Hey Dudes, new review today! Another fella asked the question whether blockbusters always get seen more critically as they grow older in the Star Wars thread. This question inspired me to do a review of a movie where the exact opposite happened. It was seen very critically when it entered the cinemas in 1982, was a box office flop and basically ended up unseen under E.T's shadow. Over time it's reviews got better and better and today it is seen as classic by many. I personally love it absolutely and I'll explain why below.
The Thing (1982)
Director: John Carpenter Cast: Kurt Russell (MacReady), Charles Hallahan (Norris), John Carpenter (Norwegian dude), Wilford Brimley (Dr. Blair), Keith David (Childs) SciFi, 109 Min
Some of the first things you'll notice is that there are actually no female actresses in the movie. There are only a handful guys on a research station on the south pole. They randomly find a frozen extraterrestrial lifeform. Shit goes down quickly from there.
But what makes this special? the first absolutely stunning thing are the special effects. it is absolutely stunning what could already be achieved by outside the box thinking and love for detail in the year 1982. The film indeed looks as good as it's prequel made in 2011. I am not kidding and not exagerating with that. The Thing looks absolutely disgusting and shocking and it only gets worse throughout the movie. How E.T. got the Academy Award for Special Effects over The Thing is an absolute mystery. If you are interested how the effects were done and to which lengths the team went to achieve those looks, here is an interview on said effects, with the guy responsible for them, Rob Bottin: Part 1: www.youtube.com Part 2: www.youtube.com
Next strong point is the minimalistic soundtrack. It isn't in your face, it rather gets used to enhance tension already created by the plot. Its minimalstic nature makes sure that it doesn't get too dominant but stay in the background. The goal of the sound is it to supplement and not to dominate and it achieves this goal quite remarkably.
This leads us to the strongest point of the movie. The paranoia of the audience. The Thing has the ability to change it's host without changing the look of the affected. We never know where it hides and the characters in the movie and the audience grow increasingly more paranoid over the course of the movie. There is just no way to identify it until it decides to attack another one of the scientists. The plot is constructed very well, everything that happens on the screen is plausible, as a viewer you catch yourself saying "yeah, tha's how it could have got him". The tension and paranoia keeps you in your seat as "The Thing" catches one after one of the scientists and you ask yourself whether there will be a happy end or whether the scientists will find a cold grave on the south pole.
Now let's come to the weaker points. The twelve scientists aren't exactly fully developed characters. They remain rather flat, they are more potential vessels for the organism and serve as a vehicle for the audience's paranoia. I feel they could have been developed a bit better, so that it hurts more if they get toasted.
Another only minor point of critique is that some people see the ending more as a cliffhanger than an actual ending. I won't go in detail here, as I won't spoil anything, let's just say that some people think the ending is suboptimal compared to the rest of the movie which is on a very high level consistently. I personally don't see it that way. For me the ending is ok, nothing bad but nothing spectacular either.
All in all we have a masterpiece of looks, tension and paranoia. We see everyday dudes confronted with an absolute monstrosity which remains mysterious, it's heritage and motivations unknown, which make it even more scary. The paranoia of the audience become a part of the movie experience, absolutely great. i would highely recommend the film to anyone interested in movies. Only exception would be people who really don't like violence in their flicks because it gets pretty rough in the one or other scene in The Thing
Pros: Soundtrack, special effects (I can't state this often enough), buildup of tension Cons: Characters remain flat mostly, ending cannot hold the high level of the rest of the movie
Ok, I'll do Star Wars Episode VII today. I'll avoid spoilers, so if you haven't seen it yet, no problem. Please no hatemail. Have seen it twice, once in cinema, once internet screener. Visual quality not good, sound ok, just throw that in to give some reference.
Star Wars - The Force Awakens
Director: J.J. Abrams Cast: Harrison Ford (Han Solo), Daisy Ridley (Rey), John Boyega (Finn), Adam Driver (Kylo Ren), Carrie Fisher (Leia), Mark Hamill (Luke) 135 Min, SciFi
Always will be hard to put a score on a movie like this because people will always disagree no matter what, quite polarizing material here. Overall I enjoyed the movie, the current scores around 80-90% are still laughable in my opinion though. It has many clear cut weaknesses, but also some stuff that works much better than in the prequels.
