the movie comes to a setting of a rather modern looking apartment with a wall of glass windows and a waterfall directly beneath. The waterfall creates a white-noise sound which is a cool little reminder. Shots with the glass window often have out-of-focus (and thus faceless) people walking and going about their business. It's obviously a reminder of the transient ghosts they're contacting. Clever design like that makes me happy. 

Cheese of the year http://www.hideandseekthemovie.com/end.html 

All of MGM's 'theatrical wide screen' DVD releases for the last few years have been the pan-scanned versions with the top and bottoms cut off.

http://mgmdvdsettlement.com/

That's a really shitty thing to do to movie fans. There's an eligible dvd list on the site and the claims procedure.