Off the top of my head she's done Lucy, Under the Skin, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Don Jon, Hail Caesar, and Her (though that was a voice role). She's been in a ton of movies since Lost in Translation though it's obviously up for debate how well she's performed in them.

On topic, that's fine. She no doubt got there mostly from her Black Widow role and I'd in no way call her the top actress talent-wise in Hollywood, but I think she does well in certain types of roles and I'd much prefer her over someone like Jennifer Lawrence.

I knew that the actor had died, I meant I just didn't know that the character was in the film or that they hadn't cast someone else to play him instead. So even though when he came on screen it became obvious that they had to use CGI to replicate him, from the jump I felt that even if I hadn't known he had died I would've been able to tell something was very off. Sorry if I wasn't too clear about that, I post mostly late at night and my proofreading goes out the window. But again as I said and you have pointed out, the technology is very impressive that they are able to even get this close and I recognize that most people aren't going to be so cynical about it (focusing on the small imperfections rather than how well done it is) as I am.

I didn't have a problem with the voice really, though my hearing isn't the greatest so I probably can't pick up subtle changes in the pitch compared to other people, and I also haven't watched the other films in a while so I'm not the best benchmark. It seems to me that they are kinda stuck in a corner about this though. I don't think many would've balked at just recasting the roles that they used CGI for in the film, but the voice of Vader is so iconic that I don't really think you can just sub someone else's voice in there and call it a day no matter how close it is.

Really? I mean I had no idea going in and I could tell something was off immediately when the first character came on screen, aside the fact that he's, you know, dead. It gets even worse when he's with other actual actors on screen. I'm not denying that it isn't a technical marvel that they could do it at all (though it brings up certain ethical issues that others have addressed in threads on here), but the implementation here was distracting (to say the least) for me and the others in the theater I talked to afterwards. I felt it very much was in the uncanny valley, but maybe I'm just the minority. I'd have rather they just used different actors, it's not like we as an audience don't have an imagination and an understanding that a guy who played a role thirty years ago can't reprise it now.

I really, really wanted to believe you were kidding or exaggerating or something. Then I looked it up.

Holy shit man.

I'm exactly the same way, especially because my phone can't even fit all of my music and still function normally. I've wanted to buy one of the classic ipods for a while now for this reason, but the prices people are charging for them are fucking criminal.

As for me, the only gaming related thing I got for Christmas was the The Last Guardian from a friend. Coincidentally enough I got her The Shadow of the Colossus and Ico Collection for PS3, felt like shit when I opened it because I don't even buy new games for myself.

Because I don't need ANOTHER multiplayer game. Even though I've heard the single player is actually pretty good, for me to feel like I've gotten my money's worth I'd have to dive into multiplayer heavily, and I'm just not interested in having 3 or 4 multiplayer games all at one time. I'll pick it up when it's cheaper for the single player and to try online but for now it's not worth it to me.

Super Smash Bros. (N64). It's basically the official game of our house, and we probably played it on average an hour or so a day.

For games released this millennium, it's between Bloodborne and Rainbow Six: Siege. I threw probably sixty or so hours at Bloodborne (played through three times and got the plat for it), and Siege is by far my most played multiplayer game this year.

It's great. It's entirely a boss-rush game, so if you're expecting an open world or anything other than pure combat you should probably skip it. But it works because the combat system is really satisfying, forcing you to actually learn how to play well without just button mashing your way to victory. Even though there aren't that many bosses the behavior and difficulty for each one is unique enough that the game stays fresh the entire way through. It can be frustrating but I think it mostly lines up with the souls games in that 90% of the time (I think the dodging mechanic is a little iffy), your death is fair and entirely your fault. Plus the soundtrack is the shit.

I got it free from PS+ so I don't really have a reference for how much fun I had vs. the cost of the game, but if what I described above appeals to you I'd say definitely go for it if it's on sale.

Rarely, if ever. Most of the things that come with collectors editions seem to be like, a shitty figurine, an art book, and some DLC or something and I don't really care about any of that shit.

That being said the only one I can think of buying was the Life is Strange special edition a couple of months ago. New the game itself was $20, and the special edition was $28. The main reason I bought it was because I liked the music in the game and the special edition came with the game's soundtrack, and I figured $28 for the game, soundtrack and to support a smaller game was good enough for me.

Passengers- Some good visuals here and there, but overall utterly mediocre. The ending in particular is so cliche I was considering leaving.

La La Land- thankfully I followed up Passengers with this. I'm not generally a fan of musicals, but this is by far the best film I've seen this year. Completely wonderful from start to finish, I can't get over in particular just how good it looks, some of the scenes are absolutely beautiful. I highly, highly recommend it, and hope it cleans up come awards season.