I'll begin with the pleasant stuff as always. I liked the new cast, reenergizing the franchise and fitting the material well, well done and acted. Kylo Ren is much better written and acted as Anakin in Episodes II and III, he is a torn character with heavy mood swings, like a teenager in puberty or women (sorry, i really had that thought in the movie), he is what Anakin should have been. The Rey and Finn characters did well, too. Not too many J.J. Abrams typical easy jokes to reduce tension. I was satisfied with cast and acting, this is also the case for the characters already seen in other franchise movies (Han, Leia, Chewy, Luke).
Next plus for the looks and effects. Luckily J.J: Abrams didn't solely rely on CGI. The sets look much more lively and flatout superior compared to the prequels. It looks great, fitting the big screen well. Together with Mad Max Fury Road from the beginning of the year the film looks like a statement to use CGI as supplement to real physical models and sets and not the other way around. I am very happy with that and the movie's overall aesthetics (regarding fighting scenes, light sabre battles, ship interiors etc.).
I think these are the most dominant strengths of the movie. You can add other things like the references to the old movies, the one or other fan service as strong points (or negative ones), too, but in my opinion this stuff doesn't make or break the movie.
Now let's come to the bigger points of critique, some of them are already adressed in the Star Wars thread (in which I'll post shamelessly advertising of this review). The first one is a lack of reference. I brought up this point in my review of James Bond 007 - Spectre, it would be dishonest not to do it here. In the original series we had a good idea of what was happening in the galaxy quite quickly. It was under the boot of the empire, the most powerful entity ruling the galaxy with small glimmers of hope, we got to watch the journey of the biggest glimmer. In the prequels we had the Republic with a threat approaching. The Republic was the ruling body and in charge of things. In Star Wars - The Force Awakens we get nothing. Wo don't know who is strong and who is not. What is strong after all? Does it means all powerful or only slightly bigger than other atomized fractions? The movie refuses to give us anything to work with in that regard. I feel that J.J Abrams wanted to offend as few paying costumers as humanly possible, giving critics the least amount of surface area to attack. This leads to lackluster plot development and a movie of the lowest common denominator story wise, no risks taken. The approach is imo too conservative, it will prevent the movies from bombing prequel style but he won't achieve anything great that way either. More risks storywise in the next one please!
Next weak point is the pacing. It is well done until the big attack happens. From that point on, the pacing suffers. It is all payoff with no buildup. Scenes in which this weakness were quite obvious are the buildup for the weapon usage (people who saw it will understand), it happens so fast, short speech and let's use that shit. The next one is the scene, which I felt should have been the emotional climax. it felt rushed, too. The buildups were not good enough, which in turn made the payoffs less rewarding, the highs less satisfying and the lows less devastating. it turned into an action flick playing in the Star Wars unvierse.The space adventure part lacked. Stuff needs to be done better the next time around.
What to make of this? If you read this thread regularly, you may have realized I brought up many of the same points of critique as in the review regarding the newest James Bond movie. Lack of reference, bad buildup, unrewarding payoff, good looks on the plus side. i gave it 4.5 out of 10 points. Star Wars - The Force Awakens is better, the payoffs are better, the cast is better, the looks are better but the core weaknesses are still shared. I would still recommend this movie to ScIFi and Star Wars fans. It was an enjoyable blockbuster, a good sunday afternoon flick (when it comes out on BluRay I'll get it), good looks, no lengths not to much plot to concentrate on. I am also confident that the next one can be better, it has a good cast and good looks a bit more bravery from director and writers and it could get a lot better If you don't fancy ScIFi or Star Wars in general, you can skip it, there is better stuff around for the ScIFi genre as a whole and for blockbusters in general.
Pros: Cast, overall looks and effects (settings, lightsabre duels, ship fights, planet sceneries) Cons: lack of reference, pacing
To give you guys some hints. i think that Star Wars - The Force Awakens is better than all the prequels (I rate Episode II the highest with 6.0 but Episode VII is slightly better just not 0.5 points better). Episode I gets 5.0 points, Episode III 5.5 (because of shit cast and dance dance revolutions fight choreographies, I read that here and I love the expression).
The weakest of the old ones is Episode VI and it has 6.5 ( imo a tad better than Episode VII) points in my book, Episode IV has 7.0 points and Episode V gets 8.0 points. Just to give some clues on where i think the new one ranks within the Star Wars universe and how i rate that universe in general.
Having just seen Force Awakens I don't get all the praise either, I might actually rate it worse then the prequels (who, while not great are imo better then people give em credit for, Haydens terrible acting not included).
