Rexorcist

'Battle Royale II' is an uneven, but worthy follow-up. It's one of those sequels that tries something different, but is generally hated due to high expectations and the reputation of the mammoth original. Here, the two Fukasakus take the story in the exact direction it needs to go. The survival game setting has been ditched...this time, it's about all-out war between the children and the adults. Naturally, there's less intimate moments here and only a few characters are well-defined...but seeing the world of 'Battle Royale' explode in your face (literally) is completely involving. The few good character moments we get here are nice and match up with the poetry of the original. Shuya Nanahara is a much more interesting and complex person this time. Shiori Kitano is one of the best characters in either film. And the over-the-top Riki Takeuchi almost steals the film. There are flaws, though... The children feel less like individuals and more like a collective, so there's less emotional involvement this time out...but that is perhaps inevitable, given the war setting. Plus, the resolution to the battle seems a tad anti-climactic. Problems aside, this is a film well worth watching. The story is more complex, the battles are blistering, and the performances are great. It may not match the greatness of the original, but it's certainly one of the better directions a sequel has taken. Note: Fans should avoid the theatrical version "Requiem" and seek out the newly re-edited Director's Cut - "Revenge." It restores a lot of missing character development and thematic elements and is a much better film overall.

If proof were still needed that human beings are all but irrelevant to the Hollywood blockbuster, Rise of the Planet of the Apes provides it in spades. (And not just because one of its stars is Freida Pinto, an actress making a career of cardboard thespianism.) Constructed around the reliable premise that if you slather on the spectacle, audiences won't notice the script's idiocies — otherwise known as the Avatar effect — this so-called origin picture is no more than a narrative outline padded with moderately special effects, a teaser for the sequels that will surely follow. A creature feature of disappointing stupidity — what woman in her right mind would date a guy joined at the hip to a giant leashed ape? — Rise of the Planet of the Apes replaces the sociopolitical underpinnings of the original film and its sequels with a limp warning about the evils of animal testing. Those early movies may look cheesy now, but the guys in the monkey suits at least gave Charlton Heston something solid to respond to. The stars of this incarnation, like the sick chimps of 28 Days Later, are just barreling balls of unspecified quadruped fury, swarming over the Golden Gate Bridge and tossing manhole covers like discuses. For all we know they could be protesting the lack of primate roles on network television.

Super 8 It's always thrilling when a filmmaker emerges - to see the movie that truly marks his arrival as someone to watch and pay attention to because he not only has something to say but he knows how to say it. So it is with J.J. Abrams and Super 8, a great leap forward for someone who already has proven himself as a formidable TV auteur, capable of making the leap to movies by shaking up old franchises with a new vision. But Super 8 is something else again: the arrival of a director who's made a movie with the confidence and sensitivity to remind you of the first time you saw E.T. It's a movie that will put you on the edge of your seat, even as it puts a lump in your throat. What distinguishes Abrams’ film – and allows it to be mentioned in the same breath with “E.T.” – is that he keeps the focus on these kids: on the complex feelings they have that frighten and confuse them, on their multi-layer relationship with parents and other adults, on their resourcefulness despite their seeming powerlessness. Adults underestimate and otherwise dismiss them, though the kids finally are the ones with the crucial details at their command. Abrams has made a movie about that transition from kid to adult, when youngsters realize that life is not like a movie or a TV show, that bad things do happen from which their parents can’t protect them (or each other). It’s about the dawning of a sense of self-sufficiency, even as you learn to value connections you have taken for granted previously. “Super 8” is a stunner, a movie that sucks you in from the start and spits you out the other end with a sense of wonder to go with the tears in your eyes. It’s what a great summer movie should be – indeed, what a great movie should be anytime. It’s hard to imagine a better movie.

I hated Earth Defense Force 2017. Can't stand it. There's not a single thing about the game i could enjoy. I'm not sure why it has such a cult following. I wouldn't have liked it 20 years ago. I don't think it's the worst game I've ever played. But i don't understand why so many people seem to like it. And that makes me hate it even more.

Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon. A vast improvement over its predecessor and probably the best entry in the series, it's a fun and entertaining summer blockbuster that serves as a satisfying conclusion to the Transformers trilogy. With some welcome additions to the cast and a plot that actually makes sense, this last chapter is everything Revenge of the Fallen should have been. Unlike Revenge of the Fallen, Dark of the Moon boasts an interesting plot that makes sense. And, for the first time, a human antagonist makes an appearance. This strengthens the story because it adds to the significance of the humans who are fighting in this war. Now, instead of the robots stealing all of the awesome moments, there are scenes where the human characters really prove their worth in this final battle for Earth. Dark of the Moon boasts some of the best action sequences in the trilogy. The final battle in Chicago is breathtaking, complete with the destruction and the many explosions we have come to expect from a Michael Bay film. Action movie fans and Transformers fans alike will not be disappointed.

It's Crystal Clear that Nintendo's 3DS is a FAILURE ever since release i don't need any proof that this Nintendo 3DS is just a tax-grab for Nintendo because Sony has always remained on top of the portable gaming industry with the Playstation Portable. don't get me wrong. here. ever since i bought my first PSP, i know that EVERYONE AROUND THE WORLD ESPECIALLY YOU GUYS HERE KNOWS THAT IT HAS BEEN NUMBER 1 IN THE PORTABLE GAMING MARKET (excuse the locked caps). therefore with the Nintendo 3DS, is crystal clear that Nintendo just wants your money. DO NOT FALL FOR NINTENDO'S TRICKS

I don't get the Venture Brothers. I watch, and I always feel like I have no idea what's going on. I would stop watching, but they started talking about Degrassi and won me over.

I’m probably in a minority amongst science-fiction and fantasy fans in that I never got past the first book of George R.R.Martin’s “A Song of Fire and Ice”. I remember reading the first volume as part of the Book Club on the CompuServe SFLIT forum (who’s old enough to remember CompuServe?). Everyone else was gushing praise about it, but it left be a little underwhelmed. Yes, it was a page-turner, but I found it read too much like a daytime soap-opera in medieval clothes. One reviewer described it as “Dallas in furs”, which for me was precisely what was wrong with it. Far too many characters, and not nearly enough emphasis on the worldbuilding. It may be there was a lot more creative worldbuilding that’s revealed in later volumes, but in the first volume at least, GRRM didn’t show me enough to keep me interested enough in the series to want to read any of the following books. For me. it was a stark contrast to Frank Herbert’s classic Dune which we’d read previously, which is a book where the worldbuilding is very much centre-stage. I remember the sysop saying how much better Game of Thrones was than Dune, and the patronising way she kept dismissing my attempts to defend Dune still rankle a decade later. The line she kept parroting, which she claimed came from the TV industry, was “If you care about the characters, nothing else matters. If you don’t care about the characters, nothing else matters”. I took that as an example of how SF and Fantasy must be watered-down for mass audiences, and her repeating it showed a very strong preference for character-driven books, and no interest in worldbuilding at all. “How on earth can the planet be a character” was another line. And that’s my problem. The sort of fantasy and science-fiction I prefer is always driven by the worldbuilding, in the broadest sense. Not just the physical environment that’s so centre-stage in Dune, but the back-stories, history and cultures. For me, the setting is far more than just background, but rather the context for both the characters and the story. Instead, “A Game of Thrones” takes as it’s plot a retelling of the Wars of the Roses, and takes it’s characters from the archetypes of American soap opera. Not that I’m suggesting characters the readers can strongly identify with, or gripping plotlines don’t matter. Any worldbuilding is wasted if the world the author ends up with isn’t one in which he or she can tell a great story. But I read SF and Fantasy to have the author take me toanother world. It’s got to be a story which couldn’t have been set in suburban Seattle.

I find the Rock to be pretty hilarious when doing Disney movies. I really liked The Tooth Fairy and Space Mountain.

Catfish. I spent every minute waiting for something, anything, to happen that would pin me to my seat with intrigue. The only moment in which Catfish presents a shred of curiosity comes in the form of an unbelievably contrived scene. The three friends decide to visit the supposed farm of Nev’s Internet friend, but arrive at 2:00 a.m. Why would anybody ever visit a stranger on a secluded farm at 2:00 a.m. unless they were trying to force the audience into a corner? This wouldn’t have been so bad if the documentary took a turn for the fictional (like the trailer suggests). It wouldn’t have been so bad if the documentary actually went somewhere from there (like the critic blurbs in the trailer suggest). To me it seems that when the big “reveal” occurs, the filmmakers realize (off-camera) their documentary is in trouble. They hit a dead end, but decide to keep the cameras rolling in a desperate attempt to find an interesting character. Do people like that even exist? Is seems very convenient. Who goes to all the trouble of pretending to be someone else online? What's the point?