John Cusack is one of those actors I've not seen alot of. Grosse Point Blank and Con Air, that's about it.

Though, looking at the commentary track, the movie is 120+ minutes, the track is 89 minutes?

Man Of Tai Chi (2013) - 5/10

This might be a generous 5 rating, but this fighting movie directed by Keanu Reeves is somewhat entertaining, in a bad-movie way. Paperthin plot, and Keanu is more wooden here than ever before (also he barely does anything in the film), but the fight choreography is for the most part quite engaging, and not overly cut up or "overchoreographed" to the point where you can tell the actors are just going through the motions. A fairly pretty movie aswell. Expect no plot whatsoever, some Tai Chi mumbo-jumbo. Corny. Cheesy. But still sort of OK all considered.

Primal Fear (1996) - 6/10

Well-directed and plotted film. Ed Norton is great as a murder suspect. All actors do a fine job. My gripe is that the plot is fairly simplistic, most likely a sign of its age more than anything. Still, engaging about the lawyer (Richard Gere) who is going to defend Norton in court. Feels a bit like a TV movie, low-key and not really flashy at all.

Pain & Gain (2013) - 3/10

(that's a still from an actual scene...)

I only got through half of it (and that was with ice cream as comfort food mind you...). Imagine Transformers without Shia Labeoufs charisma and you are pretty much there. The plot (based on a true story no less) about some idiots that kidnap a guy and extort him is played as a slapstick comedy (the still above is from the scene where they try to burn him alive in his car... yeah, that's our protagonists, walking away from a 'splosion in slow-mo, in the act of BURNING AN INNOCENT PERSON ALIVE). It's just bizarre how they handled this material. The actors, The Rock in particular, sometimes manages to make small moments funny, but overall this movie just feels... wrong.

I think the RedLetterMedia guys found the best word for it: tonedeaf. They also had a slightly longer description:

It's the dumb jock in your High School trying to write a poem... that's what Pain & Gain was. Like... "Your tits... are as big as balloons. I squeeze them... yet they do not pop".

Just stay away. This will lower your IQ. Imagine a Michael Bay movie. You've now seen this movie.

Los Cronocrímenes (Timecrimes) (2007) - 7/10

Time travelling. Spanish. Done on a small budget. If you liked Primer this might be your cup of tea. The story starts out very small, but builds more and more. It feels overly bare at the outset, but once it's over I was very glad I saw it. Like Primer the filmmaking is pretty subdued, and the script and events take center stage.

Triangle (2009) - 8/10

I am including this film despite watching it quite a long time ago. I would probably recommend this over the "Timecrimes" movie above.
I actually kind of adore this movie. I've seen it 3 times so far, but there is something about it and the atmosphere it creates that keeps me coming back. After I've watched this film, I have this quite profound sense of loss and melancholy, and I love it for it. Written and Directed by Christopher Smith (Severance, also a great horror film), this one is mild horror/mainly thriller domain.
I don't really want to give anything away plotwise, but let's just say if you like The Shining, or movies regarding split realities or timeloops or similar themes, this will probably be right up your alley. What I will say that this film has a superb, surreal atmosphere. Great actors aswell.
This is one film I would really urge anyone to see. It's interesting, very well directed, very well acted, and there is a filmmaker behind this. Christopher Smith is one of my favourite writers and directors thanks to this and, to a slightly lesser extent, Severance.

Red Dragon (2002) - 6/10

"Manhunter" with slightly higher technical aspects, but made for the lowest common denominator, and lacking the personality and more somber interesting character moments of the original. Everything is spelled out or illustrated, or explained in voice-over. There is no room for your imagination in this film. It is crowded out completely.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - 6/10

The plot makes no real sense if you look at it. When watching it, you can follow it well enough. Individual moments are just restrained enough to where the characters can come through all the CGI. You can tell there is a filmmaker buried under all the gloss.
I don't know. Overall harmless. I was not bored at any point while watching it, which surprised me. I went in with low expectations and it exceeded them.

Now You See Me (2013) - 4/10

I like Louis Leterrier. The Ed Norton hulk was pretty good. Danny The Dog even better. This was pretty painful in all aspects, not overly so while watching it, but certainly after the fact. It's a movie about magicians that perform very elaborate stage shows while scamming people in the process.
The story makes a point of them simply being performers and illusionists, yet after the movie is over you'd swear these characters are are simultaneously Tony Stark (they've even got tech so mindnumbingly stupid it would feel out of place in an Iron Man film) and the Joker from The Dark Knight (their foresight of future events and ability to do anything they want).

