I can hear the pitch meeting with crystal clarity:

"It's Romeo & Juliet, but take their being from two different worlds literally, meaning that separate world is upside down, over our world!"

My guess would be the test audience had the same reaction to the entire movie that I had to the trailer:

"This is literally hard to watch! It hurts my eyes! You want me to look at moving pictures that are upside down for how long? To hell with that!"

Kevin Smith just released an episode of Smodcast, in which he talks to Rian Johnson about his films, including Looper:

http://smodcast.com/episodes/skip-to-my-looper/

Judge Whiskers, assigned to serve and protect the inhabitants of Mega Kitty One.

"I am the paw".

...I could do this all day.

I really enjoyed this episode (I was present for the live record). I had seen the film for the first time mere hours before, and I loved it. Apparently, the original creator of Judge Dredd was a consultant on the film and I think it shows. Furthermore, in addition to being naturally funny, Down In Front was in top form in explaining why the movie works and suggesting alternatives or how to fix the few things that didn't work. Great episode! One of my favorites!

Well shit, man. Tell me what it means, then! How else am I going to learn?

....Wait, my tiny review you're quoting from me here has nothing to do with why I think it's a perfect movie, just FYI. If we're operating under the definition of setting up what is paid off and vice versa, then I feel Lockout qualifies. Granted, I've only seen the movie once but I'm pretty sure every gun presented on the mantle was eventually fired.

This particular example from Drive isn't so much a "setup/payoff" bit as it is a "save the cat" bit. He gives the kid a toothpick and the kid takes it. Now they have something in common and we understand they like each other. This moment tells us "Driver" is good with kids, or at least good with this kid.

However, if you really need it to be a setup/payoff moment, then here you go: "Driver" gives the kid a toothpick (something potentially dangerous for a kid to have) and it's now established that they are comfortable enough with each other to exchange things. Later, the kid gives "Driver" a bullet (also something potentially dangerous for a kid to have). In particular, "Driver" asks, "Do you want me to hang on to this for you?" and the kid agrees. There's trust between them. Setup, then payoff.

You know, I wish this had occurred to me during my Drive commentary with Dorkman and Ewing. You did just remind me how damn good that movie was, so thank you.

As for the question raised in this thread, I think asking for movies you specifically saw in a theater is a bit limiting. I'd just widen it to include the last perfect movie you saw, period. In the cinema, that would be The Avengers and before that, The Cabin In The Woods. If we're talking about at home, then my answer would be Lockout (it fit the criteria/definition, shut up) and before that, Premium Rush.

That was a big bucket of awesome. However, I've never understood the desire to pit cats against dogs, as one being superior to the other. It's apples and oranges. Yes, they're both fruit (or in this case, pets), but each have their pros and cons. While I may prefer cats, I also love dogs. Why embrace one and dismiss the other? They're both awesome in their own ways.

I break it down like this: If you want a baby (without actually having a baby), get a dog. If you want a roommate/friend, get a cat.

If you think that's bad, check this out!

Confused Matthew Yells At The Avengers

Not so much a critical analysis (review) as a rant, seemingly from someone who either didn't pay attention to anything that was happening on screen, or didn't actually see the film but said he did.

I've never heard of that Fatale comic. I'm dying to read it, mostly because it reminds me of a graphic novel I've had banging around in my head for years. For YEARS! It's called Seraphim. The story is equal parts Hellboy, Dogma and Angel, with a dash of Miller's Crossing.

Except that it didn't. The world wasn't set on fire, but no one had to write it off, either and make apologies. It wasn't an expensive movie (especially compared to the budgets of its competition) and it ranked #3 at the box office on opening weekend, right behind The Hunger Games and The Three Stooges. It made over $66 Million worldwide (yes, I'm counting outside the US, because it matters and America isn't the only place that exists on Earth). It did well enough for Lionsgate, they picked up Joss Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing", a black-and-white adaptation of a Shakespeare play, with no big stars (which I am very interested to see, don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to make a point, here).

Also of note: If we operate under the assumption that you're correct about the film's earnings, that still doesn't necessarily justify or explain the "spoiler" on the lenticular (huh, spell check doesn't seem to know that word) cover. In fact, going back over your post, a couple of your sentences appear to be contradicting your theory. If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that almost no one saw it in theaters, so in order to make a good sale on home video, many of the monsters where highlighted on the box cover to entice newcomers who might see it and go, "Hey, cool. This looks like all the Horror movies for the price of one!". Otherwise, they were only left to sell to the converted, which by your estimation is too small, so fuck it?

The thing is, the theatrical trailer already told you there were numerous baddies to be found in the movie, which is really all the box art here is doing anyway. The context or "twist" is still a safely kept secret. Plus, they're not going to try to sell to those who have already seen and liked the movie because they don't have to/need to. They already know those people will buy. They're more or less a foregone conclusion. This is about grabbing new viewers. People who are either exclusively home entertainment consumers, or those who missed the opportunity to see it at the cinema. The time to preach to the choir is mostly reserved for special editions or double-dip releases later down the road.

This post is way longer than I initially intended, but my point is simply this: The Cabin In The Woods, all things considered, made a nice amount of money. Just because something doesn't make a mint, doesn't mean it's a hardcore failure that folks should be ashamed of. Just sayin'.

Funny coincidence for this to come up right now, as I've started a string of commentaries for all Spider-Man films (concluding with the new one), in cross promotion with Crave Online's film channel editor. We're both defenders of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films (even certain bits of the third one, but more on that later). I know that's a hugely unpopular opinion at the moment (that sound you just heard was Brian Finifter's brain snapping apart like so much wet rope), especially given that we also weren't terribly impressed with The Amazing Spider-Man, whereas most of the free world seems to be all, "Finally! They got it right!" about it.

Here's a nice, introductory write-up on our strategy over the coming weeks, which includes a link to my friend's review of The Amazing Spider-Man, which mostly mirror my own feelings:
http://www.craveonline.com/film/article … spider-man

To clarify, The Director was originally written as a man but yes, once they changed it to a woman, Sigourney Weaver was who they immediately thought of for the role. It's also important to note that Joss already had a history with her, since he wrote Alien Resurrection and she was a huge supporter of his original script. It was the thing that convinced her to do the film.