Then tell me about glaring plotholes and stupidity in it.

Things that come to mind are Joe's killing place being fairly close to civilisation (by the looks of it), the shots would probably have been heard. And that he did not just start by breaking his index finger in the end. Apart from that it seemed quite believable to me.

It felt much more serious than any of the Batman movies for me. Only very few low jokes, no witty oneliners all the time. 

I think they just went flat out and admitted that the time travel thing made no sense. Bruce Willis' argument with straws was a good example of that - plus, Bruce Willis is nowhere near as serious an actor as anyone Nolan's ever hired. Anyway, I exempt any time-travel-related plotholes because it admitted time travel doesn't really make sense. But Looper is definitely full of stupid/impossible things (and Willis getting back to the present is a huge one).
I'll give you that most of the jokes the the Nolan trilogy were dumb and unnecessary. 

If you out-rule time travel right away, then it makes no sense to discuss a science-fiction/fantasy movie that is based on it. If in that reality it is possible, then it is possible. The movie was not set in our present world nor time. To me, that makes unrealistic things realistic in the scope of the movie. There were no common real-world cellphones suddenly sonar-emitting (and receiving!) for example.

You still did not list any plothole, exempting time travel.

Bruce Willis is a serious actor in my experience. There was nothing funny about his character here. Also 6th Sense and 12 Monkeys come to mind. 

What about the very selective an inconsistent use of the latent feeling between present and future Looper? Supposedly Bruce Willis could feel and see whatever JGL did right after he did it, except that seemed to be pretty much redundant in the second half even after he witnesses the incident with the kid at the farm. And also JGL's final actions.

Also, I still don't understand why batman is considered to be set in this world?

And Bruce Willis serious actor, lol. 

Why not just zap the people you want to disappear from 2070 to dinosaur times or something? Why have them executed? You are not removing them from the timeline either way. 

Haha, true. Also why did they kill his wife when it is such a no-no...

I don't get the Bruce Willis thing though? 

wait, wait wait wait wait wait: The 6th Sense?

Really, the 6th Sense?

There has never been a more overrated, pretentious movie, nor, I think, has any movie EVER had such gigantic plotholes. The entire premise is a giant plothole.

I hated that movie when it came out, and waited patiently for everyone else to share my opinion of Shamylan. I did enjoy THE HAPPENING though, purely as a joke of course, Mark Wahlberg as a confused scientist was just gold.

I can't take Bruce Willis seriously, although even if 6th Sense had a better actor it would still be a _ridiculous_ film. 

Definitely had some funny bits but also too many bits that either weren't funny (like most of the gay jokes) or weren't even trying to be funny. Scene where guy screws up his last chance with his gf because flash gordon turns up at a party, does loads of coke and punches through a wall: funny. Scene where gf breaks up with him due to said events: not funny.

We chose the unrated version on the dvd, suppose the theatrical cut might have had better pacing. 

Wow there was certainly a lot of movie there :-) Need to watch all the Bale/Nolan Batman movies again to have a proper opinion I think.. 

6th Sense was decent, but definitely not as great as it's reputation. It is very much overrated. A twist ending doesn't make the rest of the film suddenly more entertaining.

I'm still not sure why the world hates Shyamalan so much. Sure he butchered Avatar and apparently he steals some ideas or something? Who cares?

Unbreakable was a great movie. Signs was good, The Happening I really enjoyed as well. It was quite tense. I don't know how any Walking Dead fan couldn't like The Happening.

But The Village was fucking boring... again 6th Sense crap where the film revolves around a twist ending. And Lady in the Water was garbage. Devil, which he wrote, was as expecting. You can't do that much filming an entire movie in a lift. I haven't seen his first 2 films.

But that's 3 good-great films out of 9. Not bad. There's not many directors that have a 30% hit-rate. Even the best directors had flops.

After Earth trailer looks good too, though Will Smith Jr will ruin it. I can't stand that kid, although I like his dad the Fresh Prince. 

Actually I've almost watched everything Lynch now. Only Twin Peaks to go. Nitin I'm sure you'll have loved Blue Velvet. I enjoyed it, though I do prefer his more ambiguous films.

Inland Empire I loved. Just wish there weren't so many different theories on the plot and one of them actually stood out. I still don't know who was actually real in the film.

His doco and Rabbits aren't really worth watching though. 

Sixth Sense is actually a great movie IMHO, there is much more to it than just twist ending. Rest of his not so much although Unbreakable and Signs had plenty of decent bits. And kona he didnt do Avatar, that was James Terminator/Titanic/Aliens Caneron. And he's doing 2 more.

As for Inland Empire, I hated it. As much as anything I have ever hated if not more. Usually quite partial to Lynch except this movie and Wild at Heart both of which just rubbed me the wrong way. And I hope any future movie he does is done on film on a proper HD video camera, not the $2 camera he used for IE, which is also one of the ugliest looking YouTube videos I have ever seen.

