"Water for Elephants" was surprisingly good. Witherspoon was a bit dishwatery and ill-defined early on, but Pattinson did his sick to the depths of his soul thing well, and the supporting players were all great. Good meaningful violence and a decent wallow in circus grotesquerie. A great looking film, too, plus an elephant. What more do you want for your dime on a Saturday afternoon?

Jealous!!!!

Try to go to some of the Raoul Walsh films at the Egyptian if you can. White Heat! Among many others. The Strawberry Blonde is another gem that I've long wanted to see on the big screen.

Just watched "That's What I Am" on Netflix streaming. I'd not heard of this movie before - it came up on some search they thought I'd like and it had a bunch of stars so I gave it a shot.

Great movie with a theme on tolerance. Will have to put it on the kids viewing list.

During my middle and high school years, I spent quite a bit of time making dumb Super8 mm films with my friends, so I was eager to see JJ Abrams new release, Super 8. A few comments, guaranteed spoiler free:

- It will remind you of a lot of other movies, but it does find its own genial vibe. And it gets the whole Super 8 Filmmaker thing just right. (Ah, Super 8 Filmmaker magazine. I used to have a subscription.)

- Though I enjoyed it, I don't get why Abrams insists on that silly lens flare that creates a horizontal line across the screen. It seems to be a trademark, but it's kinda annoying. He should ditch it.

- Apart from that, Super 8 gets most things right. It's a summer movie that places its focus on an engaging bunch of young characters, and the genre element is a distant second place. (So much so that when it eventually comes to the fore, it's a little underwhelming.) The slow build-up to the weird events was nicely played, even if the destination wasn't anything terribly new.

- It has the best end credits bonus I've seen in quite a while.

I will add one quibble that probably isn't even quite a spoiler, but I'll treat it as such anyway.

Super 8 is entertaining enough (though it isn't going to stick with me very long).

But I'm going to have to kick Abrams in the balls if he doesn't get over his lens flare fetish right quick.

And I wouldn't have minded at least one line of dialog to explain



Also, the Rubik's Cube didn't appear in the US until February 1980 (the movie takes place in June '79) so that reference was a bit out of place and such an obvious thing that I wonder if it was an intentional anachronism.

I've heard a bit about the Rubik's Cube mistake, but where in the film does it say the action takes place in 1979? Not there. Sorry, but if it's in the production materials, but not in the movie - then the time period is not nailed down at all.

The movie takes place in a general time period of late '70's, early '80's - and Abrams nailed the cinematographic look and the pacing of the Speilberg films this movie so plainly salutes. It's been noted, quite correctly, to be a mashup of elements from Close Encounters, Jaws, E.T. and The Goonies.


Um, The Goonies?? Yeah, it's got a lot in common with that movie - which, um folks, is not a Spielberg film any more than Super 8 is (he was executive producer on Goonies, and had a story credit; he's a producer on Super 8).

Super 8 is about a thousand times better than The Goonies, imo, but doesn't nearly reach the glory of any of those Steven Spielberg movies named. No matter ... it's a charming and entertaining film. Well-paced, well-acted (the two lead kids are great), mushy in all the right places, thrilling in many others.

I've heard complaints the ending is a bit of a let-down, but I thought the whole thing was by-the-book from start to finish. The sci-fi plot is the barest of McGuffins and so what? I was not disappointed with the obvious finale in such an obvious homage to films of 30 years ago.

I'm with Alex in that Super 8 likely won't be staying with me in anything remotely the way the early Spielberg films did. But I thoroughly enjoyed it ... and the train wreck was ultra rad.

:snap:

It's there in the movie. On the head stone mom's date of death is given as February 1979 and the events of the movie take place (per the title after the funeral scene) four months later. Also, during another scene Walter Cronkite is on the TV reporting on Three Mile Island (which was April 1979 though this is less conclusive since you could always say he was doing some type of follow up).

The movie definitely sets itself in June 1979. Further support (though again not at all conclusive on its own), "My Sharona" was released in June 1979.


Not that the Rubik's Cube thing is that big of a deal. It was just something that caught my attention because I thought by then the movie, though still date uncertain at that point was definitely more '70s feeling and I was wondering if I was wrong about when Rubik's Cubes first hit.

So I should hang out after the credits on this one as well? I hate when they do that, but I hate it more when I leave and find out I missed something...

And I think 95% of the audiance wouldn't know when Rubik's Cube came out, so I don't think it's going to be a huge deal for most. Not that that is an excuse for doing a poor job on the research. Makes me wonder, though. The person who's job it is to make sure things are in the proper time period (what's that job's name again?) if they told someone about it and someone okay'd it, or if it was an oversight or misinformation? Inquiring minds want to know!

Well, so long as you don't sprint for the door as soon as the screen goes black on the last scene it would be hard to miss. It isn't something that plays after the credits but during them.

I don't know. This isn't a kids movie for kids, it is a kids movie for adults to reminisce about when they were kids. So I'm guessing that somewhat more than 5% would confidently say that Rubik's Cubes were an '80s fad.

But you're right that it isn't a big deal, just something so not obscure that I wonder if it was intentional (there are some other meta-nods to its genre nature, such as:

)

I stand duly corrected about the time period. Ooops. In that case, I think the Rubik's Cube is a lazy error that should have been avoided. But what really took me out of the time period, almost right away, was one of the kids saying "whatever" with a clear '90's inflection as one of his first lines.

That kind of stuff bugs me. Oh, it's ALL over X-Men: First Class, which is horribly lazy about its early 60's time period in just about every way.


But I suppose things like that creep in, and it's rare period piece that's totally free of anachronisms. Super 8 sure isn't bad in that regard. It in no way detracts from its considerable charms.


It was undoubtedly easier capture the era of the late '70's/early 80's when Speilberg made his films IN that time period - - but one of his greats of that day, Raiders of the Lost Ark, does not - to me at least - reveal any jarring anachronisms of it's pre-WWII period setting.


And all in all, what I take away from Super 8 is that Abrams is no Spielberg, and he should not try to be. But his obvious affection for the source material of this and his last film (Star Trek) does work in his favor in establishing a fantastic mood and overall feeling that serves him well in these nostalgia projects.


I'd like to see him move on to something more forward looking though.

Whatever you do, DO NOT watch Titanic II. Trust me on this. It's an hour and a half you will never get back.

Saw Super 8 tonight. Loved it! I thought it was even better than I expected it would be. The only thing I could complain about was that stupid lens flair. It's something that good photographers and film makers avoid, for good reason. Alex, please kick JJ Abrams in the balls for me too, won't you?

That and the odd fact that Zach Mills got so little screen time. He's a pretty good actor, and you'd hardly know he was in this film. Most of the time he only had single word lines.

The bit after the end of the movie is great:

Wait. They made a sequel? The damn boat sinks, what else is there?

