Snakes on a Plane - No Press Previews [Archive]

View Full Version : Snakes on a Plane - No Press Previews

Evil Avatar

07-20-2006, 04:48 AM

Variety.com is reporting (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117946950?categoryid=1959&cs=1&query=snakes+and+on+and+a+and+plane&display=snakes+on+a+plane) that New Line Cinema will "shed" press previews for the upcoming Samuel L. Jackson film, Snakes on a Plane.

Taking the route employed by many genre films, New Line has decided to avoid any potentially buzz-killing pre-release reviews of "Snakes on a Plane."

"Snakes," which has developed a surprisingly high interest level on the Internet in the past year, will launch without press screenings prior to its first late-evening showings on Aug. 17. The pic, starring Samuel L. Jackson, will open at 2,500-plus playdates.

bapenguin

07-20-2006, 05:04 AM

Snakes on a Press Screening.

That would rock.

saneman

07-20-2006, 05:06 AM

The most shocking thing about this story is the last sentence. A Variety article that said "The pic ..." rather than just "Pic ..."

Truly astounding.

This is probably going to be the dumbest movie of the year. I don't know of anyone who has heard the concept (umm... "Snakes on a Plane!") who doesn't agree, and absolutely revel in it. Negative reviews, while I'm sure they'd be largely ignored anyway, would just be a buzz kill.

Hopefully the final product doesn't disappoint. Right about now I'm wondering how that would even be possible.

coalhalo

07-20-2006, 05:13 AM

Well we all know what it means when a movie is not shown before it's release date to reviewers. That's right, it means that the movie is shit. And the producers are hoping to make a few bucks on opening weekend before word of mouth gets out and before the movie critics can warn their readers to stay away from the abomination. Personally I don't get what the big buzz is all about for Snakes On A Plane. I've been hearing about this flick for months now, but I have not heard anything concrete about the plot, director, or who is acting in it. I have not invested the time to look it up on the internet, so I know nothing. Now I see that Samuel L. Jackson is involved, and all I can think of is the movie he did where he went to Europe in a kilt and took a set of golf clubs. I think it was an action movie, but after the first ten minutes I changed the channel. I think that Mr. Jackson's great roles are behind him, and when I see his name in an upcoming release it does not bode well for the flick. I could be wrong, but not previewing his new flick is a very,very bad sign. Too bad, he was one of my favorite things in Pulp Fiction.

Savok

07-20-2006, 05:17 AM

This is why there won't be press screenings, people like Coal here are the ones who get jobs writing the reviews.

It's ok that you don't get it, just means you don't love movies.

saneman

07-20-2006, 05:23 AM

I'm in a screen production course at university. Students, faculty... I don't know a single person who isn't excited by the prospect of this movie.

(Well ok... maybe one. But I honestly think this guy isn't familiar with Titanic.)

So yeah, what Savok said.

Goronmon

07-20-2006, 05:29 AM

All I know is that I was in Borders a week or so ago and almost laughed out loud when I saw them selling the book based on the movie. :D

ArchVile

07-20-2006, 05:39 AM

This is why there won't be press screenings, people like Coal here are the ones who get jobs writing the reviews.

It's ok that you don't get it, just means you don't love movies.

I think thats a bit unfair really, i review films for a website, it doesn't mean i dont "love movies", and i'm actually quite looking forward to seeing Snakes on a Plane, i'm hoping it will be a funny, yet dumb, action movie :D .

StANTo

07-20-2006, 05:46 AM

bean19

07-20-2006, 05:48 AM

All I know is that I was in Borders a week or so ago and almost laughed out loud when I saw them selling the book based on the movie. :D

lol. Awesome.

I was sure that this was a spoof film by the title. . . Is it a real action/horror movie and not a spoof like Airplane or Scary Movie?

pseudopseudo

07-20-2006, 05:57 AM

Mason

07-20-2006, 06:07 AM

The irony here has gotten so convoluted that no one is sure if the real joke is on Hollywood or the fanboys. I guess the box office take will answer that one.

Stormwatcher

07-20-2006, 06:15 AM

Dude, it is snakes on a plane. sweet.

Ayup

07-20-2006, 06:15 AM

Some people don't know how to enjoy themselves, 51st State was fantastic. Just because Samuel L' isn't sticking to films like Pulp Fiction doesn't mean he's terrible either.

Snakes on a Plane will be enjoyable for all the wrong reasons, but it will be fun all the same.