It's just a stupid movie. There is nothing here really, it's the Stark expo scenes from Iron Man extended to a movie, complete with the same irritating, soundtrack playing to try to keep the momentum going so you don't stop to notice how hollow it is. You are supposed to sympathize with the illusionist characters, yet they are so completely superior in their planning there is no tension at any point. Wait, just now something seemed to happen. No, you are wrong. It was all part of the plan. The Joker strikes again.
Character interactions are either poorly directed, or edited so quickly that is almost feels like an episode of Gilmore girls. Quip, quip, quip, quip, next scene.
The payoff at the end is just a big black hole, no explanation.
This was a waste of time. It sort of felt like if Michael Bay watched The Prestige and then wanted to do something similar. Any scene, tech, or event is either stupid, overly contrived, or unbelievable.
To be fair, in the 2nd half of it I was interested in where it was going. But the answer was unfortunately the aforementioned black hole.

Yeah, Manhunter has an interesting blend of mundane policework mixed with some different, and at times weird music choices. It definitely has a personality which I really like.

Insomnia is really good, But you may not really guess it to be a Nolan flick, unless you watch Memento right before it. Insomnia sort of feels like the intermediate step between Memento and The Prestige. It has bits of both, but doesn't become as pointed or concise as either, it's more nebulus and floaty. It sure knows how to set a mood though. The score and Pacino just looking more and more rundown, great stuff.

The Conjuring (2013) - 6/10

James Wan continues to impress with horror that manages to draw you in, where as 90% of horror films these days to me are just too self-aware. They are more or less counting on the audience recognizing the patterns of films before them, and doing half the work of building suspense in their minds before the movie has even done anything. "The music just got ominous, I guess the main character is scared and/or in trouble, I might get a jumpscare in my face any second, let's start bracing".
Wan doesn't rely on suspense music alot of the time, that alone makes the films alot more interesting, you're not sure when things will turn creepy. Also the world-building he does seems largely influenced by classics like Poltergeist, where the family unit and the characters actually get some attention. The actors he has managed to get hold of also do their best to add some class.
The movie is basically nothing we haven't seen before, and there are fairly obvious jump-scares, but the level of filmmaking and intelligence behind the curtains informs every decision, so you constantly are reminded that smart people who know what they are doing made this.

And as always, if you haven't seen Insidious yet, SEE IT. If you don't particularly like horror films, see it anyways (if you hate horror then don't see it, but there is so much more there than your regular haunted house flick). It is a genuinely good film with horror elements. Almost all practical effects, not a drop of blood. Smart script. Interesting design and cinematography choices. It's not a horror movie, it's a great scary, creepy dramathriller.

Manhunter (1986) - 7/10

The original "Red Dragon". Hannibal Lecters first appearance on screen AFAIK. The film overall is great, but the ending sadly is quite shaky. Great cinematography, and the film is completely subdued, which is just great to see. This is pretty much the polar opposite of the remake with Ed Norton. The score is awesome atmospheric 80s synth, which goes great with the subject matter of finding a killer. Great naturalistic, subdued performances. Really recommended, but beware the ending may not live up to the first 90 minutes. Maybe splice in the ending for the remake and CGI in William Petersens face over Ed Norton. That movie I would see.
Plus the Bluray looks terrific.

Stoker (2013) - 7/10

The first english-language film from "that-guy-who-made-Oldboy". Pretty good phycholigical thriller, it has an unpredictable nature to it and a sexually charged approach. It's just... interesting. Glad I watched, and the filmmaking behind it is top notch. The story evolves further and further as the film progresses. Eyecandy.

Unfaithful (2002) - 8/10

Since I recently watched "Jacob's Ladder" and loved it, I checked out the director further.
The people on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes all smoked bad crack before watching this one. 6.6 and 49%?

