So I saw on Twitter a few days ago that you guys were thinking about getting around to the Pirates sequels, which reminded me: are we ever going to see the Twilight sequels utterly eviscerated?

My biggest worry is their choice of Rob Marshall as the director; his Pirates movie was one of the worst-directed films I've had the misfortune of seeing.

Yeah, the film suffers from doubling the size of the orchestra; it certainly increases the grandeur and power, but it drowns out all the different harmony and counterpoint that's at work. I support most of Burton's cutting the crowd singing, but "God, That's Good!" suffers horribly from it. And as much as I agree that the film doesn't need The Ballad of Sweeney Todd, it would have been nice for them to still record it and slap it on the soundtrack, because it's my favorite number of the whole thing save "Pretty Women".

I think part of the problem is that Tangled is pretty different fare from Menken's Disney Renaissance material—stuff like "When Will My Life Begin" would never have appeared in a 90s Disney film. It's part of the unfortunate trend of musicals becoming more and more pop-oriented and less and less musicals of the classic Rodgers and Hammerstein/Stephen Sondheim variety. It's regrettable, as Disney was the last bastion of that kind of thing during the Renaissance—now, music from films like Beauty and the Beast and The Hunchback of Notre Dame would never make it in a kid's picture, and that's horribly unfortunate. It's not that a traditional musical can't be successful—Sweeney Todd did well at the box office and was a critical smash, and the Les Mis film was a massive popular success—but the mainstream does lean more towards pop musicals, and where the mainstream goes Disney follows.

Another problem is that I just don't think Menken was particularly trying on this one. "I Have a Dream" in particular is what I think of here—the whole sequence plays out like something from a Dreamworks film, which is not a compliment. If Menken's music were more inspired it might make up for the cheesiness of the scene and Slater's lackluster lyrics, but I think he knows that the scene he's composing for is stupid and he's less inclined to try than he was back in the day when he was on top of the world and passionately involved in what he was doing.

I think an even bigger problem than the music, though, is the lyrics. I don't know what other projects Slater has worked on, but his lyrics for Tangled are pitiful compared to Ashman's and Schwartz's. That problem got way worse with Frozen—the lyrics in that film are completely godawful. While I like the melodies of a couple of Frozen songs (First Time in Forever, Snowman, etc.) I can't stomach listening to them because of how juvenile the lyrics are. "Let It Go" is the only one that passes in that regard, and that's all it is lyrically, passable.

Hmm--see, I'm a big fan of the first two books/films (Hannibal the movie/book is an abomination), and that element definitely isn't present in those. D'you think it's still easy for a prior fan to get over that tone shift and enjoy the show? (Also, that makes me curious about whether their adaptations of Red Dragon/Silence of the Lambs will keep that magical realism or stay true to their source material.)

The good first: the performances here are for the most part solid, and in some instances very good. Garfield and Stone's real-life chemistry is a huge help to their relationship onscreen, Foxx is endearingly pathetic is pre-Electro Max, Sally Field is perfect as Aunt May, and DeHaan's performance as Harry is mustache-twirling but for the most part works (more on that later).

That said, this thing is a mess. It's not even its having more than one villain that's the problem. The tone whiplashes between serious and lighthearted, especially toward the end, when Paul Giamatti's Rhino chews the scenery horribly—I can't fault Giamatti for having fun, but the moment itself does not belong. Character motivations fail to make sense in crucial places, particularly in the case of Harry, who goes from reserved but relatively normal and a seemingly nice guy to a raving, bitter lunatic within one scene. The reason provided for this turn, his dying of the disease that claimed his father, makes no sense—the senior Osborn managed to survive for decades with his disease, while Harry is apparently dying of it within weeks of its emergence.

Others have pointed out the massive problem that innocent bystanders cause to the film—there are crowds of them standing just feet from absolute carnage and watching calmly, which drains a huge amount of tension away from each scene that a crowd is present in. In addition to this, Spidey's constant wisecracking in the midst of destruction and innocent people presumably dying in car wreck upon car wreck makes him come off as a bit of a dick immune to what's happening around him.

Finally, as was discussed in the WAYDMs for Raimi's trilogy, I'm sick and tired of scientists who are trying to do good being consistently painted as amoral if not sociopathic bad guys who are directly responsible for the villains of this kind of film. It's not a problem unique to Spider-Man, but it's extremely irritating nevertheless.

Oddly enough, I managed to mildly enjoy the film in the act of watching it; I really want to see a non-superhero movie with Garfield and Stone as a couple, because they're great together, and the spectacle of the VFX was mildly diverting if cartoony and over the top. Still, I can't say it's a good film, though it's better than any of Raimi's installments in the franchise.

I actually agree with Viggo about the effects in TT and ROTK. While I still love those movies, there's definitely a pretty big shift between Fellowship and them in terms of tone—the action gets more cartoony (Legolas's wild ride), and the VFX is far more over the top and less grounded. I think it mostly works—Helm's Deep and Pelennor Fields are obviously for the most part stunning, and the films they're in are still great—but Fellowship will always be my favorite in part because it's so much more grounded and feels a lot more like an actual other world than the other two films.

I think the movie still works splendidly in 2D, personally—that was the way I first saw it before seeing it in 3D twice. You do lose some of the sense of depth that Dorkman talks about, but it's made up for a bit by the cinematography shining brighter. And let's face it, it's a technical marvel even without the 3D.

I've walked back on The Dark Knight consistently. When I first joined the forum here I actually hadn't seen very many movies and as such listed it as in my top ten films. On every subsequent viewing, its flaws stand out more and more to me: as discussed in the WAYDM, it most definitely drags after the hospital scene, Harvey's arc is far too abrupt, and some of the stuff like the magic bullet reconstructor is just dumb. It would've been a much better film, I think, if Nolan had been free to direct a similar script as a straight crime film rather than a Batman film. Watching The Prestige was the final nail in the proverbial coffin—it let me see what Nolan can do when he's really free to do whatever he wants, and it's a markedly better film than either Inception or the Batman films. Do I still really enjoy watching TDK? Of course—Ledger alone is worth it. But I no longer count it as one of my favorite films, or as Nolan's best.

P. Z. Meyers pens an interesting article on Gwen Stacy and what it means to be the superhero's girlfriend in a comic book movie.

Lack of Billy Dee makes me sad.

I'm sure this question has already been addressed somewhere, but would you guys ever consider doing a Game of Thrones Intermission?