What gives you a right to say that people who think that this movie will be crap don't know how to enjoy themselves? Enjoyment is subjective to each person, nothing more. Just because someone doesn't get the same satisfaction as you do does not mean they don't know how to enjoy themselves. I see people who get off cutting themselves but you aren't going to see me doing that.

If someone is upset that an actor they normal attribute to good movies is doing one that is crappy, that they have no desire to spend $12 dollars to go see, then let them be upset and let them vent. Just because you like trash flicks doesn't mean they have to.

edit* Well my sister just told me that he gets a harpoon on the plane. OK, I won't see this movie in the theaters but I will definetly watch it when it comes to cable.

easi

07-20-2006, 06:19 AM

Yes they deserve to die, and I hope they burn in hell!

Goronmon

07-20-2006, 06:29 AM

What gives you a right to say that people who think that this movie will be crap don't know how to enjoy themselves?The Bill of Rights?

...obviously. ;)

coalhalo

07-20-2006, 06:50 AM

As I said above, I could not be bothered before to look up any info on this upcoming movie. And now I have. So let's see, the director, David R. Ellis, (I know, I said "Who?" just like you) best known for, "Cellular", "Final Destination 2", and "Homeward Bound II: Lost In San Francisco". Anyone want to defend those 'classics'? Of the three "Final Destination 2" was the only one I found entertaining, but nowhere near as the first installment. Before his big directing career began he was a stunt coordinator, not a field known for producing great directors.
Next we have the writers, and there are three. First is Sebastian Gutierrez. He helped co-write the screenplay with John Heffernan. Seabastian's writing credits include "The Big Bounce", "Gothika", and some tv teleplays. Never saw the "Big Bounce" and I hopefully never will. "Gothika", well I have seen that, and more than once. Possibly a good story was in there somewhere, but I could not find it, and I think Halle Berry is way overrated. The other person that co-wrote the screenplay, John Heffernan, (also credited with with having co-written the story), has no other screenplay writings or anything else attributed to him at www.imdb.com, (The Internet Movie Database). The other co-writer of the story, David Dalessandro, also has no other works attributed to him.
Now on to the producer. There are 13. 13 different people out to make a quick buck on a sclhocky genre film.
I think that "Snakes On A Plane" is a prime example of marketing "buzz". Something hits the internet, and people bandy it around as the next great thing, without ever having seen it! It's just like the hype on soon to be released video games. How many times have you read about an upcoming game that is hyped a the next this or the next that. Or even as the "insert game here"-killer app. It's all PR marketing bullshit. The companies are hoping to create the elusive "buzz" for the product they want you to buy. And with the advent of the internet we now have such wonderful marketing gimmicks as "viral marketing campaigns", and people who are paid to go to forums and post how awesome this upcoming game/movie/comic/soda is the best, blah blah blah. Don't be a sucker. When a movie is not shown to the people that review them before release it is never a good sign.
Go ahead and attack me. You can say I don't love movies and whatever. But come back here a month after the movie is released and show me that I was wrong.

And as an aside; what movies are playing in your dvd? Here's what I've watched/watching this week:
1) Final Fantasy: Advent Children (finally got a 'real' copy, don't have to watch in
Japanese anymore)
2) Green Street Hooligans (Frodo terrorizes the terraces)
3) Find Me Guilty (Better than I thought it would be)
4) Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (Crap, pure crap. Took it out after 30 minutes)
5) M (Fritz Lang is a favorite director of mine. I'll watch Metropolis next)
6) Day Of The Dead-remake (Who did'nt love this movie? Especially the ending on the
island. No one survives. Great remake of a great movie)
7) The Devil's Rejects (Not as good as House Of A 1000 Corpses, but decent. I've
heard that Rob's next movie is a remake of 'Halloween'. Alot
of the current Hollywood remake cash frenzy churns out crap,
with a few notable exceptions, so we will have to wait and see
if Rob can add something good to a great 70's movie)

Savok

07-20-2006, 06:54 AM

I think thats a bit unfair really, i review films for a website, it doesn't mean i dont "love movies", and i'm actually quite looking forward to seeing Snakes on a Plane, i'm hoping it will be a funny, yet dumb, action movie :D .
That's a website, you're below real critics. This of course means your opinion is actually worth something, so cheer up.

OUX

07-20-2006, 07:00 AM

7) The Devil's Rejects Not as good as House Of A 1000 Corpses

You liked House of 1000 Corpses? BAM discredited Emeril style.

bgivnin

07-20-2006, 07:02 AM

all I can think of is the movie he did where he went to Europe in a kilt and took a set of golf clubs. I think it was an action movie, but after the first ten minutes I changed the channel.