This film is superbly made. Direction is brilliant, performances all around are superb, Diane Lane got an Oscar nom and Gere probably should have gotten one aswell. Their chemistry throughout is flawless. The plot evolves in such a nice tempo, and the turns are all believable. Plus they absolutely NAIL the ending. I was sitting watching it and idly thinking if they could bring it to a good ending (seeing "Manhunter" just previous I didn't want that again). And then you watch it and you go "yep, that's the only way they could, and should, end this."
If you haven't seen it, SEE IT. It's both polished yet natural in style and tone, sexy, sad, it puts you into the shoes of the characters and genuinely makes you think about what you'd do in the same situation. Towards the end there was a moment where thought to myself, "oh wait, these are actors saying dialogue, I hadn't even considered that". Everyone is THAT good in it, and the script is that good. This movie really drew me in thanks to the characters, acting, script and score.

The Thin Red Line - 9/10

As long as you are in the mood for it, this is simply a masterpiece. The visual language is masterful as with most Malick films, and this film has a more traditional structure and plot as compared to his recent films. Saving Private Ryan really has nothing on this film. SPR I really like, plot structure problems aside, but it ultimately does feel like a movie for the masses (good guys, bad guys, flags waving in the wind, the end).
The Thin Red Line really moves you, and it drills its message home not through brute force, but through great performances and really terrific editing and writing. Almost all characters get a spotlight moment, and all are shown to be fragile humans in a shitty mess. There are no good guys/bad guys in this. They are all victims of something, be it outside forces or internal.

Scary MoVie - 2/10

It's well exposed and in focus... if I hadn't checked the credits I would have sworn that the "auteurs" from the "x Movie" sh*tfests made this as well. I liked Scary Movie 3 and even some parts of 4, but this is just insultingly unfunny dreck.
Notice how the image I posted of it above looks like someone taking a portrait in a studio, with the perfect lighting setup, catchlights in the eyes, an entirely synthetic feel? That's the whole movie. Everything looks like that. It's very competently setup I'm sure, but it makes everything LOOK LIKE A STUDIO. Is that really what they intended? Surely you would do your best to MASK the lighting setup you use, not make it painfully obvious?
Not even people who go to S&M parlors and take bullwhips to the nuts for an hour straight could sit through this one, I guarantee you.

Just watch this trailer without cringing to death. I dare you. And they're trying to sell it with this. These are the highlights...

A Fish Called Wanda - 7/10

It feels a bit stale and rough around the edges from a filmmaking POV, but nothing can take away from the great screenplay, or Kevin Kline's performance. If you like Kevin Kline, definitely see this. And I see he won an Oscar for it aswell, so there you go.

And I always feel I should watch more varied material, but never get around to it.

A History Of Violence really is quite unique in my head. Parts of it played almost a bit amateurish to me when I watched it. It just felt to bare-bones. Also the dialogue really is obviously ADR, meaning it never really feels like the characters are in the room talking, and the intonations and emotions behind the words are sometimes just a bit off. Though I have to wonder if that isn't intentional with this level of filmmaking. But because of the very muted and sparse soundtrack, with almost only dialogue with little room sound, and not much else, there is just something hypnotic about it. Every line from the actors grab your attention, and the slightly off-kilter dialogue ADR almost makes it feel a bit surreal.

OGF: Yeah, it definitely feels like an experiment, or more a movie about basic symbolism as portrayed by actors. The trivia for it reveals some interesting directions to the actors about how to play their roles. I really feel like there isn't really alot more than meets the eye to be honest, the characters aren't just underwritten to the point of mystery, they are underwritten to the point where they don't have much of a character at all. And I think that is the point, it's not so much about layered characters as it is about stripped-down simplicity in basic interactions. I'd compare it to the difference of a real human in a brightly, evenly lit room, and a flat lifesize doll in a wonderfully decorated room, lit with sharp spotlights to create contours around the features of the doll, and areas of darkness and mystery. In the example of the human being in a boring room, the amount of interest for it is probably not particularly high. It is a human being with intricacies and layers upon layers, but the doll in the wonderfully decorated room with the lighting and surroundings helping to give it shape and context would probably draw your eye more, despite being less complex.
The environments are almost their own characters in the film. Some people (myself included just a few years ago) would much rather have focused on the human, but now I find myself more intrigued by the elaborately staged and lit doll, and trying to find meaning in the way it is staged, dressed, lit and framed.