. 

Avatar as in Avatar: The Last Airbender, which is what the movie was based on. I guess he just took the Avatar bit out so people didn't confuse it with Cameron's movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/

I didn't think this was that bad, but probably only because I haven't seen the cartoon and don't know the stories' potential.

Re Inland Empire; yeah filming it digitally is the one thing that really pissed me off as well. Could have been so much better looking if he'd filmed it properly. At times it felt like a cam recording. Think I read he was going to do all his films digitally from now on. Sounds to me like he's just been really, fucking, lazy.

Wild at Heart I didn't care much for either. 

plenty of decent looking films shot digitally, plus tv shows. But he is using some very basic digital video which is just silly. 

now in just alphabetical order, about 600 titles added. 

http://www.imdb.com/list/tRA4ZACG66o/ 

And only two more I'd ever like to see. 

Watched this again last night. Even second time around, on the small screen, it just bloody brilliant, in many ways. 

hobbit film: super fast framerate felt distracting to me. The very first scene looked like it was on fast forward to me until I got used to it, and every so often it stuck out. 

planning to see it in regular 24fps 2D. 

Probably a good idea. I didn't find the 3D added anything either.
Also, they did that annoying thing where they 'throw' things at the camera to make you flinch. I really wish they would stop doing that as it takes you out of the movie. 

I agree, but most people I know that like to watch in 3D want stuff like that. Personally, I still maintain that only Hugo had 3D that actually enhanced the movie (although I have heard from reliable sources that Life of Pi does too).

My brother saw Hobbit in 24FPS 3D yesterday and said that the sets/makeup looked really fake in 3D, something he hasnt noticed in other 3D movies, maybe a byproduct of being natively shot in 48FPS 3d?

Anyway, what did you think of the movie? 

Well, I'm not much of a movie critic, I tend to notice technical details more than the rest.

Also, my memory of The Hobbit is a bit fuzzy since I read it a few years ago.

I'm pretty much going to spoil parts of the movie now, so don't read this if you don't want to know...

--

Generally, this is a good, fun movie to watch. A bit slow to start, but with enough action at the back half to satisfy most people.

The movie is in an interesting position as far as book adaptations go since this is a single book split into 3 films instead of a book per film.

This actually allows for including pretty much the entire content. Some of the songs that are sung in the book survived the transition which I thought was a pretty cool move and the riddle game scene is completely preserved from what I remember. I really liked that and thought they might skim over the riddles and just have Bilbo get chased by Gollum.

There's obviously a lot of embellishment going on with regards to action scenes. Everything is dialed up to 11: the flight out of the goblin caves (which originally took place in complete darkness and was just them running) is now this huge elaborate running fight scene as they are chased across what seems like the entire goblin city, leaping across rickety wooden walkways and swinging on hanging rotten structures (which, btw, would make an awesome quake map...).

There are some changes from the book which I can sort of understand, but others which I don't.

For example, they added some character development to the orcs, having orc only scenes where they are talking and such. Also, Azog is alive now and has a personal grudge against Thorin (originally, he's already dead when the book starts). I think it's to better explain about why they will be swarmed with orcs at the end of the book (iirc, Gandalf only explains it to them AFTER the battle at the end of the book and then only in vague terms).

Was Radagast in the original story? I don't remember him at all, and his introduction is particularly jarring, coming way out of left field. Also, it's kind of goofy and hard to take seriously because there's this overly dramatic music playing and he's trying to save the life of... like a hedgehog or something. He actually serves to introduce the necromancer, whom Gandalf already knew about in the book. I suppose that was a show don't tell moment for the film, but Radagast is just really weird.

I found the pacing to be kind of bizarre. At times, it felt like the tempo of the movie didn't have enough time to slow down in between peaks and at others, it felt too slow. I can't really identify why it felt that way though, sorry.

Also, for some reason, the special effects of the introduction sequence (they show Smaug kicking the dwarves out), is quite poor, but it gets better after that. There are a lot more fantasy creatures and some are pulled off better than others. The goblin king looked pretty badass. He could easily have been silly with the way he looks, but the lines they gave him and the stuff he got to do made him someone(thing) to take seriously. The trolls, otoh, were kind of goofy. Especially when we've seen the more viscious trolls in LOTR.

Soo... anyway... I'll probably watch the other 2 films in 3d as well (just because I won't see them in 3D after that), but I'll try to see them at 24fps instead. I find the slower framerate works better because you mind fills in the gaps. The faster framerate exposes some defects like the gimbles on the steady-cam things not rotating smoothly, or the helicopter cams shuddering. 

North by Northwest
Gah, that ending! Apart from that it I found it a masterpiece in all regards. 

if you like zombie movies, definitely watch! it's quite awesome