By James Scott | Monday, September 26, 11:45 am
Deep down, we always knew privacy would become a relic of the past.
By James Scott | Friday, September 23, 5:37 pm
Not quite the "cool" factor of the 1960 version, but still a damned good remake of a damned good remake.
By James Scott | Thursday, September 8, 9:33 am
Surprise. Not a horror film. Just excruciating suspense.
There's a place for juvenile and tasteless. Maybe this is it.
I never understand exactly why these nutcases want to take over the world.
Why won't Star Trek die already?
Once you try to justify a mythological concept, it can't help but lose some of its impact.
There's a single factor I believe is largely responsible for Ghostbusters' longevity, and it's not proton packs.
Charming villains are always the most interesting.
Even with Daniel Radcliffe playing a corpse, there won't be too many comparisons to Weekend At Bernie's.
Singer gets away with a sixth entry because he understands that the story isn't about blue-skinned people using ridiculous super-powers.
There's a spiritual and a romantic side to this film absent from most movies of this type.
Audiences love mayhem.
The film doesn't suffer from a lack of interesting characters. It suffers from an overload of them.