The entire first act is nothing but random coincidence. The droid just happens to be caught within hearing range of Rey, Finn just happens to crash within a days walk of the town where Rey works, Solo just happens to be within the same system to randomly run into the Falcon and he doesn't even know what system he is in. The random pirate hideout just happens to hold Luke's lightsaber for utterly no reason... Some coincidence happens in every movie but this is just lazy story writing.
They actually found a more angsty villain then Anakin, and while the acting is better, we have entirely no backstory. Its a kid who turned to the darkside because he hit puberty? Its impossible to take him seriously as a villain after he takes his helmet off and you see he is just some scared kid. With Anakin we at least got backstory about being unable to save his mother and fearing for Padme.
And as AngryMag said, how does this universe work? We have the First Order, remnants of the Empire. We have the Resistance but the Republic still exists as well, they are mentioned as harboring the Resistance and they get blown up by the superweapon but they do nothing the entire movie? Did no one ever check the Order's base to see that it was a planet shaped like a gun? It's not hard to check since the Resistance does it offscreen with hardly a mentions after it has shot.
The story is a mess and while the CGI was well done none of the action scenes were truly memorable in my eyes. Its all been done better before and makes the whole movie incredibly mediocre and completely forgettable.
ps. Dear J.J light has a travel speed. You cannot see another star system explode in real time. Its so like ST: Into Darkness where Qo'nos and Earth are suddenly 5 minutes away from each other. The universe has a scale to it. Ignoring it just looks dumb.
On December 23 2015 01:15 Gorsameth wrote: Having just seen Force Awakens I don't get all the praise either, I might actually rate it worse then the prequels (who, while not great are imo better then people give em credit for, Haydens terrible acting not included).
The entire first act is nothing but random coincidence. The droid just happens to be caught within hearing range of Rey, Finn just happens to crash within a days walk of the town where Rey works, Solo just happens to be within the same system to randomly run into the Falcon and he doesn't even know what system he is in. The random pirate hideout just happens to hold Luke's lightsaber for utterly no reason... Some coincidence happens in every movie but this is just lazy story writing.
They actually found a more angsty villain then Anakin, and while the acting is better, we have entirely no backstory. Its a kid who turned to the darkside because he hit puberty? Its impossible to take him seriously as a villain after he takes his helmet off and you see he is just some scared kid. With Anakin we at least got backstory about being unable to save his mother and fearing for Padme.
And as AngryMag said, how does this universe work? We have the First Order, remnants of the Empire. We have the Resistance but the Republic still exists as well, they are mentioned as harboring the Resistance and they get blown up by the superweapon but they do nothing the entire movie? Did no one ever check the Order's base to see that it was a planet shaped like a gun? It's not hard to check since the Resistance does it offscreen with hardly a mentions after it has shot.
The story is a mess and while the CGI was well done none of the action scenes were truly memorable in my eyes. Its all been done better before and makes the whole movie incredibly mediocre and completely forgettable.
ps. Dear J.J light has a travel speed. You cannot see another star system explode in real time. Its so like ST: Into Darkness where Qo'nos and Earth are suddenly 5 minutes away from each other. The universe has a scale to it. Ignoring it just looks dumb.
I never have a problem with other people having a different opinion on a movie from me. This post, howevr, reeks of laziness and not even giving the movie a chance.
Coincidence is not just how all star wars movies work, it's how most movies ever made work. Without some coincidence many of the great stories ever told never, ever, happen. At least in this universe there is a Canon explanation for overt coincidence : the force.
Ren makes perfect sense. He is the grand child of Darth Vader amd is trying to channel that. Plus his character is clearly on his 20s. As for him not being intimidating with the helmet off, that is literally the point.
For the universe, sure they could have said more but, imo, the said plenty. It is obvious the republic\resistance don't know about Starliller base and are only able to scout it after it gives away it's position by firing. By that point the reputation fleet is crippled. There are still two epidoded left to explain things. We didn't know the full scale of the Republic after a new hope either. They did t use capitol ships either.
On December 23 2015 01:15 Gorsameth wrote: Having just seen Force Awakens I don't get all the praise either, I might actually rate it worse then the prequels (who, while not great are imo better then people give em credit for, Haydens terrible acting not included).
