15 Best Web Sites for Movie Fans
Surfing around a bit this morning and I landed on another interesting list from PC Mag. I don’t think it’s necessarily in order (as in a ranked list); just 15 web sites that are musts for movie fans. It’s broken up into categories. I guess most of the list is kind of obvious (IMDb, Apple trailers, etc), but there are some other nice nods on there too. To be honest though, just check our blog roll in the side bar of this page to see the sites of true fans and really good writers. I’m also surprised they didn’t include the Siskel and Ebert archive which has every televised review they’ve ever done since 1985. These listed below are just kind of the generic ones that focus on current films and mostly are for Michael Bay fans 
.
Reviews:
Rotten Tomatoes
RogerEbert.com
The Four Word Film Review
News:
Film.com
First Showing
Facts:
MovieMistakes.com
IMDb
Trailers/Spoilers:
Apple Movie Trailers
The Movie Spoiler
Social Networking:
Criticker
Flixster
Blogs:
/Film
Cinematical
FEARnet
io9
The most essential trailer site is Movie-list.com and their forums. My place of choice to gather trailers (yes, a lot of the link back to Apple, but they usually offer links to download-able versions of the trailers, which I like.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 24, 2008 @ 10:09 am
@“To be honest though, just check our blog roll in the side bar of this page to see the sites of true fans and really good writers.”
Yea, especially on the blog side of things, I don’t go to any of those sites (well, occasionally Cinematical to read James Rocchi’s reviews and festival coverage)
After spending a couple hours on either Flickster and Criticker you realize that for the most part, things are pretty lowest-common-denominator…
I’d but The Onion A.V. Club, Film Freak Central, The House Next Door, Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule, Greencine Daily, Reverse Shot, and Girish Shambu as regular destinations.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 24, 2008 @ 10:19 am
Yes, Movie-List is amazing.
Comment by Cinexcellence — June 24, 2008 @ 10:26 am
The Internet’s Largest and most Comprehensive collection of Free Movie,TV & Cable Sites on the longest web page.
http://www.nosubscriptionrequired.net/
Comment by Norman Roberts — June 24, 2008 @ 11:23 am
I just realized you guys don’t have chud on your side bar. My favorite movie site.
Also you link to Vern’s april fools joke but not his regular sight. That’s pretty much my two favorites. (row three is one of my favorites too).
I’ve developed more of a taste for filmfreak. Especially their blog. Alex Jackson is pretty good. His blogger avatar could make a good screen shot quiz.
Comment by Rusty James — June 24, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
Oh did anyone notice that site at L.A.M.B that was written by a neo nazi. That a pretty amazing find.
Comment by Rusty James — June 24, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
Yes Time for a BlogRoll Update. Changing the Vern link, because as funny as that joke was, his regular writing is much more compelling.
.
.
.
You may now click thru.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 24, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Re-visited Verns site and his review of The Happening is an embarrasment. Complaining that it’s not realistic? Way to go.
And btw. Rusty when I saw The Happening the 2nd time, I looked out for the scene you complained about earlier, where Wahlberg is blocking the old lady. Actually, he isn’t startled at all. And the way the shot goes, he is looking out towards the camera, then as he turns around the camera pans and reveals what he sees. It’s not a shock at all to either character nor audience. So eat it bitch. The Happening is a good movie.
Comment by Henrik — June 24, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
I’ll keep my eyes peeled next time. Jim Emerson (who is in the blog role) wrote the definitive write up of what a poorly made piece of shit that movie is.
Vern’s review can hardly be summed up as “not realistic”. The big problem with The Happening is that M. Night used to be a real director who created scenes of suspense and tension. Now he makes movies with corny jokes about talking to plants and “hilarious” dialogue. If in fact that is what the movie’s trying to achieve. A claim supported only by the fact that it uterly fails on any serious level.
M. Night: You’re all idiots! It’s SUPPOSED to be a big joke!
Audience: Then how come we’re not laughing.
