Halloween 3 had nothing to do with the Halloween series, but worth the look if you like really cheesy horror. I mean like so bad you would show your kids so they could get a good laugh kind of horror. 

<@Zwiffle> omg Sam and Diane you guys :(
* @Zwiffle just watched Cheers Season 5 finale
<@Zwiffle> i am heartbroken, mainly because i have a beer with each episode of cheers i watch, and i watched the last ~7 episodes of season 5 in a row 

is great until the last 10 min IMHO. Sure it is nothing new, but for what it is in that period, it is very well made. Or at least I thought so. 

just playing my role man... 

I'm not sure if I would still like the Hellraiser movies as much as I did when I saw them initially, but I actually thought Hellraisers 1, 2, 3, 4 (bloodline) and 5 (the weird detective one) were all actually quite good. 3 was the weakest. 4 and 5 introduced new enough concepts to get some mileage out of it. probably the most successful slasher franchise in keeping things actually interesting. nevertheless, I did not bother to watch any more as I felt like that would be pushing it. 

is 2 actually decent? 1 is pretty gay in some parts by modern standards.
love haute tension. Hate the ending, should have just stuck with it.
I do prefer his Hills Have Eyes though. 

not seen any of the others. as i recall (it's been 10 years or so since i've seen either) 2 had less of a plot than the first, but was darker and more twisted, mostly taking place in the underworld. the hellish set designs were both inspiring and genuinely quite disturbing; i'd recommend it to any quake fan for that ;) 

Yeah I liked 2 because they were actually in hell this time, and the setpeices, while budget, had great atmosphere.

Watched #3 last night and while I liked that pinhead was in it much more, they also ruined his character and turned him into a gimmicky, maniacal Freddy Kruger instead of the mysterious demon in the shadows. And the new Cenobites were ludicrous. Still, it wasn't far off the first movie despite the flaws, because the first one hardly featured the Cenobites at all, which sucked. Maybe #4 tonight :) 

To watch the HellRaiser movies. 

but that's it.
I saw #6 when I was a kid. fuck that shit. 

Yeah it was alright, seemed to lack emotion of any real sort, more like a very generic "Here's a series of events that happened in chronological order" kind of thing. Which isn't to say it was bad. Just not terribly engaging.

Overall I would give it like a 6.5/10 I guess? 

The Adjustment Bureau
It's a sci-fi Matt Damon romance, being advertised as a Bourne film. Said Bureau want Matt Damon's life to progress in a certain way, and his urge to bang Emily Blunt contravenes this plan. He is not happy with their attempts to cockblock him. Chemistry is pretty great between the two leads due to Matt Damon clearly cheating on his wife.

The quasi-religious/sci-fi big reveal "this is how the world really is, forget what you know about history" is absolutely cringe, oh my word. Generally this film holds together like a house of cards, and there are plot holes you could fit Rosanne Barr through. Overall it's completely stupid, but really quite enjoyable regardless. 

Unknown

Liam Neeson is a biologist attending a conference. He has an accident, and when he wakes, no one recognises him and some dude has taken his place. What a dick!

Well if The Adjustment Bureau holds together like a house of cards, imagine making those cards out of jelly and then fuck it, throw them out the window, and you're getting close to the plot cohesion and general sturdy nature of the premise of Unknown.

My major questions after watching this were "What?" and also "how is it possible to make Liam Neeson act this badly?". I wish I could go into proper detail without spoiling the plot.

Overall..... kinda enjoyable? I guess? Action scenes pretty good. Acting and script generally pretty bad. If you want a Liam Neeson face-punching experience then Wanted is better. 

remembered i mean "Taken is better". Still not great though. 

is "better", Unknown cantbe much of a movie. thought Taken was pretty average. 

it got straight to the point and didn't mess around. watched it for the second time recently and enjoyed it every bit as much; admittedly no classic but great for what it is, to coin an old clich�...

too late for proper reviews so a few short comments on what i've seen recently:

127 hours (2010) - full marks to boyle for making a decent film out of this. gripping (...)

mystic river (2003) - brilliant acting, plot and atmosphere. ending went on a bit too long though

tropic thunder (2009) - hangover material. i err.. fell asleep, so can't comment

dead man's shoes (2004) - awesome gritty english low budget revenge thriller, recommended!

dark city (2004) - how was this not a massive hit a la matrix? can only assume a lack of keanu. the 'strangers' were a bit cheesy, but otherwise loved it 

dark city from 1998 obviously 

Dark City was advertised really badly. Partly because they tried to sell it as a horror movie rather than a mystery thing.

Beats the pants out of the Matrix really. The fantastical elements allow it's plot to make a lot more sense. Plus the idea of the 'One' makes a lot more sense too. And kicks a lot more ass. 

it's still one of my favourite movies. atmospheric as hell. would make a good quake map. nice vaguely lovecraftian scenario, theme of memory, vitalism, personality, etc. 

thinking DC was great when it came out (I was 13), and watching it recently and feeling like it aged sort of badly. very nineties, sort of obvious, way goofier than I remembered.
Strangers were the worst.
Definitely would have been much better if they'd REALLY made the 'strangers' more strange, more unfathomable, and without a giant evil layer with a metal head in it.

similar to the matrix - I find it decent but overpraised. Like the ending very much though. 

the new DC of Dark City is a better movie.

As for Taken, I was disappointed. The action was generic and unimpressive, too much jerkiness and handheld camera nonsense. The rest was forgettable. I suppose it was shot well (apart from the action) and Neeson was decent.

On another note, I really enjoyed the new A Team movie, wasnt expecting that but found it to be a lot of fun. 

9/10 Samuel L. Jackson. Was supposed to be a big name release in threatres but got caught up in some sort of legal snafu. Most of you will be uncomfortable with the subject matter --- do you torture a guy who has 3 nuclear bombs set to go off? What about kill his wife? One life to save millions? Interesting social commentary.

The Taken. It was good. You got what you expected ... Liam Neeson improbably handles several unlikely situations, but that's what you want to see. A feel good action movie.

Pirate Radio was some imaginary lefty movie of "how it wasn't". Reminded me of the MTV-made "Around the World" movie where 60's hippies were all great looking young men, instead of very average looking 1960's people with bad teeth (a la Austin Powers). I'm not saying Pirate Radio was bad ... it was "ok", but certainly revisionist history with over-top significance of something that likely really wasn't. 

A feel good action movie

Taken made me feel quite sick actually. Count how many times the fucking wanker leaves girls who don't happen to be his precious american daughter to fucking die or continue being raped.

Or when he shoots the perfectly fucking innocent wife of the corrupt policeman.

His character is a completely immoral twat.

Did have to laugh at the set up though "omg don't go to Europe, it's full of criminals" :p 

<quote>kill his wife to save millions</quote>

The answer: no. 

An excellent movie even (though not as good as The Man From Nowhere).

But I agree with ZQF about Neeson's character doing a lot of immoral stuff. He is ruthless in his actions throughout. Still that element of the movie was realistic - anyone who seriously would consider attempting to go against organised crime syndicates of the most heinous kind on their own would have to be prepared to do immoral things.