The entire first act is nothing but random coincidence. The droid just happens to be caught within hearing range of Rey, Finn just happens to crash within a days walk of the town where Rey works, Solo just happens to be within the same system to randomly run into the Falcon and he doesn't even know what system he is in. The random pirate hideout just happens to hold Luke's lightsaber for utterly no reason... Some coincidence happens in every movie but this is just lazy story writing.
They actually found a more angsty villain then Anakin, and while the acting is better, we have entirely no backstory. Its a kid who turned to the darkside because he hit puberty? Its impossible to take him seriously as a villain after he takes his helmet off and you see he is just some scared kid. With Anakin we at least got backstory about being unable to save his mother and fearing for Padme.
And as AngryMag said, how does this universe work? We have the First Order, remnants of the Empire. We have the Resistance but the Republic still exists as well, they are mentioned as harboring the Resistance and they get blown up by the superweapon but they do nothing the entire movie? Did no one ever check the Order's base to see that it was a planet shaped like a gun? It's not hard to check since the Resistance does it offscreen with hardly a mentions after it has shot.
The story is a mess and while the CGI was well done none of the action scenes were truly memorable in my eyes. Its all been done better before and makes the whole movie incredibly mediocre and completely forgettable.
ps. Dear J.J light has a travel speed. You cannot see another star system explode in real time. Its so like ST: Into Darkness where Qo'nos and Earth are suddenly 5 minutes away from each other. The universe has a scale to it. Ignoring it just looks dumb.
I never have a problem with other people having a different opinion on a movie from me. This post, howevr, reeks of laziness and not even giving the movie a chance.
Coincidence is not just how all star wars movies work, it's how most movies ever made work. Without some coincidence many of the great stories ever told never, ever, happen. At least in this universe there is a Canon explanation for overt coincidence : the force.
Ren makes perfect sense. He is the grand child of Darth Vader amd is trying to channel that. Plus his character is clearly on his 20s. As for him not being intimidating with the helmet off, that is literally the point.
For the universe, sure they could have said more but, imo, the said plenty. It is obvious the republic\resistance don't know about Starliller base and are only able to scout it after it gives away it's position by firing. By that point the reputation fleet is crippled. There are still two epidoded left to explain things. We didn't know the full scale of the Republic after a new hope either. They did t use capitol ships either.
I do agree about light speed being an issue.
The good guys won right? Vader redeemed himself in the end and Ren was raised by Luke/Leia/Solo. For him to turn to evil Vader is entirely an angsty puberty teenager rebelling against his family.
And yes coincidences happen in movies but to many is a sign of weak story writing. When you can't think of a reason for A and B to meet you shrug and blame the force. That's fine for an action movie where the story is irreverent anyway but this is Star Wars and not Fast & Furious.
On December 23 2015 01:15 Gorsameth wrote: Having just seen Force Awakens I don't get all the praise either, I might actually rate it worse then the prequels (who, while not great are imo better then people give em credit for, Haydens terrible acting not included).
The entire first act is nothing but random coincidence. The droid just happens to be caught within hearing range of Rey, Finn just happens to crash within a days walk of the town where Rey works, Solo just happens to be within the same system to randomly run into the Falcon and he doesn't even know what system he is in. The random pirate hideout just happens to hold Luke's lightsaber for utterly no reason... Some coincidence happens in every movie but this is just lazy story writing.
They actually found a more angsty villain then Anakin, and while the acting is better, we have entirely no backstory. Its a kid who turned to the darkside because he hit puberty? Its impossible to take him seriously as a villain after he takes his helmet off and you see he is just some scared kid. With Anakin we at least got backstory about being unable to save his mother and fearing for Padme.
And as AngryMag said, how does this universe work? We have the First Order, remnants of the Empire. We have the Resistance but the Republic still exists as well, they are mentioned as harboring the Resistance and they get blown up by the superweapon but they do nothing the entire movie? Did no one ever check the Order's base to see that it was a planet shaped like a gun? It's not hard to check since the Resistance does it offscreen with hardly a mentions after it has shot.
The story is a mess and while the CGI was well done none of the action scenes were truly memorable in my eyes. Its all been done better before and makes the whole movie incredibly mediocre and completely forgettable.
ps. Dear J.J light has a travel speed. You cannot see another star system explode in real time. Its so like ST: Into Darkness where Qo'nos and Earth are suddenly 5 minutes away from each other. The universe has a scale to it. Ignoring it just looks dumb.
I never have a problem with other people having a different opinion on a movie from me. This post, howevr, reeks of laziness and not even giving the movie a chance.