Zombies!

Titanic II takes place in 2012, and is a "history repeats itself" story. It's from the "Mockbuster" studio, Asylum, which tells me everything I need to know. (They're the ones who made such knock-offs as "Snakes On A Train" and "Trans-morphers." These direct-to-video features are beyond pointless, not even entertaining in the so-bad-it's-good way.)

Oh, another thing about Super 8. I was surprised to see a guy I used to work with as the town sheriff. Brett Rice has only a handful of scenes, but he is a really fun character actor presence. (He used to work at the Sleuths Mystery Dinner Theater here in Orlando, where I continue to appear a few times a week. So maybe someday I'll have a role in a major motion picture!)

Cool!

Finally saw A SINGLE MAN.

Loved the performances and the use of color to highlight specific moments, feelings, and reactions. In a way it was tackling themes similar to AMERICAN BEAUTY but with a greater amount of subtlety. I am wrestling with how I feel about the ending.

Rewatched 500 DAYS OF SUMMER with Erik, who was watching for the first time. I enjoyed it much more the 2nd time around. I think my expectations were too high the first time, and my reaction to the characters somewhat unfair. It's not a perfect film but it's hardly the disappointment I thought it was when I saw it in the theaters.

Earlier in the week I watched NEVER LET ME GO, and I had the same lukewarm reaction to the film as I did the book (in general, with regards to how the general story is conveyed), but had a very different reaction to the characters on film than I did in the book. So even though I didn't think it was particularly good, I kind of sobbed through most of the film. Something about it touched a chord. Blergh.

We watched Scott Pilgrim vs. the World last night. Kinda liked it.

The drive-in is for movies that we don't expect to be very good but might still have fun with in a casual environment.

Green Lantern was, instead, simply awful.

I saw Super 8 last night and really enjoyed it. I think the young people in the audience missed/didn't get, a lot of the movie. They just wanted action. I didn't think I'd like it as much as I did. It was a great story and I thought the ending was great too! The young actors did an amazing job. The screen flare, or whatever you called it, was annoying at times though.

The Planet of the Apes trailer freaked me out. I will not be seeing that one. Their faces really creeped me out!

There was an uncanny valley effect there for me too. But, that said, I'm ridiculously psyched about that movie. (Though I should be cautious, given the movie's oft-delayed, August release status, which often indicates a stinker)

Yes, whereas Green Lantern's prime June release date indicates a blockbuster, and it's the worst-reviewed movie of the decade. (Of course, Pirates 4 was the second-worst reviewed movie of the decade, and I think it turned a profit.)

The summer movie bar is so low these days, I'll be impressed if Apes is simply more story driven than effects/action driven. (Likewise, I probably enjoyed Super 8 more in this environment than I would have in an earlier era.)

I heard if you sync up Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon with Transformers: Dark of the Moon, it will ruin the Pink Floyd album forever.



(Shamelessly stolen from twitter....)

As part of PBS' Masterpiece Classic, it's technically TV but still seems relevant here.

So I am watching the new Sherlock on Netflix, and so far absolutely LOVING IT. It's a modern take on the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, but very effectively captures the spirit of the old stories, even though they also clearly take it in a new direction.

I just loved those, wish there were more than three episodes, can't wait for season two, and am going to enjoy seeing both Freeman and Cumberbatch in The Hobbit. (Martin Freeman will make a great Bilbo.) And isn't Benedict Cumberbatch the greatest name ever? Okay, giggly fan boy calming down now.

Oh God, you're telling me there's only THREE??? Nooooooooo! That's like having to wait till September for the rest of Downton Abbey, aaaaaaaah!

Only three, but each one is pretty much feature film length. And the third one is a stunner!

Martin Freeman: loved him in Love, Actually. You HAVE seen it, right? He's nekkid!

Benedict Cumberbatch: Yeah, I'd hit that. A couple times. Per hour.

Are there any new New Sherlock's yet? The original batch was rad.

Count me in as a fan of the Sherlock series. And you're right, Flippy, Heather and I are seriously considering naming our next chihuahua Benedict Cumberbatch.

Sounds interesting. I just had Bill add it to our queue.

There are more in production, thank heaven. I'm really loving this new take on Sherlock, as well. Cumberbatch is fabulous and hilarious, too when warranted.

I also LOVED him in the National Theatre's production of Frankestein. :snap:

The new Poirot's on Mystery started well last week. Excellent production values as always and David Suchet as Poirot, what's not to like?

Could have sworn I posted here but I guess not.

The new series (also just 3 episodes) airs on BBC in August. Don't know how long the delay to the states will be (it was 3 months for series 1 to get to PBS).

I really enjoyed series 1 but it also felt like something that might get old quick. But I'll ride it until it does.

Good name. For a cat dressed up like a chihuahua.

Is this summer the battleground for worst-reviewed movies ever, and no one told me?

Cough*Pirates4*GreenLantern*Transformers3*Cough


I don't recall ever seeing such a string of critical uber-stinkers.

With Cars 2 a surprise runner up. (Haven't seen it but the sharp critical downturn for Pixar is striking.)

We just finished watching the first episode of Sherlock. We really enjoyed it.

It's not often GD and I disagree this strongly on a film.

I loved Black Swan. I've never cared for Natalie Portman but she was spot-on here. Everyone else did a fabulous job as well. I loved the camera work, the stylized costuming, and the symbolism/parallels, which come on very strong but I quite liked that.

GD, not so much. It's nice to know that after 15 years together, we're still individual people.

I get why people like it. I did not. I was Immediately turned off by the choice to stick the camera in her face the whole damned movie. "In her face, back of her head, in her face, back of her head, in her face, back of her head....." STOP! It was meant to feel trapped and closed in...overwrought is the term I'd use. Disliked Portman's performance. Never felt like it made any sense that someone SO weepy and weak would even get the opportunity to be in that position. Which brings up the question of WHY THE **** WAS SHE GIVEN THE ROLE WHEN SHE COULDN'T DO HALF OF IT?! And because everything was so overwrought, the transformation just hit me as goofy.

Of course I think ballet is overwrought and goofy, so maybe I just don't get it.

What it could use is some editing. Say, down to a particular 5 minutes in the bedroom. THAT I'd watch again.

That film is sitting on our coffee table waiting to be watched. Soon, I hope.

I loved Black Swan.

I thought she played that one note quite well. Depending on one's mood, the ending is either breathtakingly brave symbolism or laugh out loud funny. I leaned closer to funny in that while I didn't actually laugh I did have to say, "Okay, let's remember what the auteur is trying to do here."

I get both sides of the Black Swan fence. But in a piece that stylized, I decided to flow with it, and ended up really liking it. Not sure how I'd feel after a second viewing, so I doubt there'll ever be one.

