What I really like about this movie and other movies from the era is the straightforwardness of the story. There are no laboriously contrived twists; there's no protracted mano-a-mano face-off; the villain doesn't come back from the dead for a last-second jump scare; there's no coincidental connection between the villain and the hero (can't you just hear it in a current movie: "Hey, my daughter's on that train!") or any of the other nonsense that passes for story in today's movies.

Movies in the 70's were compact; they began, developed and got the hell out. I'm reminded of the differences in storytelling on television between then and now, as well. Today's style relies on intrigues, subplots, twists, improbable subplots, coincidences, ellipses, ridiculous subplots, self-conscious technique and distracting subplots. Contrast a show like "Combat" with, say "Person of Interest." I'll take "Combat" any day, just as I'll take the original "Pelham" over any of its remakes.

Regarding "This Means War," I haven't seen it, but when we saw the commercial for it, I turned to my wife and said, "I'll bet the big twist is that she's a CIA agent, too."

Both Cosby and Lee are late to the party (though welcome.) Larry Elder has been banging this drum for over fifteen years and has been called every loathsome racist name in the book for his efforts. The times are finally catching up to his ideas.

Zachary Leeman - ”The studio also dumbly...replaced [Norton] with Mark Ruffalo. Here was their explanation:
We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back...Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the...collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members...who thrive working as part of an ensemble...
I’m not the smartest guy in the world, but I can read between the lines. Basically, they needed someone who was more of a puppet than Norton and whose voice would not interrupt theirs.

I can read between the lines, too. They needed someone who could, in the famous words of Quincy Jones, check his ego at the door. Norton wouldn’t. Therefore, good-bye Norton. Where is the evidence that Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johannson are “puppets?”

Zachary Leeman - "The same guy [to direct 'Captain America!' ] who was quoted time and time again wanting to downplay the patriotic side of Captain America. What? I thought these guys were trying to be more faithful to the characters they showed on screen. His name is Captain America! The film was awful. The special effects showing Chris Evans as a scrawny pre-Captain America were just sad and awkward. The action scenes were so cardboard that the film felt like it had no personality. And it all just felt like one big rush to the setup for 'The Avengers' at the end."

Virtually every point made here is wrong. While the director did make some pre-release comments that had conservatives' antennae extended, the movie itself proved that the worry was unwarranted.

There had similarly been much talk of the scrawny Steve Rogers effects being distracting and unconvincing. I went into the movie prepared to overlook them for the sake of my suspension of disbelief. To my surprise, I found them absolutely naturalistic and convincing. I can only conclude that those who found it otherwise were so aware of Chris Evans's actual physique that seeing him in the scrawny state was in-and-of-itself bizarre and distracting, regardless of the quality of the technical effect.

The acting was uniformly character-driven in precisely the way that Mickey Rourke described it should be in his rant. Additionally, the characters' attitudes and positions were consistent with a 1940s verisimilitude, not naive in the way that young people always believe previous generations were but innocent in a pre-"post-ironic" way that is not steeped in the strong tea of cynicism of today.

The story was perfectly functional, having both to tell the origin of the character and to set him on an adventure and to do so with comic-book abandon. We take impossible characters like Cap and Red Skull on faith and ask only that their inherent impossibility be handled in as earthbound a way as possible. This movie did that.

Likewise the action sequences were exciting and character-driven, most notably the early chase scene which had Cap diving into water after a submarine. This scene established forcefully, excitingly and humorously how absolutely determined Steve Rogers was. His determination to join the army was not a one-off trait that was disposed of after his transformation, but was shown to be part-and-parcel of his being. It was an expertly conceived and executed sequence.

My disappointment with "Thor" is another story.

One will notice that the decline in Woody Allen movies coincided with the departure of Marshall Brickman as his collaborator.

"...a group of' 'concerned citizens' who enact vigilante justice..." That would be "exact" justice, thereby proving that writers from sites other than the Bigs also don't know the tools of their trade.

Just as mainstream-media reports on guns are cost-benefit analyses that disregard benefit, their reports on Obama are cost-benefits analyses that disregard cost.

To echo the poster Steve Miller, it is not possible for a person to plagiarize himself. He may repeat himself, revisit his themes or rebottle his own old wine, but he plagiarizes only if the original author of the ideas is other than himself. Joe Biden, for example, is a plagiarist.

"The problem is that most movies don't need 3D to tell a good story story."

Most movies don't need color or sound to tell a good story, either, and the argument could have been and was made against those innovations when they were in their cinematic infancy. All the terrific stories that were told before the advent of CGI testify to its non-necessity as a story-telling device. Nonetheless, any technique whatsoever can be used by talented practitioners to enhance the medium and will be used by mediocre practitioners to detrimental effect.

The ease of the technique's implementation will determine in which direction the scale will tip. CGI is fairly easy to implement. As a result, we see lots of crummy CGI that takes us out of the movie instead of immersing us further in it.

I don't know how relatively easy 3D is to use, but 3D imposed on a 2D movie after the fact by bandwagon-hopping directors or producers has left an unfairly bad taste in the mouths of moviegoers. Good 3D, like that in "Up," is an immersive experience. Excellent 3D, like that in "Avatar," can make an essentially dopey movie somewhat watchable. In any event, 3D is here to stay and will over time become as organic to movies as sound and color are today.