Coincidence is not just how all star wars movies work, it's how most movies ever made work. Without some coincidence many of the great stories ever told never, ever, happen. At least in this universe there is a Canon explanation for overt coincidence : the force.
Ren makes perfect sense. He is the grand child of Darth Vader amd is trying to channel that. Plus his character is clearly on his 20s. As for him not being intimidating with the helmet off, that is literally the point.
For the universe, sure they could have said more but, imo, the said plenty. It is obvious the republic\resistance don't know about Starliller base and are only able to scout it after it gives away it's position by firing. By that point the reputation fleet is crippled. There are still two epidoded left to explain things. We didn't know the full scale of the Republic after a new hope either. They did t use capitol ships either.
I do agree about light speed being an issue.
The good guys won right? Vader redeemed himself in the end and Ren was raised by Luke/Leia/Solo. For him to turn to evil Vader is entirely an angsty puberty teenager rebelling against his family.
And yes coincidences happen in movies but to many is a sign of weak story writing. When you can't think of a reason for A and B to meet you shrug and blame the force. That's fine for an action movie where the story is irreverent anyway but this is Star Wars and not Fast & Furious.
Coincidence is present in all Star Wars. Just take the beggining of ANH. We have R2-D2 and C3PO arriving in a desert planet and even though they seperate and go to different directions, they are both captured by the same people; C3PO is bought by Luke´s uncle with another R2, who breaks in the most convenient moment so R2-D2 can be bought instead; they are in a house with Luke, who happens to know Obi-Wan, the one guy they are searching in a whole planet; Obi-Wan is also the guy who rescue them from the sand people; Luke´s aunt and uncle are killed right when he is away from home.
All of this happen in the first part of the movie and all of this happen in a very convenient way. We can´t act like this is exclusive of TFA. If you think it works or not is another story, I personally think it does.
getting spoiled for star wars movie in the general movie thread.. fml guys its still early enough to use spoiler tags. people come here to get an idea of which movies are good, not discuss critical plot points.
Saw an internet copy of The Hateful Eight twice. Quality was great, I suspect it was meant for press reviews. Well I am not part of the press but I'll review it still Of course I will avoid spoilers
The Hateful Eight
Director: Quentin Tarantino Cast: Samuel L. Jackson (Marquis); Kurt Russell (John Ruth); Jennifer Jason Leigh (Daisy Domergue); Walton Goggins (Chris Mannix); Demian Bichir (Bob), Tim Roth (Oswaldo); Michael Madsen (Joe) 168 Min, Western
First of all, I liked it much better than Tarantino's last three movies. Some reviewers cried because of the strong violence and the "misogyny" on display. It reminded me of the 60's. The first spaghetti western were critisized for the exact same things. The harsh violence and the view on women. Tarantino touched the nerve of the SJW like Sergio Leone did back in the day. Great! I like it. The characters are cynical, racist fucks who often solve their problems through the means of violence. True to the genre and the violent tendencies of the characters holds the tension high and sprays a sense of immediate threat into the movie.
Next good point is the movie reducing itself to Tarantino's strengths. Basterds was messy without a red thread, looked incoherent, Django broke with the genre radically but got weaker in the last hour. In The Hateful Eight Tarantino reduces the plot to an absolute minimum. It plays in two settings for ~90% of its runtime. This leaves room for the characters, their dialogues and their relationships towards each other. These are the areas where Tarantino shines and does best and this is the absolute focus in The Hateful Eight. This minimalism makes the movies focus absolutely clear and eliminates potential weaker areas (that existed in his last three installments).
Next strong point is the music. Ennio Morricone is going towards 90 years of age but he still has it wothout a doubt. The music is engaging, well composed and it fits the movie. Morricone and western themed movies are just a symbiosis, I can't think of a better man for the job, what a legend the guy is.
The cast does it's job well, especially Leigh, Jackson and Russell are shining. Jackson and Russell carry the movie in the first two hours, Leigh carries it in the last ~45 minutes. It takes quite the sarcastic stance towards racial tensions in the USA ala "white folk is only safe when the nigger is afraid" or "black folk is only safe when the cracker gets disarmed". We get to hear a touching letter read out in front of an executed body or we get a speech of Oswaldo regarding justice and frontier justice. The movie plays quite a bit with these themes without developing them in depth. I guess this is another part of the reason why some US critics got their panties in a bunch. Don't get me wrong I have absolutely no problem to bash movies for bad execution, lack of characters and so on but bashing them because of "violence", touching uncomfortable subjects and for using nigger and cracker, what the fuck is this? The 60's?