The only thing I ended up liking about Black Swan was Barbara Hershey. (And the swan wings tattoo.)

We watched the 3 Sherlock pieces over the last couple of days. I like those quite a bit. One of the writers - Stephen Moffat - is the main writer/creator of Coupling. I think I may have found a Brit writer to stalk. I suppose that would include Dr. Who as well.

Doctor Who is fun. Not serious, but certainly fun.

I love the Saturday SciFi movies put out by Asylum. The more beer you drink the better they get. Who else could get Deborah Gibson and Tiffany to have a catfight over a python and a crocodile?

WTF? When did the guy who plays Neville Longbottom turn into a total hottie?

http://www.bestweekever.tv/2011-07-1...id-like-to-fk/

Going to midnight show of HP:7.2 tonight, very much against my better judgement. I despise crowded theaters, I don't stay up well, and it's a 3d showing, so my head might explode. Felt obligated. Dear friend is paying my way, and needs company as she's going through some tough times. I hope I do okay. I'm just such a small town homebody these days. But, it will be fun if the movie engenders high emotions. Nothing like sobbing behind cheap plastic polarized filters.

Create an HP thread or talk about it here?



Edited to add: I decided on new thread.

My positive HP response in other thread. Now, how long until Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the movie I most want to love this summer but fear will suck.

I'm still excited to see Planet of the Apes, and was glad of a new trailer before Harry Potter last night ... except that new trailer leaves me with the feeling I've seen the first hour-and-a-half of the movie.

For those who might care, a bit picture of Hobbits.

http://moviecitynews.com/wp-content/.../hobbitslg.jpg

Dwarves

Does your nerdism know no bounds?

A hot looking dwarf... Who knew!

Love it, but I object to there being a hot-looking dwarf. Find me anyone (JW excluded) who pictured any of the dwarfs as HOT when first reading The Hobbit.

I first read the Hobbit when I was 9 or 10. I don't think I pictured anybody (in books or real life) as hot.

A strong recommendation for "Midnight in Paris." It was not lazy Woody, and it made me do something I did not think possible: enjoy a full movie of Owen Wilson. Plus, say what you will about Inception-like movies, this movie had the biggest surprise that I actually gave a sh*t about in some time.

Plus Marion Cotillard at her most Marion Cotillardish.

Given everything we tend to know about the lives of the people we dub heros of one sort or another, I'm not sure I totally buy the premise--or at least that I would act as starry-eyed as Wilson's character did--but it was a charming ride.

I enjoyed it as well. What was the surprise?

The boy, teenager, actually said he want to see the new Pooh movie with me and in the theater! I am so excited and thoroughly shocked!

No, seriously, it was

Ok, I'm sure I'm having a brain fart but I still don't know what you're talking about.

A strong recommend for Mother (available on Netflix streaming).

I really do think that South Korean cinema industry may be the best one out there. Something in the water must give them all a delightful sense of the bizarre and hyper-real.

Agreed. Most of the best, most enjoyable, interesting, and genuinely bizarre (not just something trying to be bizarre for bizarre's sake) have come from Korea. What did you think of A Tale of Two Sisters?

Dead Hooker In A Trunk is now available for VOD on IFC Midnight!

Awesome horror movie made for next to nothing...

Here's a NSFW trailer

The virtual apes far outshine the human actors, but Rise of the Planet of the Apes was pretty much exactly what I was hoping for - a really fun Summer B movie. I wish the screenplay didn't hew so closely to the Syd Field template (I wish that about a LOT of movies!) Every story beat here is telegraphed like crazy, and the various turnarounds and come-uppances arrive with set-your-watch punctuality. But, on the bottom line, the ape action is gangbusters, and Caesar is a true star, commanding the screen and my sympathies far better than the Peter Jackson King Kong did. (Andy Serkis played both, but this story better suits the mo-cap technique.) Both a series reboot and a remake of the fourth entry in the original run, it's loaded with nods to its predecessors, but these are mostly very nicely integrated. I only rolled my eyes once or twice. So much better than the Tim Burton misfire, and set up for any number of sequels. I'll be there on opening day for all of 'em.

Looking forward to seeing Rise soon... but why don't any of the major reviews (that I've read, at least) reference Conquest?

A strong recommend for The Guard, a new little movie from Ireland starring Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheadle. It's not profound but it is fun to watch with some great writing and a nice '70s pacing.

Just a guess, most of the people currently writing movie reviews (especially on the web) never saw it.

Moonie Jr. and I went out and saw Rise tonight. Perhaps the last movie we'll see together before sending him off to college. A fitting coming of age story under the circumstances.

Overall a solid B+ of a movie.

Moonie, I'm pretty sure that the movie cheated a bit on that last point you cited, but my assumption was:

We saw Captain America today. Fun movie! We really enjoyed it.

This is why I generally don't join in for the anguished cries about Hollywood making so many remakes, sequels, reboots, lazy adaptations, etc.

I may have my suspicions, but they are also, on occasion, good. Enjoyed Rise of the Planet of the Apes quite a bit. Some quibbles about certain things but as always, I'm willing to overlook these things if the movie meets me halfway by being entertaining.

I was vaguely disappointed with Rise of the Planet of the Apes. It was well-made and all, but I think it suffers from Phantom Menace syndrome - that is, two-hours to tell the bare beginnings of the known story, that should have been done in a 20-minute prologue.



I did, however, vastly enjoy the mostly-clever Planet of the Apes references peppered throughout the film. And Andy Serkis realizes his best ape performance evar!

Captain America, on the other hand, was a pure delight. More comic book movies should take place in the heyday of comic books. It gives license to be corny, and that's what more of these tales could use, imo.

Joe Johnston also directed the period-piece comic outing The Rocketeer, some 20 years ago. At least he knows how to do one thing right.

The Rocketeer is so overdue for a decent video release. Surely it will hit Blu-ray someday soon.

I've been avoiding comics adaptations this summer, being still oversaturated from the last few summers. But I'm on the verge of giving in to Captain America.

Re: Planet of the Apes



Captain America was ok for the drive-in where we saw it, but it did nothing to make me want to see more of him.

And sure, no R.McD. soundalike, but I did appreciate the riff on the character name.

By the same token as your comments re: Rise,

I know they will, but I would prefer that they not do any sequels further bridging this movie to the first Planet of the Apes movie. This one explained the alpha, that explains the omega. The middle is just needless expository.

Along the same lines



Some other spoilers with my quibbles about the movie, just to express them (because the movie was entertaining they don't really bother me):

At first I was :confused: as to what Ronald McDonald had to do with Planet of the Apes.

I cannot stomach any of the Apes sequels. Although I enjoyed two of them when they were released ... and when I was 10 years old!