You're thinking of Formula 51. :)

jeffool

07-20-2006, 07:03 AM

Something hits the internet, and people bandy it around as the next great thing, without ever having seen it!Exactly! That's why we love it! This movie will be as bad as every Jean Claude Van Damme movie combined, and it will be a work of art! This will be a bold experiment in film in the same way that ConAir was. I mean c'mon people, it's Snakes on a Plane.

bgivnin

07-20-2006, 07:03 AM

You liked House of 1000 Corpses? BAM discredited Emeril style.

... and he didn't like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. That movie rocked! Of course, enjoyment is subjective, as stated earlier, but to take it out after 30 minutes? The story isn't even hardly started at that point!

Grimgrock

07-20-2006, 07:03 AM

Well we all know what it means when a movie is not shown before it's release date to reviewers. That's right, it means that the movie is shit.

That isn't always the case. If I'm not mistaken Psycho (the original) wasn't shown to critics so as to avoid giving away the movie to the public. If I thought about it some more I might be able to come up with other movie titles that weren't shown to the press for this reason.

That being said, in this particular movie, you are probably 100% right.

Savok

07-20-2006, 07:04 AM

Ok, no one tell Coal where his logic is going wrong, I want to see how long it takes for it to click.

And recent films? Kelly's Heroes, Ghost World and Serenity, again.

saneman

07-20-2006, 07:13 AM

It would seem that the more coalhalo writes, the further he/she gets from the point.

Seriously, welcome to the site and all, hope you enjoy your stay. But dude... snakes... on a plane! Tell me that isn't the dumbest thing you've ever heard. From what you've said, I think you'll agree it's up there.

That's what people are getting excited about. Not that it's going to be an action blockbuster. Not that we're going to learn something deep and meaningful about the human condition. There is a place for those things in cinema, but it doesn't belong in all cinema. People are getting excited because there are snakes on the motherfucking plane.

As someone whose fondest experience at the movies in the last 5 years was a presentation of Metropolis with a live performance of a reinterpretation of the original 'soundtrack', I urge you. Stop treating this film seriously.

Edit: Recent films: Watched Syriana and Lord of War last night. The latter felt a bit flat, some interesting content but as a whole the film felt like a failed black comedy (in my head I kept comparing it to Buffalo Soldiers). Syriana was dense. I felt like it could have been longer. I liked it though. Need to watch it again.

saneman

07-20-2006, 07:16 AM

... and he didn't like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. That movie rocked! Of course, enjoyment is subjective, as stated earlier, but to take it out after 30 minutes? The story isn't even hardly started at that point!

Just as long as after he took it out, he didn't walk around the neighbourhood explaining to everyone that he stopped watching the movie early, and that this was the first time in 30 years that he'd done so.

Oh, and no funny moustaches either.

Beelzebud

07-20-2006, 07:47 AM

I "get" Snakes on a Plane about as well as the Chuck Norris internet frenzy.

I will not be seeing the movie. I guess I don't spend enough time looking at Snakes on a Plane fan-sites and myspace pages.

Food Nipple

07-20-2006, 08:01 AM

This movie is going to suck. We all agree that it will be bad, but those of you think that it will be "funny bad" are in for a rude awakening: this movie will not be funny at all. Snakes on a Plane is funny in concept, it's funny to talk about or watch people on Best Week Ever riff on it for 5 minutes. When you've plunked down your $9.75 and are over an hour into the movie, you'll change your tune.

Funny in concept and funny in execution are two totally different things. A few months back the producers on Adult Swim thought it would be funny to air a series of "best of saved by the bell." By the time week two of this crap rolled around I think everyone agreed that all humor surrounding the concept had been sucked out of it. Bad movies are funny on tv, or if you rent them, or see them at the $2 movie theater, they are not funny if you pay full price on opening night.

As far as I can tell, everyone loves this movie because it has a stupid title.

Savok

07-20-2006, 08:12 AM

One, you don't even joke about Saved by the Bell, two, "week two", Snakes on a Plane is a movie, they have trouble filling entire nights, though one wonders if the comparison can even be made since movies and TV are entirely different things.

Rirath

07-20-2006, 08:32 AM

First off, paragraphs - They're useful. They make my eyes not skip over the entire post.
Secondly, anything that needs good sized paragraphs about SNAKES ON A PLANE misses the point.