And Ellen Page is pretty cute in my opinion, also she does this which doesn't hurt:

Well for my money, I rarely label a movie as really bad. My imdb ratings even for movies I kind of hate are always in the 3-4 range for the most part. I may find no enjoyment in them, but there can also be technical of artistic competence present which I usually want to acknowledge, even if I still hate the movie. That's why I cannot agree with anyone bringing up Fight Club in a "worst movie" thread. Though I guess if you never watch anything with less than a 7.0 IMDb rating your pick of the worst you've seen would be a bit different from mine.

That said, for me the Epic/Date/Disaster Movies that came out a while back are pretty much the worst thing I could imagine sitting through. I can find no redeeming qualities in any aspect of those abominations. The movies themselves are basically cash-ins with the minimum of effort put in, since they basically just take scenes from other movies and add jokes to them as punchlines.
I can sit through most bad movies for the most part because there may always be some aspect of the production I can enjoy or atleast look closer at, but these things are not just incompetently made, they're also constantly turning to me and going "... eh? Funny, right? right?". The lack of self-awareness this implies just makes me want to destroy every copy of the films because I am embarrassed for everyone involved.

I can sort of understand George Lucas for wanting to destroy the Star Wars christmas special. That's how I feel about these disasters.

You are a better man than I (me?). I never even got through it all. I really wish I could so I could give it a rating on imdb and add it to my database, but sometimes I just can't muster enough enthusiasm. This was one of those.

Man Of Steel - 4/10

MoS? PoS.

Ghost Dog: The Way Of The Samurai - 7/10

Very interesting character study. The film moves extremely slowly, but if you fall into the slow pace and it holds your attention, it is a wellmade, meditative film.

Olympus Has Fallen - 5/10

Good filmmaker trying to work around one of the worst scripts I've seen recently. Some really poor ADR dialogue, and obvious CGI to the point where you can call it almost as soon as a shot starts. Still, when people shut up and actually do things, the film holds your attention thanks to well staged camerawork and editing. Can probably be skipped though. Watch Seagals Under Siege again, better use of time.

Tombstone - 7/10

Great characters and acting, Val Kilmer steals most scenes he is in. Ultimately this film feels slightly more like it documents the stories of the real characters in the film, and it doesn't really dive deep into one particular character, or relationship, instead the ensemble cast all get some attention. Thus it might not have the best emotional impact, whilst still being a very well shot, acted and directed film.

Detention - 5/10

Scott Pilgrim meets Scream. Very creative editing, camerawork and visuals. Ultimately the film has too many ideas thrown in to feel like a cohesive story. It can also become a bit grating after a while. Still worth a look for the visuals and cinematography/camerawork alone.

Europa Report - 5/10

Suffers some of the problems of Apollo 18. This tries to be more of a character study and dealing with the emotional pressures of spending 2 years in a small spaceship heading to the moon of Jupiter, but it just didn't work for me. Where Apollo 18 felt overly dramatic and "synthetic", Europa Report instead comes across as just a bit dull. It feels like a documentary, yet the point of watching a documentary is learning about a real thing. Missing that aspect, there isn't much left. I felt this was quite closely related to Sunshine in characters and dynamics.

So these are rudimentary, and probably very basic and perhaps obvious things I thought of the day after seeing the movie.

1. Contrast the destruction of New York to that of Snyders "Watchmen".

In "Watchmen", as the destruction of New York happens near the end of the film, the movie manages to instill emotion to that event (despite there being no major characters in New York that I know of when it gets destroyed).
First we see the psychiatrist on a NY street, dropping his Rorschach cards from his briefcase as things go down. His character has a few minutes of screentime, and while he has no save the cat moment, his character is presented as fairly honest and wanting to do the right thing. We know he is going to die.
Also we see the news paper vendor and the teenager as they hug just before they are vaporized and killed. These characters have even had a small arc through the film, perhaps even more so in the ultimate cut (not sure), where we see the kid reading the comic by the news paper stand, first being shooed off by the vendor, but their relationship gets less frosty and they even get to know each others names, which happens to be the same. The vendor gives the comic to the kid no charge, and you can sense that they suddenly found a deeper connection with another person. As they die you really feel like you loose characters who could have gone on to be important in each others lives.

In Man Of Steel, 1000s of faceless people die, and at one point a minor character is temporarily stuck until Fishburne and another guy frees them.