The original still stands up, however, and I was pleased to see the un-edited/jiggered-with "Conquest" ending on the excellent documentary included with the original movie. Yes, much better ending. But still a sucky movie. I'm embarrassed that I liked "Escape" even as a 10-year-old. Never did like "Beneath," and never even saw "Battle for" - for which I am eternally grateful.

I honestly remember nothing of the sequels beyond that they exist. Channel 12 out of Portland, OR, would have theme movie weeks. And an annual (or so) one was the five Apes movies. I know I watched them, but I don't remember them.

Much better remembered is the annual James Garner week, from which comes my undying love for Support Your Local Gunfighter and Support Your Local Sheriff. (Though it wasn't enough to make me like Tank.)

Visible Alex mojo! Thanks for the memories of the old channel 12.

I'd love to watch "Support your local sheriff" again. So of course, Netflix streaming has "Tank" but not "Support your local sheriff"

*sigh* I'll just have to add it to the queue.

I believe Tank was one of those movies that just begged the critics to have a cheap laugh off its prophetic title.

I gave The King's Speech another chance last night.


Really? THIS won Best Picture? It's a fine movie, but really?!?


I enjoyed it better than my first go-round (where I fell asleep within half an hour), but was not all that impressed with it. Enjoyable though.

HOWEVER, since Netflix must have fallen asleep at the switch and sent me a Real Disc with actual EXTRAS, I rapturously listened to the Director's Commentary - which I usually save for movies I like a whole lot better.


Lo and behold, the commentary was fascinating and I enjoyed it about a thousand times more than the actual movie.

Ugh. #FailedOnceHopefulFilmmaker



Oh, and it was a wonderful treat to see Helena Bonham Carter in a role that didn't require her to act insane!

We just watched it (bringing our total to 7/10 of the Best Picture nominees!)

It wasn't my favorite of the nominees, but that comes down to personal taste. It was good enough that I can't argue with its victory. Sure I found 127 hours more powerful, and Social Network a more interesting story. But King's Speech told a great story, with great personalities, while doing a good job of painting a picture of the culture of the British monarchy and the specific politics of the time without distracting from the strength of the character piece. All things the make it well qualified to win the prize.

And yes, HBC was great, and underutilized.

Has anybody else actually seen Winter's Bone? (Which was my favorite of the nominees though it never had a chance.)

I rather think HBC was the heart of the piece, and her warm strength and obvious affection for Bertie were, for me, central to the film's charms.



I couldn't make it through Winter's Bone, Alex. Granted, I did not give it a fair shake - but the same crappy shake I give most movies I watch at home (i.e., you are on in the background and have 45 minutes max to grab my attention from all the other stuff I'm doing while I purportedly "watch" you.)


(The King's Speech did grab that attention - I stopped it in background mode, and sat and watched it from the beginning - so I'll give it that.)


What did you like about Winter's Bone, Alex? Maybe I should give it a much more fair shake and a second chance (King's Speech had a second chance, after all).

I'm with Alex on Winter's Bone. Easily my favorite, with Social Network a close second (as far as I can recall, at least).

For me, The King's Speech was only enjoyable to watch the two leads playing off each other. I guess I just don't give a crap about the British monarchy, which might have contributed to my less than engaged attitude.

What's a great movie out now? I really liked Point Blank, but not in a Best Picture sort of way...

The finely crafted characters and slowly building sense of place is what I loved about Winter's Bone. Probably not something that would come across with distracted watching.

I think I mentioned it above but I really liked the new Brendan Gleeson movie The Guard. Also not in a Best Picture sort of way, but it was entertaining.

Did not care for Another Earth.

Believe me, I'm really not interested in ANYTHING that's good in a Best Picture kind of way.


I'll have to give Winter's Bone another shot, when my life slows down a bit. Maybe in 2015 or so.

I enjoyed The King's Speech a great deal. I also read a book on the story by Lionel Logue's grandson. In the book, Bertie was not nearly as anguished about the whole prospect of improving himself. Had me wondering how much the filmmakers out and out invented and how much they assumed the grandson had whitewashed.

Actually, while I can't say the filmmakers didn't invent things for dramatic purpose, one of the bizarre tales of the movie is that 6 weeks into pre-production, they interviewed the grandson - who produced Logue's personal diary for them - which had never been used for any other source about the story. This was, as you might imagine, a treasure trove for the filmmakers.

On the commentary, the director says the diary was followed pretty closely - so I'm going to assume the movie - with allowances for dramatic license - follows Logue's point-of-view of the proceedings fairly well.

If the movie version of The Help is anywhere near as good as the book, it'll be worth seeing. I think the material will translate very well to the screen.

Rose and I just watched "Trick R Treat" last night - we both loved it, and I especially enjoyed that Rose screamed before the opening titles even started.

Why? Did you sit on her popcorn ?

30 Minutes or Less was awful.

I have issues with the movie existing. Taking a very real tragic event that happened to one specific person and making a comedy out of it raises flags. Not a comedy that exposes the awfulness of it in some way, just a straight up farce comedy.

So I was curious how I'd feel watching it.

But I'm pretty sure it just plain sucked so I don't get to explore the interior monologue of being amused by something I find kind of repugnant.

So having never heard of 30 Minutes or Less beyond seeing a billboard for it somewhere, um, what real tragic event is it repugnantly based on?

Brian Douglas Wells

The actors have said that they weren't aware of it. The writers have said that they were only minimally aware of it and their story is entirely made up by them. The producers (including Ben Stiller) say they were unaware of it.

Frankly, I don't buy it from the entire group (though am sure any one individual, other than the writers, might have been).

One reason why I say the the writer's had to know (something a spoiler here):

Wow, I was kind of excited about 30min or less, but now I'm just sad.

One of my favorite horror movies - yay!

I cannot recommend ATTACK THE BLOCK highly enough. My favorite movie this year. It's filmmaking joy!

I enjoyed Attack the Block quite a bit as well. If nothing else as it proves that men in monster suits can still work perfectly well if used well.

On the down side I'm sure it is triggering hipster treatises on how it sheds light on the issues underpinning the recent London riots.

Saw The Help yesterday. I enjoyed it a lot. I haven't read the book, so I don't know how it compares.

I'm reading the book at the moment, but I probably won't see the movie. We can have a disjointed discussion when I'm done.

Fright Night was a movie that did not need to be remade. It was entertaining, but kinda meh. IMO, completely lacked the charm of the original - and the cameo by Chris Sarandon served only to remind me of that.

I understand that kids-these-days will not see a movie that's OMG 20 years old, and that's who all these lame remakes are made for - but their loss.

The movie was not awful by any stretch, but WHY? Definitely scarier and more action-packed. Laughs, yes, but not nearly as funny. David Tennant was rad, and actually imo surpassed Roddy McDowell, who was also quite rad in the original. The kid from Kick Ass was great also, but otherwise the actors were meh. Colin Farrell was evil and a great bad guy, but had no suave vampire attractiveness. Looses to Sarandon. Toni Collette was in a nothing role as the mom. Wasted. Was most disappointed with the lead kid, Anton Yelchin - who's been good in everything else I've seen him in. Maybe he's grown out of it. Too bad.