It's SNAKES... ON A PLANE!

Wyrm

07-20-2006, 08:35 AM

Yeah man, you've completely missed the point. And when you sit there and talk about Final Destination and House of a 1000 Corpses as though they have some right to be in the confines of cinema history as great films, you have very little credibility. You're saying that a movie that we all know is going to be stupid, will be stupid. We're aware of the fact. The movie is, most likely, going to be mother fucking hilarious. Get over yourself, stop disagreeing just to disagree, and go rent a good movie. I'd suggest Crash.

Parsifal

07-20-2006, 08:37 AM

The irony here has gotten so convoluted that no one is sure if the real joke is on Hollywood or the fanboys. I guess the box office take will answer that one.

This is so true. It's like when bad movies get so bad they get funny. This time, the joke "aw yeah this (crap) is an awesome movie!" has gone full circle to the point where people get angry when someone says that the crap movie is going to suck, for REAL.

This is for me a download-only movie. Maybe I'll download and watch it (or part of it) just to see how stupid it is, but not pay for it. If I paid for it, movie studios would just be encouraged to continue making stupid movies, since that's much easier, and if they still make money...

My guess is this will not be a funny movie, just an average bad movie.

EternalGamer

07-20-2006, 08:40 AM

The irony here has gotten so convoluted that no one is sure if the real joke is on Hollywood or the fanboys. I guess the box office take will answer that one.

The joke is definitely on the fanboys. The marketing execs knew this movie was horrible and it became popular, so they start intentionally drive the buzz regarding how horrible it is.

FoodNipple and cohalo, you guys are fighting a lost cause. All people are going to say to you is that it is is funny because it is not funny and that it is good because it is not good. This type of irony is the best kind because the people using it think they are laughing at the thing that is bad and incompetent, but when something is intentionally bad it is clearly getting the last laugh at them. When a stupid film is trying to be stupid because it knows it will get your money, that doesn't put you above it, you are no longer laughing at it, it is laughing at you. It has proven itself smarter than you, and that's not really a position you want to be in. It's like the drunken bum who knows if he dresses and acts extra-pathetic on purpose and rubs dirt on his face, you will give him money, so he plays the part to your stupidity.

Bone

07-20-2006, 08:49 AM

Snakes on a Plane is not "for" critics, or for people who expect 1) plot 2) good dialogue 3) a "film".

This is a movie that filmed reshoots so they could include more Sam Jackson saying "motherfuckin snakes on a motherfuckin plane" or the like.

A press screening wouldn't do anything for this movie. Of course it's going to suck, that's what most of the fans are expecting. And it will be hilarious. There is still joy in watching B-movies that revel in their B-moviehood.

jeffool

07-20-2006, 08:50 AM

Dan, by your exercise The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra is not worth watching. And that sir, is just wrong.

YoungAlCapone

07-20-2006, 09:02 AM

I'm gonna see it. I'm not paying for it though, that's what exit doors directly into the theater are for.

EternalGamer

07-20-2006, 09:04 AM

Well, what can I say, I don't like films that wink at me. Everytime I catch a movie doing this I want to say "No, stupid B-movie film, we are not in cahoots, so you can drop the smugness."

gspot

07-20-2006, 09:25 AM

I cannot believe people are discussing whether or not this movie is going to be good. Was there ever any chance that is was going to be good?

It's called "Snakes on a Plane" for christ sakes!

However, it will make money because of all the bad press it's gotten (at least the majority of EvAvers will see it from what I have heard on EvAv). People are more and more seeing bad movies because they are bad movies. That's why Uwe Boll still gets movies :P

Parsifal

07-20-2006, 09:26 AM

There is still joy in watching B-movies that revel in their B-moviehood.

For me at least, the B-movies that I can enjoy watching are the B-movies that try to be a "good" movie and fail miserably.

Well, what can I say, I don't like films that wink at me. Everytime I catch a movie doing this I want to say "No, stupid B-movie film, we are not in cahoots, so you can drop the smugness."

Exactly.

SexualChoc

07-20-2006, 09:30 AM

To all you Snake Haters: shut it. The movie hasn't been released yet, and your already ripping it a new one. It's called Snakes on a Plane, and of what I can tell from the trailer, it delivers on that level. It also has Sam Jackson doing what Sam Jackson does best; shooting his mouth off. You may not appreciate it for it's higher form of cinema, but I'll be damned if I don't come away from this movie feeling satisfied. Even if it makes no sense, is awful in every way possible, I will still be happy, knowing full well I went in that movie expecting a movie with snakes on plane and it delivered.

