I still defend Die Hard 4 somewhat, in that you can sorta view his character change as a bizarro character arc, where he's survived so many of these crazy fucking things, that by #4, he's understandably kinda cocky about the whole thing. "Oh you're gonna chase me with a helicopter? Well I've killed about 100 bad guys, destroyed planes and helicopters and boats, I got this". It's lame that we have to go there to try to justify it, but at least the action is filmed well in #4, which appears to not be the case with this latest one.

For what it's worth Lamer, I felt the same way when I walked out of it initially, but it's grown on me a lot re-watching it on Blu-ray and watching the special features, and I think it's pretty awesome now.

The plotting is sloppier than Casino Royale, no question, but Skyfall has such a striking aesthetic and cinematic pulse driving it. I love the idea of Bond having to return home and face his past, and the ending setpiece is like something out of a Western. The movie just feels incredibly confident throughout, and each individual section is so well executed, that plot specifics don't bother me as much.

Like, yes, Bond's plan isn't necessarily the smartest (although it could be argued, pretty confidently as Zarban has pointed out, that they can't really trust anyone at MI-6, hence the going it completely alone. If MI-6 was hiding in the bushes somewhere to come save the day, Silva would find some way to exploit that), but the more important thing to me is how well it works cinematically and thematically. It's cool how it ends with Bond and his Mother and Father figures having to defend his home from this outside force, who is basically the dark version of Bond. I dunno, for me if you end up saying "It's a great movie but not a good bond movie" , that's in no way a negative, it's still a great movie, no need to pigeon-hole it.

Not at all surprising given the director. He took Max Payne, which might be the easiest video-game you could possible adapt, and completely fucked it up. This guy is seriously the worst, just look at his imdb. He's worse than fucking Brett Ratner. At least Ratner made Rush Hour 2, this guy literally doesn't have a single good credit to his name.

Mostly hate both, though cutting is usually the bigger issue. The first time I remember this crap showing up in mainstream action was the original Bad Boys, and more noticeably in The Rock (especially that car chase), so in many ways I hold Michael Bay accountable for making it a trendy technique.

The issue isn't the technique in principal, it's use of it by incompetent directors.
Spielberg used shaky-cam to extraordinary effect in Saving Private Ryan, while still managing to give the audience a complete understanding of the geography of the battle sequences. Ditto for Katheryn Bigelow in the Hurt Locker.

But ya, this stuff seriously needs to go away for awhile. Just show me the fucking stunt, stop trying to put me "in" it.

RIP Pixar 2011

I like it because it feels like an early John Carpenter movie crossed with Joe Dante by way of The Wire.
Because it has the balls to have initially unlikable protagonists (opening with a clear "kill-the-cat" scene). Because I find the dialogue funny.
Because it's mainly a sci-fi horror flick with comedic elements, instead of the other way around.
Because it has a cool retro sci-fi score, and is a genre I like a lot (kids who discover some threat the world is oblivious to and have to stop it).

I strongly disagree, and I think you mistake what DIF is, and always has been about.

DIF has, past the first 20 episodes or so, been primarily about the story structure, plot mechanics, and directorial choices that make a film work or not work. There have certainly been digressions about how particular things were filmed, but that has never been the core of the commentaries, except for some specific episodes where Trey had worked on the movies.

DIF isn't typically in a position to talk about how something was made, because more often then not they have had no involvement in a film. VFX talk will get mentioned as that is the primary field of the commentators, but is never really a primary focus.

The thing that separates DIF from most film podcasts is not necessarily what they're doing (providing opinions on whether they like or dislike a film), but that they're able to very specifically articulate why that's the case, citing specific evidence from the films, and offering suggestions on what may have worked better.

In this regard I think Looper and Prometheus are some of the best episodes DIF has done. Can't comment on Pans Labyrinth as I haven't seen the film or listened to the DIF for it.

I like Rango quite a bit, but not enough to really fight for it. It wins on amazing visual design, a kickass score, and being generally darker and weirder than I would ever expect that kind of movie to be. The story and pacing is a mess, but when that movie is working (apocalypse weasels, raising arizona crow chase, crossing the road into david lynchville), it's REALLY fucking good.

You forgot the part where

By my count, that's 6 Star Wars movies in various stages of development (7 if that Zac Snyder samurai jedi thing ends up being legit). There's a good bet Disney is angling to have a Star Wars movie come out every year starting in 2015, the official "episodes" will be in 2015, 2017, and 2019, and these spin-offs will come out in the in-between years.

Here's an idea, they can have Star Wars themed 5 minute shorts before the real movie's start.
Just fun/cool little side story things like they already do with the Pixar films. Use them to gauge interest in future movie ideas.