I had a good time while I was watching it - but ultimately ... WHY?

Hail, Caesar! I loved RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. Damn you for making me cry, CGI apes!

Loved Apes as well. Conan not so much, was really horrid.

Fright Night was appropriate for the Drive In,

Finally got around to watching Super.

That was...unexpected. I really ended up feeling about the same about it as I felt about Kickass. Has it's moments, Ellen Paige plays the character very well, but I just can't get behind the raw brutality. Just was not happy to watch it. And, because I wasn't connecting with that aspect of it, I was never able to allow enough suspension of disbelief to get over the glaring fact that he was driving around in a completely conspicuous car with completely conspicuous license plate. I guess, considering there was a line about it, it was on purpose? Maybe if I'd been enjoying everything I'd find it funny. But to me it just seemed sloppy.

I liked the bunnies.

Saw a French action/thriller over the weekend call Point Blank. I had never heard of it before Sunday morning but it was a good local review and 100% at Rotten Tomatoes so I decided to go in cold (didn't even know it was in French until the movie started).

Tight, constant ratcheting of the action without ever veering too far into the superhuman (not omniscient villains and no hypercompetent protagonist) and it all plays out in an almost realistic way.

So, I don't know how widely this is playing but I recommend it if you're ok with subtitles and definitely keep an eye out for it on DVD/Streaming.

Somehow, I expect that iSm will not approve:

http://www.badassdigest.com/2011/08/...rn-of-the-jedi

Yeah, I'm may pass on the BluRays anyway, because old quadruple-chin Georgie has messed with the movies yet again. I think it's rather funny though, that he'd pick the most derided element* of his terrible and mega-derided prequel trilogy to insert into Return of the Jedi, already the most messed-up revisionized film of the much-beloved original Trilogy that he seems determined to bring down to his prequel quality level by whatever means necessary.


I may purchase the O.T. blu-ray to see some visual quality improvements in Star Wars, but simply as a curiosity. Though it looks pretty bad, I'll watch the 2004 DVD recreation of the 1977 Star Wars as my definitive version till the day I die (though, of course, there are many non-original elements in that version as well). Le sigh. I don't wish many people dead, but I won't cry a tear when Georgie eventually chokes on that chicken bone.






* or perhaps tied with Jar-Jar Binks, though I wouldn't be surprised to now see him cavorting on Cloud City somewhere.

The original trilogy may be beloved, but Return of the Jedi is a lazy, awful movie. You can't really make it worse. Differently bad, maybe. Unfaithful to the original badness. But not worse.

Eh, I think RotJ is a pretty lazy movie myself, but (imo) you can definitely make it worse, and that's been done.

Music is one of the inimitable things about a movie that are intrinsic to its quality, but so tricky. Just as a lead performance can make or break a film, so can a film score. Changing the music in Jabba's Palace and for the grand finale of the film were no small changes. After those botch jobs, no amount digital Ewok blinks or stupidly dubbed idiocies will make much of a difference to me. Ruination has already occurred - imho.

Now all I need is a time machine, so I can watch either my VHS or laserdisc of the original film. Otherwise, I will never watch Return of the Jedi again - but yeah, that's no great loss, I freely admit.

Let me know if you want to borrow my VCR.

There are "original versions" of the whole OT on DVD - as preserved/restored by fans. But I'm still not really interested in watching Jedi again anytime soon in any version.

Pfft, I was an idiot to buy a set of those once. Played once, then fell apart. Crappy cheapass burn job. Bah.

Is that the Slave 1 hovering in the background of the last panel? Is that racist?

(was recently listening to yet another bitchmoan about the phrase "tar baby," which I don't think was ever racist, it's a friggin' baby made of TAR, used to trap Bre'r Rabbit, but for all I know, was an existing term, like "jiminy crickets," used by Joel Chandler Harris to piss off illiterates 130 years in the future)

Saw a test screening of a Nic Cage movie today. It has no release date yet, but I hear it will be some time in 2012. It was pretty good, but I like Nic, and enjoyed the National Treasures (they are working on the 3rd on comming up with a 3rd one). I'd tell you more, but I could get sued for over $5 million.

Because of my grandfather I reached a depressing age before learning I shouldn't say the following things:

"tar baby" in reference to a black child.
"porch monkey" in reference to a black child.
"****** knocking" in reference to knocking on a neighbor's door and running away.
"****** toes" in reference to Brazil nuts.

My Mom's childhood dog was named Tar Baby :rolleyes:

Tar Baby is definitely taken as a slur - handily illustrated in this classic sketch from Saturday Night Live with Chevy Chase and Richard Pryor:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6341HeJDgU

I remember this one well. It appeared in audio form on the SNL lp record released sometime in the late 70s. I recall kids at my nearly-all-white school memorizing and performing it.

From what I understand it initially really did start as just meaning a sticky situation that gets worse the more you struggle, and in fact has roots in African folk lore. Somewhere along the line it took on the racist connotation. And therein lies the trickiness.

I mean, is it racist if I look at a small mammal with a black mask and rings on its tail and say, "Look, a coon!"? Is it homophobic to pull out a box of cigarettes and offer you a fag? Am I offending Chinese people if I talk about a chink in someone's armor?

I honestly don't know how commonly used tar baby has ever been, in either of its forms. At this point, you're probably pretty smart to avoid using it no matter what the real history is, clearly it's evolved to the point where using it is, well, a sticky trap that will just get you stuck and get worse as you struggle to get out of it.

Definitely, several politicians have been in trouble in recent years and I am confident in all cases (that I'm familiar with), despite the outcry, that the use was not intended to be in any way racial or coded.

I tend to agree with James McWhorter's take (as I do on most things related to language and usage) on this.

Yeah, that's exactly how I feel about it.

Would it be kosher to suggest that such semantic traps are a real ****** in the woodpile?

"Niggardly" is another perfectly good word that one can no longer safely use due to PC worries.

Fvckin why?!

And what the hell is this about:

Can't speak for Gremlins (or Gremlins 2), but in what universe is Bogus Journey an improvement on the original?!?!?!

Gremlins 2 was definitely no improvement, but I think I liked Bogus Journey better than Excellent Adventure (but I've seen neither since shortly after they were available on VHS),

My list would include Star Trek II, Toy Story 2 (not that the first was bad), Before Sunset (Before Sunrise didn't do anything for me), Aliens, Terminator 2, The Empire Strikes Back, Shrek 2, Evil Dead 2. From the Jackie Chan oeuvre many of his sequels made after he had full control were better tahn the originals (Drunken Master, Project A, Operation Condor, Super Cop).