Savok

07-20-2006, 09:30 AM

The joke is definitely on the fanboys. The marketing execs knew this movie was horrible and it became popular, so they start intentionally drive the buzz regarding how horrible it is.

FoodNipple and cohalo, you guys are fighting a lost cause. All people are going to say to you is that it is is funny because it is not funny and that it is good because it is not good. This type of irony is the best kind because the people using it think they are laughing at the thing that is bad and incompetent, but when something is intentionally bad it is clearly getting the last laugh at them. When a stupid film is trying to be stupid because it knows it will get your money, that doesn't put you above it, you are no longer laughing at it, it is laughing at you. It has proven itself smarter than you, and that's not really a position you want to be in. It's like the drunken bum who knows if he dresses and acts extra-pathetic on purpose and rubs dirt on his face, you will give him money, so he plays the part to your stupidity.
Oh Dan Dan, I expected... well that's pretty much what I expected actually. I know the left has lost its sense of humor in the past decade, but do at least try to enjoy things.

GunnyMo

07-20-2006, 09:36 AM

Last of the Red Hot Mamas

07-20-2006, 10:00 AM

Rare wisdom from David Poland (http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2006/07/snakes_on_a_pla.html):

My take on Snakes on a Plane has long been that the biggest problem for New Line would be showing the movie, regardless of how good or bad the film is. No movie is without critics and with so much internet buzz already built up, it can’t get hotter, it can only cool the hum.

Additional operative words:

Some have gotten so caught up in the hype that they have convinced themselves that somehow this movie will transcend its very nature. And ironically, they are the loonies from whom New Line needs to protect this release.

It'll be a fun movie, at best. New Line would probably be ecstatic if it broke $20 million on its first weekend (Poland suggests a $60 million total is a reasonable aspiration). And the professional critics are and always will be irrelevant. It's a genre movie, so it's automatically suspect (the guy in the comments who uses Silent Hill as a counterpoint to this argument is on crack -- SH was a critical flop, but it did all right with fans of the genre). But at this point it's been so built up that we're pretty much guaranteed to see dozens of sensationalist stories about how SOAP is a dud because it didn't bring in Pirates 2 or even Superman Returns money and how all the Internet fans were wrong, wrong, wrong, even though most of them have never pretended it's anything more than a potentially fun genre flick. A handful of online nutters are going to ruin it for everyone (I'm not pointing fingers, people around here seems pretty level-headed about it) and they're at least as big a problem as the mainstream critics.

(And regarding the whole deliberate B-movies vs. non-deliberate B-movies issue: every single script review I've seen says that it's played straight, although I readily admit a lot of this depends on the director and the actors. If it weren't for the title I don't think this would be regarded much differently than Red Eye, which probably isn't much less ridiculous than SOAP when it comes down to it.)

Rakael

07-20-2006, 10:03 AM

Hey, I have a wonderful fucking idea. Want to hear it?

Those who want to see the movie, fucking do so.

Those who dont, well fucking don't.

I would like to see it just for fun, although I doubt I'll be shelling out the cash to see it in the theater. Most likely will rent this puppy and drink until I'm nearing a coma.

What the fuck is it about the internet that turns even such moronic things as a movie called Snakes on a (Motherfuckin'!) Plane into a huge debate? Oh yeah, the fact that you can be a pretentious cockhole and not get kicked in the balls.

Goronmon

07-20-2006, 10:17 AM

What the fuck is it about the internet that turns even such moronic things as a movie called Snakes on a (Motherfuckin'!) Plane into a huge debate? Oh yeah, the fact that you can be a pretentious cockhole and not get kicked in the balls.This guy just won this thread. ;)

Heretic Machine

07-20-2006, 10:30 AM

1. It's Snakes on a fucking Plane. It is made of win and justice.

2. All film critics should be hung up by their balls and covered in fire ants.

destoo

07-20-2006, 11:07 AM

3. (spoiler) Samuel Jackson gets a harpoon. :eek:

Bone

07-20-2006, 11:34 AM

For me at least, the B-movies that I can enjoy watching are the B-movies that try to be a "good" movie and fail miserably.

So, I guess you didn't like the Airplane! movies?

B-movies that try to be good and fail are just crap movies in my opinion. I'd rather see someone camp it up and not pretend to have a message.