In Watchmen, everyone involved, including the guy responsible, become deeply emotionally involved, to the point of desperation, with the people that are about to die. Some arguing that killing them is wrong no matter what, the bad guy arguing that killing a few to save many is morally good. Ozymandias even states, seemingly completely honestly, that he made himself feel every man, woman and child he killed. They fight each other bloody over this, they desperately need their point of view to become reality. They are extremely emotionally accessible.

In Man Of Steel, no one seems to give a shit. Superman at one point becomes slightly emotionally engaging as he fight to protect his mother, but that lasts for a few seconds. At one point Superman saves a soldier (and then seemingly completely forgets where he is and what is going on as he heavyhandedly asks the soldier, in a somber tone, if he "is OK", whilst other people are presumably still dying around him). He also willingly fights agent Smith/Zod through the buildings instead of drawing him away. Seriously, they just needed an honest moment where Superman acknowledges that people are dying and where he draws away the fight from the people to safer areas (I guess then there would be no CGI buildings to fight through though, which is the only purpose to this entire scene).

The contrast in approach to civilian deaths between Watchmen and MoS is quite dramatic, and shows that MoS had NO thought put into this aspect, presumably they were busy deciding which buildings to destroy in what way.
If noone in the film cares about mass casualties, I don't either. Well, for starters, it's a movie, nothing is real, noone is in peril. But if a character in the film cares, and I have come to emotionally care about them, THEN I also care about what they care about. Just having buildings presumably filled with people destroyed in no way works dramatically. If you overdo it and dilute it as much as in this film, it becomes parody.

2. Emotional connection to Superman.

The filmmakers make little to no efforts to actually contrast Supermans dual identities. They miss almost every opportunity to contrast different characters against each other or form triangles of characters. Instead opting for isolated one-on-one scenes.

2a. Supermans connection with his father figures.

An idea. In the film, Superman sees his human father die in the tornado. Superman also hears Zod tell him that Zod killed Jor-El. This fact has no emotional impact in the film. Why? Because in the film, Superman and Jor-El share one scene, which also is almost purely expository (save for the "Moment in the sun" and similar lines).

What they should have done is establish an emotional bond between Superman and the "memory" of Jor-El. The dialogue should have established a deep disappointment from both of them that they would never be able to meet, to hug each other as father and son. Clark at this point has lost his human father, and now also has found out that he can never even get to know his real father. The sense of loss should be palpable. Clark should spend a longer time with Jor-El in the ice, learning and bonding with his father.

Because ->

Later, on Zods ship, Clark should actually witness how Zod erases the memory of Jor-El forever, killing the last trace of someone he never had a chance to meet, and Clark powerless to stop it, only being able to share a few last words with Jor-El.

(in the film, only Jor-El and Zod talk, and Jor-El is essentially erased forever in a scene where Superman isn't even present, and most likely never finds out it even happened).

After Clark loosing his father essentially for the second time, we now have a very easily accessible emotional bond with Clark, and we can see that Zod is evil (his motivation to killing Jor-El doesn't have to be "EEEEEVIL!", but seeing Clarks loss and knowing Zod intentionally caused that would be enough.

This leads to ->

At the end, instead of 4 again anonymous civilians being close to succumbing to Zods eye lasers, it should OF COURSE either be Clarks mother or Lois at risk. The extreme emotion of nearly loosing another loved one to Zod would be motivation enough to kill Zod, especially since Clark in the movie gives him both 1 and 2 opportunities to stop at the last second.
The story should absolutely have the end focus down to main characters engaged with one another, not like the movie having 4 random people in peril, which does NOTHING emotionally after we've seen, and not cared about, 1000s already in that situation.

Sometimes they hire composers for films that really don't need a noticeable score, and because of the big composer they feel like they have to have him write extensive music for the film, ultimately making it inappropriate.

I recently rewatched Deep Blue Sea, and whilst Trevor Rabins score is pretty darn good (back when he and others didn't just rehash Hans Zimmer), my god it sticks out like a sore thumb. The most epic music is playing for really unremarkable scenes and sequences. Slow motion + epic music does not make everything exciting or awe-inspiring.

Just had to mention it since it was on my brain. Also the bra I didn't really even notice, I guess at that point I was just thinking "yeah, this is pretty much what a nondescript slasher film would be doing. Strap 'em to a chair in a dirty basement."