We watched Wild Hogs over the weekend. It wasn't as bad I was expecting.

I watched The Reef last night expecting a bad B-movie Skiffy shark attack movie. It was actually good, very suspenseful in a JAWS sort of way.

I liked The Reef quite a bit. (More than the similar Deep Water) If you look up the true story on which this one is based, you'll find that the similarity is not even skin deep. There's little in common between the actual and screen events. So, you can really treat The Reef as utter fiction.

I went to see Shark Night 3D a couple of days ago. The good news - it was actually shot in 3D. And a couple of the sharks are actual palpable animatronics. The bad news: The majority of the sharks are the usual lame CGI. The movie is about as unambitious as any I've ever seen. You can almost hear the writer/director and the cast and crew saying "Hey, we've filled the minimum requirements for what you came to this film expecting, we're done. Bye-bye." Then, following the credits, the fore-mentioned cast and crew stage an astoundingly amateurish on-set rap video. It's like a big group-shrug of "what the hell were you expecting, huh?"

But, I got a couple of sharks jumping right in my face, so, I guess I got what I wanted.

I'm totally stoked for Bait 3D!

Comparing Gremlins and Gremlins 2 is apples and oranges. The original Gremlins, while it had funny moments, was more of a horror film, whereas Gremlins 2 was straight-up slapstick. I admit a certain fondness for the moment when they mount a musical number, but then again, I've never exactly been accused of having great taste ;)

That's like saying comparing Alien and Aliens is like apples and oranges, which it is. One was a straight-up horror movie and the other a straight-up action flick with one horror scene. I think both were great - and it's one of the few sequels I give high marks to ... not least for switching genres completely and not simply trying to remake or hit the same marks and tone as its predecessor.

But apples or not, it's always legitimate to compare a sequel to the original. Anything which aims to capitalize off a predecessor film must also be prepared to be compared to that predecessor film.

Well, here's where I would consider Gremlins and Gremlins 2 to be equals:

Gremlins is a horror movie that isn't scary to a point that it is funny.
Gremlins 2 is a comedy movie that isn't funny to the point that it is scary.

That first condition is fine, the second condition is bad.

Comparing Debbie Does Dallas I to Debbie Does Dallas II is definitely comparing apples to apples

Don't you mean "melons to melons"?

Much better analogy!

I didn't even know it was based on a true story until the end cards.

Are you sure you're not thinking Wanda Whips Wall Street? That has more of a Big Apple setting.

I didn't like "Rango," and that surprised me ... after being pleasantly surprised by nearly every non-Disney/Pixar animated film of the last couple of years. How to Train Your Dragon, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, Monsters vs. Aliens, Megamind, and to a lesser extent Despicable Me were all pretty much good and/or adorable ... and four out of five of those much to my surprise.

Rango did zip for me. I didn't actively hate it, but it was absolutely meh.


Oh, and in the last year or so - Tangled (by Disney) was also really good, and I admit no desire to see Pixar's Cars 2 (though I'll likely Netflix it at some point.)

I didn't like Rango either but I did love Rio. The colors and details of the feathers was amazing.

I really kind of loved Rango. It took me a while to get on board, but once it snagged me, I was good.

Oh, and seeing Contagion in a theater full of sick people (myself included) all snifling and coughing was a complete hoot - but the film, while gripping, also left me kinda meh. There were characters you liked, but no depth to any of them. Perhaps that's typical of this type of procedural - but it felt more like a really good TV movie than an excellent theatrical film.

Interesting topic though, and handled with care and integrity.

Like cirque lover, I was very pleasantly surprised by Rio. I just got my first HDTV a few weeks ago, and that title really pops! Not any kind of earthshaking story, but it's all invitingly pleasant and upbeat, with fun music and just plain jaw-dropping visuals. The character design, especially of the birds, is highly appealing, and the whole thing left me in a very good mood.

I'm on some kind of Tudor kick this week: A Man For All Seasons (great!), Anne of the Thousand Days, Mary, Queen of Scots ... I tried to watch the Netflix stream of the early thirties Private Life of Henry VIII, but it's faded, dupey, lousy audio - basically unwatchable.

Loved Drive.

Maddie just made me watch The Man Who Cried which is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. OMG it's so horrible.

From the IMDB user reviews: And another -

Caught on TCM The Story of Temple Drake, a 1930's pre-code I've been positively dying to see for decades. Based on a Faulkner it, sadly, did not live up to the hype and the years of anticipation. The star of the film, for me, was the cinematography of Karl Struss. Absolutely top flight, deep shadows, depth of focus, mood, visually it had everything.

While I get how shocking it was for 1933, I really really missed the fun of the Warner Brothers pre-codes like Female and Babyface. Could have used a slight dose of humor in there somewhere.

I think I need a dose of The Women to cure me of the cinematic funk.

It was one of my favorite films last year. John Hawkes amazed.

We just watched Paul. Really fun cute movie. Arthur not so much but we knew that going in.

Just finished watching Rango. Fan-freakin'-tastic movie! It's like someone took spaghetti western, greek tragedy, and European fairytale tropes, blended them together, topped them off with some 'shrooms, and served them forth in splendid animation.

If anybody cares, I liked Puss in Boots. For reference within the Shrek universe, I hated the last two of those.

The Muppets is fantastic. (Lucky me, I got to see it this morning. Not another word about it until Thanksgiving, other than, go see it.)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This makes me so happy.

Blood Orgy of the She Devils is a great title. The movie itself sucks.

I want to see the Rum Diary. It combines two of my favorite things: Johnny Depp and Rum. What's not to love!

You can take Madz.

We saw Fur last night - the imaginary biography of Diana Arbus, which I found to be an enjoyable visually imaginative film even if a fiction. Loved the World created in her upstair's neighbors attic flat in all it's David Lynchian circus freak glory. Since the Arbus estate intends to keep Diane's real life private, I shall enjoy thinking this one true.

In the be careful what you wish for category, Matt.

The trailer for the Three Stooges movie has been released.

Wow.

I gotta say...in terms of invokation by the cast of the 3 Stooges, that trailer looked SPOT on. Seriously, I'm pretty impressed.

That said, I can't particularly see how, as a movie, it can be any good. Especially seeing that last sequence in the trailer. Yikes.

Casting is pretty good, especially Curly. I might be interested, if for no other reason than a hot nun in a skimpy bathing suit.

And BTW, we saw The Muppet Movie on Tuesday night (we Susan and I had the theatre to ourselves). Pretty good movie!

I guess I hadn't been up to speed on the movie. I had been expecting a bio-pic, like the TV movie with Michael Chiklis. I see on IMDB that Larry David plays a nun named Sister Mary-Mengele. If we haven't seen all the good parts, this should be great--just like the original Stooges.