Comment by Rusty James — June 24, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
“Newman is dead wrong about at least one thing: “The Happening” is that bad. It’s just not consistently that bad. Fleetingly, it’s even pretty good. An effectively creepy image or sequence will be followed by long stretches so ineptly staged, shot and cut together that you want to throw up (your arms) in frustration. I did, anyway.”
Even though his description of the ‘bad’ parts is complete hyperbole, I could be pressed to agree with this statement. But I much prefer having 2 or 3 sequences of mastery, compared to the lameness and consistent creative ineptitude that the summer blockbusters usually deliver. Iron Man will once again serve as the scapegoat, the template. But it is so great to point at, because it is so textbook that it’s impressive that so many people worked on it for so long, and nobody had a creative thought.
Comment by Henrik — June 24, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
And this guy is complaining that the film prompted him to think about it, not only philosophically, but technically… I think M Night Shyamalan would take that as a compliment, as would I, had I made the film. Jim Emerson would not have liked Jean-Luc Godard had he been starting up today.
Comment by Henrik — June 24, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
And another thing, he even notes on the hostility Shyamalan seemingly has towards his audience. How is this a bad thing again? He looks down on his audience. That’s unique and interesting. He throws the hooks out there with no care or sympathy, and concentrates on what he thinks is interesting. I much prefer his elitist attitude to the mass-audience-catering bullshit that gets released all the time.
Comment by Henrik — June 24, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
Yes, I’ve for awhile now I’ve suspected that your love for M. Night stems from a personal affinity for him. A shared kinship based on the fact that you’re both arrogant hostile jerks who think they’re better than everyone else.
In so many ways your love for Shyamalan is similar to my own love and identification with Lars Von Trier. Both make relentlessly self referential films. Neither are afraid to alienate their audience (aledgedly, I’m only half convinced M. Night is doing it intentionally). Like Shyamalan, Von Trier’s films are often mean spirited jokes on the audience (although LVT is actually really clever and ironic whereas MNS sense of humor is just defensive.)
Most of all I love LVT because he embodies the traits that others may think are the worst parts of myself. The things I’m always being forced to apologize for he celebrates.
I think your comments are often empty pretentiousness but on MNS and specifically The Happening, I can respect for your thoughtfulness and unique insight. Everyone else I read defending this sounds like they copied the answers to the Lady And The Water test but passed them in on the wrong movie.
LITW isn’t good either but it’s a more defensible film than The Happening. LITW fails at being ambitious and profound. The Happening succeeds at being inane and hebetudinous. It’s a film that inspired me to look up “stupid” in the thesaurus.
Comment by Rusty James — June 24, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
“I’ve suspected that your love for M. Night stems from a personal affinity for him.”
Nice rhetoric, but ultimately pointless, since I have never met him. Everything boils down to me having seen his movies. If I have any personal affinity for him, it’s because I think his art is very enjoyable.
The Lars Von Trier stuff I don’t know about. I have not seen alot of his films, I think Europa is really, really good untill the last 30 minutes. I turned off Dancer in the Dark halfway through out of boredom. I fell asleep watching Dogville, but I was tired to begin with so maybe wasn’t fair. The narration was horrible though. I think Lars Von Trier is an interesting person, but he lacks the honesty that I think makes an artist interesting, both in his films and in his all-too-marketed personality.
If Shyamalan hadn’t been making expensive movies with hollywood actors in them, you wouldn’t question wether or not things are done on purpose. I’m almost certain of it, you seem to judge them as failures to be widely-released movies (comparisons to War of the Worlds etc.), and then go on to say they are reminiscent of art-films like Lars Von Trier. I happen to think that it’s a strength that they fail as wide-release movies.
And FYI, I’m not an arrogant hostile jerk. I just come off that way because the people I talk to are insecure idiots.
Comment by Henrik — June 25, 2008 @ 12:10 am
Lady in the Water = M. Night so high on his own bullshit that the stink carries over to the actors and screenwriting.