It's clear we have different opinions on this. I'd like to know what B-movies you enjoy where they actually thought they were making good movies.

bean19

07-20-2006, 11:47 AM

Hey, I have a wonderful fucking idea. Want to hear it?

Those who want to see the movie, fucking do so.

Those who dont, well fucking don't.

Your message is just as enlightened as, but does not contain the eloquent brevity of "stfu".

51|RandoM

07-20-2006, 12:24 PM

That isn't always the case. If I'm not mistaken Psycho (the original) wasn't shown to critics so as to avoid giving away the movie to the public.

I think you're correct.

Spoiler follows in black:

They don't want anybody know about the snakes. You know, it has snakes, not just snakes, but snakes on a motherfuckin' plane!

ProfPuppet

07-20-2006, 12:35 PM

I was really interested in the movie until I read that it wasn't a spoof ala 'Airplane!'. Now I think I'll be avoiding it since viral marketing and 'Lol internet' doesn't make me feel like part of a wacky 'in' crowd like it seems to most people. If it turns out to be campy enough that it's fun, I'll watch it on DVD.

Sl1pstream

07-20-2006, 01:05 PM

Isn't this supposed to be a bad movie?
Sure, the snakes cgi is bad but isn't that the point of this movie?

Drinking_Buddy

07-20-2006, 01:24 PM

I thought this might be a fun movie until I saw the previews and saw all the terribly rendered digital snakes! Not even real snakes? C'mon, not even one? It's not the fact that they are digital (I understand safety concerns) but they weren't even good looking digital snakes.

Samuel L. Jackson said that they used real snakes durning the shooting. So its not all rendered digital snakes.

I say the joke is on Hollywood not the Fanboys. When the filmmakers found out about the fanbase they asked them for imput. I can't see them screwing over the fanbase when they accually listen. (That does not mean that its going to be good or funny movie, just that they didn't fuck over the fanbase.)

When I saw the trailer for this moive, it felt like the movie was just for me. It was like the trailer just said. "Hey, guy who is on the internet alot, this film is just for you." Why'll everybody else in the theater was confused.

Parsifal

07-20-2006, 01:47 PM

So, I guess you didn't like the Airplane! movies?

B-movies that try to be good and fail are just crap movies in my opinion. I'd rather see someone camp it up and not pretend to have a message.

It's clear we have different opinions on this. I'd like to know what B-movies you enjoy where they actually thought they were making good movies.

Well, they can't just fail, they have to fail miserably. I would say a good example is On Deadly Ground (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110725/) in which Steven Seagal (as Forrest Taft) tries to save the alaskan wilderness by, among other things, blowing up an oil refinery (although I'll admit, he says that he actually implodes it, to protect the environment).

It's fun to see them try when they obviously don't really know what they're doing, but it's no fun seeing a movie where it's like "Yepp, we suck allright!". In my opinion :)

Bone

07-20-2006, 01:55 PM

I see your point, but again, I submit Airplane!, Naked Gun, etc.

And you could have just said "any Steven Seagal movie" :) I'd rather watch a movie that has a tongue-in-cheek "we suck" than watch ponytail-boy try to convince people he's an actor.

Slack3r78

07-21-2006, 04:09 AM

7) The Devil's Rejects (Not as good as House Of A 1000 Corpses, but decent. I've heard that Rob's next movie is a remake of 'Halloween'. Alot of the current Hollywood remake cash frenzy churns out crap, with a few notable exceptions, so we will have to wait and see if Rob can add something good to a great 70's movie)
You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.

You can seriously call Devil's Rejects and House of a 100 Corpses 'decent' but not understand why people are intrigued by the sheer, not-even-B-movie craptasticness that Snakes on a Plane is sure to bring? Seriously, the entire appeal of this movie is that we know it's going to suck.

It's sort of like Uwe Boll's take on House of the Dead - it is without a doubt one of the single worst movies I've seen in my life, but I laughed my ass off the whole way through. Which was nowhere near Boll's intention. He seriously thought he was making a good flick. The fact that it's everything but made the movie way more entertaining than it had any right to be. That's what people are hoping for with Snakes on a Plane.

To answer your question though, my last few movies are
Interiors
Chinatown
Manhattan
Lost in Translation
Husbands and Wives
The Killers (1964 version with Lee Marvin)
Notorius

Chinatown, Manhattan, LiT were all reviewings. (2nd, 3rd, and umpteenth, respectively). Yes, I love Woody Allen films. Deal with it. :-P