Now let's get to the weaker points. The flick runs nearly three hours and it has the one or other length in it. It basically takes an hour until everyone arrives at the movie's main location. For fans of Tarantino's dialogue heavy style this might be fine, many other people will get bored and lose attention, especially nowadays in the age of Michael Bay.
Next point is the theme of the movie. It could have done better with the "hate" thing. There is one absolutely great scene involving Jackson and some former general where the characters really let their hate flow right through them. We could have done with more of that but despite the title we don't see more of these scenes, quite the bummer!
I also see some flaw in the character development part. In my opinion the characters Bob and Joe should have received more attention, they look incomplete in comparison to the rest of the main cast. The movie nearly runs three hours, two characters with that much screen time should have been worked out in more detail.
What's the conclusion? I think The Hateful Eight was a very entertaining movie, especially designed to emphasize Tarantino's strengths and to avoid his weaknesses. If you are a Tarantino fan, you will probably be pleased with it. If you don't like this dialogue heavy style in his last movies, you should absolutely skip this one, because Tarantino takes it one step further in this one. There isn't happening much apart from the dialogue, it is the movie's focus and centre. Personally I rate it half a point lower than Kill Bill, his hommage movie to the Eastern genre. In this western themed movie Tarantino stays much more true to genre conventions (compared to Django his last western movie), but Kill Bill has a bit more variety in it regarding plot and themes within the movie. The Hateful Eight isn't a masterpiece or anything, in my opinion it is a good and entertaining movie which will be one of this year's best movies because of the lack of competition in the Hollywood year of 2015.
Pros: cast, dialogue, music, focus regarding locations and concentration on the characters as centre pieces of the movie and focus on uncomfortable topics Cons: some characters underdeveloped, "hate" theme not worked out enough, lack of variety, lengths
during their attempt at "suspense" when Han Solo was with his son on that thin platform and he drops the mask... i was thinking... there is no way this evil guy in the black mask can become a good guy and side with Han Solo.. because there are not enough bad guys to keep the bad guy side going.
i'm not expert om "jedi theory" but that ex-storm trooper guy shouldn't have been able to last 5 seconds in a sword fight with Han Solo's son.. whatever his name is.
i didn't buy the "love connection" between the ex-Storm Trooper guy and the girl with the brown eyes...however, they acted it out well and made the best of a bad set up... kudos to those 2 for turning something garbage into something "ok"
Galaxy Quest remains better than every Star Wars movie ever made.
7 out of 10
Great Galaxy Quest Scenes
On December 27 2015 22:48 AngryMag wrote: Saw an internet copy of The Hateful Eight twice. Quality was great,
Jackie Brown is the best movie ever made.. Even at 45 years old Pam Grier is a goddess.
Mixed bag here, it takes a subject that the average person won't understand and attempts to modernize it and make some parts simple enough for people to understand, but then mixes that in with often lengthy conversations about complex business and economic terms. Definitely not a movie you can just have on in the background, there is basically zero action in the movie, you have to really pay attention to the script.
There are a lot of interesting techniques at work but I won't spoil the majority of them, one technique used is having famous people explain terms used in the movie as comedy, hard to explain.
The soundtrack is incredibly strange and sparse, it was often dead silent in the movie theatre.
There is a fair amount of both obvious humor and very subtle humor, felt the humor of the movie was spot on.
Overall it's a strangely paced movie with an incredible script that some of the cast members bolster and some unfortunately detract from it (Brad Pitt has no reason to even be in the movie, his storyline is incredibly stupid and serves little purpose) and Steve Carrell is unbearable at times with his poor acting (only seems to have one tone to his voice)
On December 30 2015 19:51 Cam Connor wrote: hopefully they're setting up a finn x poe relationship
the last time the Maple Leafs and Canadiens faced each other in the Stanley Cup playoffs some 36 years ago Cam Connor ended the series with a double overtime goal...his only goal in the Montreal's Stanley Cup run.
Just saw Creed. It's the best boxing genre film in a long time and the two leads deserve massive credit for their performances. The series' history added so much rich emotional context and really elevated the movie for me. Makes Southpaw look like a cheap, ill-written imitation.
EPT
Of course I will avoid spoilers