I wonder what, if anything, they had to pay the various estates to get the rights to play these characters straight-up.

I got a call from me mum yesterday, she's coming into town for Christmas and has a movie she want's to watch in the Mooncave.

She was recently in London and went to see "Postmodernism: Style and Subversion 1970-1990" at the Victoria and Albert Museum.

A movie was featured in the exhibit, a perfect example of postmodernism deconstruction. In her words, "it's a weird off beat old British film" but she really wanted to see it so she purchased a copy to bring home.

OK, I replied, that sounds, ummm Interesting I guess. What's it called?

British?

Well, I suppose Ridley Scott is British. But I'm pretty sure it was an American production.

Parental carelessness aside, fine choice for the 'cave.

I'm sure Ridley Scott is the focus of the exhibit so I'll let that one pass, its her haughty art snobbery tone describing this high art film she was going to share with me in order to broaden my horizons attitude that I won't let her live down anytime soon.

On a total tangent....

Blade Runner made an art form of the future as worn out rather than new and shiny. Run down areas of town, old cars, etc...

Star Wars also touched on this concept. The Millenium Falcon and Luke's home all showed signs of ware. I'm trying to think of any main stream Science Fiction movies pre-Star Wars that depicted used/worn out items from the future. 2001 depicted a world where everything looked brand new, Planet of the Apes had lot's of low-tech stuff but it all looked new as best as I can remember.

A Boy and His Dog?

A Clockwork Orange depicted a run-down future. Not 2001, but Kubrick nonetheless.

12 Monkeys

Demolition Man, District 9, 5th Element...

Not quite what I'm going for here. There are plenty of apocalypse type scenarios. I'm talking about future stuff, space ships, hover cars, etc.. that are depicted as old, warn out, used. Where the future has a past that's still in our future.

Oh, missed that stipulation.

Well, if we're talking pre-Blade Runner, Ridley Scott did it years earlier in Alien.

For the record, all of mine were pre the FIRST episode of Star Wars.



















I disgust me

OK, if we're talking pre-Star Wars, Doug Trumbull did it in Silent Running. Lucas wanted him for Star Wars, but didn't get him. He did do effects for Blade Runner.

Humm... I'll have to go back and watch that again. Huey, dewy and Louie all seemed fairly recent models in my mind. I don't remember them being used models.

I don't know if that's the case. The Millennium Falcon seemed almost entirely mechanical. Really no ware that I recall seeing.

Hugo is AWESOME.

One of them does "break" in the film, and you can probably find other earlier examples of breaking new technology but I think Star Wars was the first sci-fi film to employ "wear" as an art direction design aesthetic.

Muppets pleased me.

I second that. It was much more than I expected, partly because the "robot" was less than I expected which made it so much more belivable. It will win awards, I'm sure.

I liked much of it a lot. I disliked a bit of it a lot.

In the end I think I liked it more than I enjoyed it.

I liked Hugo a great deal. However, the fact that the narrative was woven around what was sort of a true story made the enterprise feel more forced than imaginative.

Also, it was never clear to me

As for The Muppets, it was okay, but, as a loyal viewer of the show when it was on, seeing them have to scrape for a guest star and pander to the youth market rubbed me the wrong way. A quick check reveals that, if you ignore Brooke Shields, the youngest hosts of the original show were in their late 20s, and there weren't too many of them. Most of them were these older, big, if slightly past it, stars. Perhaps many of them, like Selena Gomez, were just sent their by their agents, but that generally was not the thrust of the show.

As for the Muppets, Mickey Rooney made an appearance so I think the average age of the cameos has to be at least 162.

After seeing the Muppets, I will not argue with anyone for whom it didn't work. I can see that, as a movie, it's weak. But it didn't matter to me one bit simply because it hit the perfect emotional resonance for me. The movie was 100% about how Jason Segel felt towards the Muppets and seeing as he's within a year and a half of my age, the emotional story it told hit close to home. That, combined with finding the various promotional Muppets appearance leading up to the movie funny and well written, I was absolutely delighted to see something that FELT like the Muppets to me (even as I was noticing that I wished there was more actual Muppet antics in the movie). And I'm hoping they parlay that into a solid revival.

I, too, hope that the current Muppets wave continues into more Muppet stuff. And while I can appreciate that this movie was waaaay better than Treasure Island and Wizard of Oz ventures, I was still disappointed. I'm not going to argue my case here because I'm really happy that other people loved it (and I'm still rooting for its success), but I sure hope they step it up in the next movie (or tv show or whatever).

I grew up consuming absolutely anything that flowed out of Isaac Asimov's typewriter. One less known subcategory of his output were short stories that were essentially longform puns. 5000 words just to set up a pun. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it really didn't.

I was reminded of that today seeing The Artist. You've probably heard about it, it is a French-made silent (almost completely) movie starring foreign (to us) leads with Americans in the supporting roles. Not exactly in the mainstream.

But it is really, really good. Until it turns out that the entire movie was a set up for a really lame gag in the final couple minutes. Well, I'm sure the makers didn't see it that way but it was such a misstep in my opinion that it kind of ruined everything that came before. I know I'm being too harsh, but stupidity must be punished.

Otherwise, it has been a slow quarter of movie going but I am starting to get some of the award bait under my belt. Of the Golden Globe noms:

The Descentants - Really liked it, good performances, quiet direction. Really happy to see a somewhat real life presentation of Hawaii (even if from the perspective of the Punahou class).

Hugo - Underwhelmed. Not enough connection between the before and after on the genre shift and while the film history was interesting the journey wasn't particularly. Very pretty though.

The Ides of March - Well done political thriller. But not really award-worthy to any great extent.

Moneyball - Complete love. Don't need to be a baseball fan but it probably will help. If familiar with the A's of the period you'll have to forget a fair amount of what you know and will notice some glaring contributions to their success that go unmentioned. But taken on its own, good stuff.

50/50 - Liked it well enough but didn't think it was particularly revelatory. Also, just because funny things are said does not mean it was a comedy. But having this in the category is nowhere near as odd as My Week with Marilyn being in the category.

The Artist - See above.

Bridesmaids - Best pure comedy I've seen this year. But it didn't have a lot of competition.

Midnight in Paris - I really liked it, though I can see the view of those who consider it overpraised. I didn't think Owen Wilson had it in him, but I couldn't help feeling there were plenty of leading men who would have done it better.

Young Adult - Just a bit too depressing without much being revealed. As an essay on the manic phase of an untreated depressive it was interesting. But knowing it would repeat in some sense kind of undercut the story.

The Guard - Wonderful little movie that about 9 people saw. Brendan Gleason as a crap (or is he) constable in small town Wales.

Crazy, Stupid, Love - A little too pat in the end but this was a better Ryan Gosling performance than Ides of March. Continue to really like Emma Stone and Steve Carrell is better at dramedy than comedy.

