Thought I was the only perv here for a moment.

And Node, Anthony and Joanna run off together at the end. No, they don't look back, but why should they?

...also, in the new Prom Night movie, is the twist the same as the original? cuz other than the name, looks totally different (well at least in the commercials)...

I wanted to yell at the screen, "It's because you don't have a personality to see past the fat suit, you stupid slattern!" or, "It's not because you're in a fat suit! It's because you're a vapid bitch!"

I've dated big girls (I like them curvy) and let me tell you: I'd go for a big girl with a decent brain before I'd ever go for Tyra Banks in her prime. There has to be something THERE for you to get along with once the sex is over.

P.S. Best Buy has an exclusive set with plush Alvin, Simon, and Theodore dolls, for even more of the aforementioned brownie points.

And yes, "Lost & Delirious" is a good movie, but it's also very awkward seeing a young, pre-bombshell Mischa Barton amidst all the lesbianism.

Burton's best in no particular order. Ed Wood, Batman Returns, Sleepy Hollow, Edward Scissorhands (God damn was Wonka fucking horrible. Worst music ever!!)

Then, the whole religion/crazy-messiah-lady scenario was just too over the top. Disaster happens, then the crazy religious lady thinks she's God's messenger and people start blindly following her. It was really heavy-handed - poorly acted and unrealistic. Plus, the whole plot was revealed in the trailer.

Then there's the ending. (SPOILERS) So I'm guessing the point of the movie was to keep faith, not necessarily religious faith, but faith in life and to never give up. Instead, they opt for suicide (with the exception of Thomas Lane's sleeping son), and Lane blows all their brains out, including his boy who he spent the entire movie trying to protect and save. What the fuck? Yeah, I get the point of the movie, but it was poorly done. A movie like "Signs" had pretty much the same message about faith, and did a much better job - "Signs" was not a phenomenal movie, but compared to The Mist, its in a whole different league. And these are just a few reasons why The Mist sucks balls.

So having just said you're an idiot I'll admit I agree with you to a point - and also with Soylent who makes the best point about HORROR. For me the whole b-movie thing of government experiments gone wrong, tentacles and the yes-over the top religious zealotry (she did play it super theatrically) was all cool but there was no slow tonal shift through the whole third act into the REAL horror the ending that is tonally so different (IMHO) of everything that came before. I think that's why people are rejecting it.

Also Soylent I think (SPOILERAMA) just cutting to the longshot (instead of maybe a slow pullout to give you more of that sickening feeling) and having the shots come so quickly after the cut doesn't ratchet up the tension enough for such a conceptually brutal sequence. It didn't have time to sink in - surely you need time to consider the ramifications - what happens to who in what order and how that affects the others before they get it too. And then a bit of breathing space before the tanks and the mist clearing - I know it works on the page to have that stuff follow so quickly and that's the point but cinematic timing for the audience is a tricky thing. Fair point? And yeah krish-o - to KNOW you did the right thing - and that be absolutely no fucking solace whatsoever because everything's safe again. Whoa baby.

But I didn't direct The Mist, and what Darabont came up with is one of the most brilliant instances of cinematic Horror in ages. I watch a ton of Horror movies. I fucking revere the genre. After seeing The Mist I think Darabont holds the genre in a very similar regard.

I'm sure there's a slew of Japanese Horror remakes on the horizon for those of you who need nasty things on screen to be spoon fed to you. For those of you who like to be immersed in the films you watch I would give a hearty thanks to filmmakers like Frank Darabont who consistently bring that element of storytelling to the movie screen canvas.

Beware the girls with long black hair, ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh!

To address the spider point. It makes complete sense to do that movement stuff CG you moron. Can it be shitty? Of course, especially when they're sci-fi superspiders that strain the laws of physics through their very conception. But if you don't think some dodgy mass, gravity and movement in CG for those particular bits is still preferable and more convincing for those requirements than trying to achieve the same thing with animatronics and puppetry, there's no saving you.

Ever seen comparable scenes in 'old school' movies? Arachnaphobia? Jumanji (closer to what we're talking about)? I use those two as more recent examples of old-tech. Sorry dude, a spider on a rollerskate or remote control car isn't exactly convincing in its movement. SO basically mate, no error on my part. At least I know what the fuck I'm going on about. Are you going to try to tell me Lord of the Rings would have been better with an animatronic spider? Of course not. Jesus. As you have no idea, there was a 3-foot spider puppet built by KNB with the quills and stuff, but the super-mobile stuff was Café FX CG. Tell me oh wise one, how exactly would YOU achieve a shot of a guy bursting open and thousands of baby spiders vomiting forth? If your answer is that you couldn't do it traditionally and would either delete the scene or do something less ambitious than try to actually do what's in the script, then welcome to my fucking point.

You also don't seem to get that I wasn't being a brainless CG advocate. Not that anyone around here seems to notice, but I always list the benefits AND drawbacks of each technique, and don't just spout "cg is shit" or "CG is ALWAYS better". You're right in that BAD cg is shit, but oldschool techniques would have been much worse in this context: incredibly mobile and articulated creature work. Café's stuff was no better or worse than KNBs in my opinion. Why do you think they separated the work like that? Oh that's right. You don't KNOW who did what or why they would do it that way.

I'm sure you'll reply with something lame like "I shouldn't HAVE to know how they did it to know it sucked". Which would only be true if you hadn't made an arse of yourself with the unsupported or thought-out CG comments.

Finally, for your info, although the use of animatronics (barring the weak baby/egg and spitter) with the CG in Jurassic Park was great and most people don't even notice the "hide the CG" stuff (rain, night etc.), the ending WAS actually ruined by Spielberg using CG as a last-minute "fix". I have an earlier script from when they were still in production and they were going to use earthmoving equipment to defeat the dinos. He was so enamoured of the cg though that he put the cg Rex in there late in the game (too late for reshoots) which turned into a lame deus-ex-machina and went completely against his tried-and-true formula (even in that same movie) of telegraphing/setting up for the payoff. I love the movie, but geez. And the point here of course Bobo, is that it's NOT CG but bad USE or implementation of CG which is to blame.

Maybe I shoulda screamed at Sithdan's moronic questions about the Joker's blonde 'hair' instead.