The Happening = While also a pretty weak screenplay, its willingness to have some gross, some funny and some just loopy weirdness without the “I’m the next coming of the christ, and ‘my tale is the tale to end all tales’ makes it a particularly fun romp, if not a great movie. Lady in the Water is a bit more belaboured in my opinion. I wanted to love that one, I fully expected to actually, but I simply didn’t like LITW.
Comment by Kurt — June 25, 2008 @ 6:13 am
“And FYI, I’m not an arrogant hostile jerk. I just come off that way because the people I talk to are insecure idiots.”
Classic Henrik. Classic. The one thing I find amusing about your commentary is that I’m never sure if you are making a joke or are cluelessly hostile.
Comment by Kurt — June 25, 2008 @ 6:16 am
So change M Night to any other actor, and LITW is perfectly good for you.
I think his ego is charming, just like I think Ingmar Bergman is charming when he made his wife cry on set, and Stanley Kubrick is charming when he tortured Scatman Crothers and Shelley Duvall and Orson Welles is charming when he says he doesn’t concern himself with idiots.
Comment by Henrik — June 25, 2008 @ 6:18 am
That part right there was a joke Kurt.
Comment by Henrik — June 25, 2008 @ 6:18 am
Nope. The Bob Balaban character was a total failure, the reduce the Giamatti to begging for cookies was completely misguided, the casual racism/caricatures of the Chinese and Mexican families was ill-advised. Lady in the Water is swimming in its own problems, I can see how some may respect its ‘unusual exposition’ or ‘mix-the-mundane-with-the-fantastical’ elements because those are interesting, too bad the rest of the film (outside of C. Doyles fabulous cinematography) is dreck.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 25, 2008 @ 6:28 am
I liked the Bob Balaban character. I thought he was kind of funny. Not enough to defend him, but enough to just mention it.
Sheesh - the amount of time we spend hijacking random threads in order to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of Shyamalan is staggering. Maybe we should start a new site: m.night.org.
Comment by Andrew James — June 25, 2008 @ 8:10 am
“M. Night-Club.”
Bluster. Hubris. Dope.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 25, 2008 @ 8:18 am
@ “I think Ingmar Bergman is charming when he made his wife cry”
haha haa ha ha ha ha ah aha ha aha ah aha ah ah aha ha ah hahahahaha ah ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h ha ha ha hah ah ah ah ah ah ah ahahahaha ha ha ah ah ah hah ah ah ahh ah ah ha hah ah ha ha hah ah ah ah ha hah ah ah ah
Comment by Rusty James — June 25, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
Rusty, thanks for pointing out Jim Emerson’s blog. That piece on The Crappening by M Night Shama-lama-ding-dong (lol) perfectly encapsulates why it’s not just the retarded premise or story structure that kill the movie, but an inability to grasp storytelling through basic cinematic language.
Comment by stump — June 25, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
Henrik, check out Polanski, he’s delightful. j/k
Comment by Rusty James — June 25, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
@kurt “While also a pretty weak screenplay, its willingness to have some gross, some funny and some just loopy weirdness”
I just think that praise would make a lot more sense if the film you were describing was LITW.
I’m not pulling a Jay Cheel and saying the movie is good. But LITW is at least an awe-inpiringly bizarre film (the shyamalan twist is that it’s an actual film that got released and not a fever dream I was recovering from).
As opposed to the generic and shoddy lameness of The Happening (*Henrik, I rewatched the scene in question… to each his own sir).
@Stump, glad you liked the article. JE is becoming one of my favorites.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AWESOME BONUS COMMENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Uninvolved Observers would be a great name for a movie blog.
Comment by Rusty James — June 25, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Jim Emerson’s series on the significance of the Opening shot (prime example being Barry Lyndon) is a very enjoyable read. They’re in his archive somewhere.
Comment by Kurt — June 25, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
[...] RowThree (Movie Site) [...]
Pingback by Share… » Summer Food Link Friday — June 28, 2008 @ 4:45 am