Cars 2 - Sadly, that was the first negative Pixar movie review I had to write.

Puss in Boots - Suprirsingly fun.

Rango - My pick for the animated nominees. Surreal in the good way. Started slow for me but had me by the halfway point.

Drive - Pretty good. Almost comatose but that serves to make you feel the violence in a way hard to get across any more. Albert Brooks is really good. Ryan Gosling again makes a good appearance. Brian Cranston continues to make me wish I had watched Malcolm in the Middle just to see if I could spot what he is capable of.

Gnomeo & Juliet - At least for once I got lambasted for writing a good review. I liked it. Hardly anybody else did.

I really was surprised to like Mission Impossible 4. I had zero intention of seeing it (just as I have skipped all the other MI sequels), until a couple of days before when I learned that Brad Bird directed. Sold. And it's a win. Totally fun. More of a James Bond movie than anything, but is Mission Impossible really any more than a James Bond genre?

Reportedly, Bird had to jump through the hoop of saving MI4 as his first live action film before they would give him the project he really wanted.


Consider it jumped.

The live action movie that was supposed to be Brad Bird's live action debut is 1906 - it sounds like a neat idea, but the studios have gotten worried about it's expense, and it has been on again, off again. I want it made, just to see Pixar recreate the San Francisco earthquake and fire...

But in Brad Bird's own words "” We’ll see if they have the courage to make it.”

We saw Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy last weekend. I really enjoyed it, and not just because the E Street Theater serves sweet potato tater tots and alcohol and no one in the sold-out crowd felt the need to chatter during the film. The performances were, for the most part quite excellent, and I really enjoyed the sense of time and place. Do not watch this in a theater where fellow patrons are the sort to freely ask their companions "what just happened?!" at audible volumes, as it's the sort of story that unfolds answers first, questions later. Sometimes much later.

E Street Theater? Hummmm.. Mental note made.

The Uptown is typically my go to theater but that could change.

Okay, cool! I was planning on seeing this next week. I can't make it to the E-Street the Kabuki will be my venue of choice.

Hated, Loathed, Despised The Adventures of Tin-Tin, even though it was mildly entertaining while I watched. People comparing it to Raiders of the Lost Ark because it's a globe-trotting adventure by Steven Spielberg need to be taken out and shot.

It actually succeeded in rendering motion-capture characters not unbelievably creepy for the first time. I accepted the leads as characters and particularly noticed their eyes were not dead. (I've often wondered why I can accept The Muppets as individual characters when they have literally dead eyes - in animation, lively eyes are the key to a character not seeming to be a zombie).

But almost everything else about the movie was wretched. The story was a fine Hardy Boys plot, but it was really just one mind-numbing action set-piece after another. All of them so overblown because of the "freedom" animation suddenly provided Spielberg (though hardly unknown to producer Peter Jackson) that they were stultifying and not exhilarating after the first two. One in particular was such a defiance of physical and human possibility that it made me cringe. This might not have happened if they'd kept the cartoon style of Herge's characters. But with photo-realistic characters of motion capture, this excess cartoonishness of action really bugged me.

Worst of all, the constant attempts at humor fell embarrassingly flat. This stuff might have been funny in 1929 when Tin Tin was minted, but it was awful and cringe-worthy in 2011.

Spielberg apparently fell in love with the camera-movement freedom animation provided him, and went absolutely batsh!t crazy with the flowing, moving, soaring, squeezing everywhere camera movement. Again, as with the overboard action choreography, what was at first fun soon became annoying and mindnumbing. The only sequence that worked for me was a flashback of the pirate treasure legend origin - simply because it was a memory being told, and the crazy stylization worked in that context.

Dumb, dumb, lame, stupid. With all the surprise greats in recent animation by various studios, this was really quite the dud by comparison.

I didn't hate it, but I was mildly bored by it (I fell asleep for a couple minutes).

Have in recent days seen:

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol - Pretty good for the genre but it doesn't transcend.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - Very good spy mystery (not so much a thriller), great performances, but very still. I imagine a lot of people are leaving bored and confused since there really isn't an "aha" moment and it doesn't spend much time at the end explaining itself.

War Horse - Pure Spielbergian schmaltz. But well crafted. For those worried about horse violence it isn't that much of a concern. It is barel a PG-13 movie with hardly anybody dying on screen. One charging of the trenches has a lot of death, but without blood and only one horse dies on screen and it is a quiet death as opposed to an immediately violent one. Honestly, it kind of felt like The Winds of War with the Robert Mitchum character replaced by a horse.

After I saw Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, when I was visiting the loo, one 20-something asked her companion whether she thought anyone had understood the movie. Her tone was not so much "what a crappy pointless movie" but more "please tell me everyone else was as lost as me and I'm not stupid." It was sort of comic-sad.

And I was a good girl and refrained from informing her that not everyone had been as confused as she. I was wearing a tiara, so she might not have taken me seriously.

From listening to some people talk about it, what seems to be confusing people is:



The only problem I had (unless I'm confused and don't realize it) is that I am awful at remembering names and so didn't always know who they were talking about.

I am intrigued enough that I'll probably read the book.

iSm - I have largely given up on action movies because of the unlimited freedom filmmakers now have, and regularly abuse. I'm just never invested in blockbuster action anymore, because there is never any tension. Everyone is superhuman if they are required to be, and there is no contrivance too great. Tintin was no exception, obviously.

But, I liked it better than Indy 4. (Probably because of a lifelong affection for the characters, whose renderings in semi-realistic mo-cap worked fine for me.) Yes, the humor in the Herge Tintin stories is pretty hokey by now. There were some gags in the movie that were straight out of the comics, and seemed to mostly fall flat for the audience I saw this with. All that said, I was occasionally charmed by the movie, probably for nostalgia's sake, but found the setpieces tedious. Still, there's this irrational part of my brain thinking, hey, maybe the sequel will be really great somehow. I'll most likely go if it happens. (rolls eyes at self)

Yeah, quality CGI has taken the wonder out of action movies. The new Mission Impossible is a sign of this. Tom Cruise's stunts on that building in Dubai would have generated a ton of buzz 20 years ago but even though he really was hanging off the side of that building I think most watchers just assume green screen.

Let's talk about Star Wars: Episode 5 - The Empire Strikes Back.

Specifically, Luke and the Cave. Leave your weapons here you will not need them.....

That scene always seemed weird and out of place to me. It had no real connection with anything else. Why was that place strong with the dark side? How common are such places? Is that the entire reason Yoda is on Dagobah? What was Luke facing? What does his failure mean? and more to the point why did Lucus even put that scene in the movie? I expected to have some light shed in movies 1,2,3 but it never happened.

Then last night, Headliner explained to me why it HAD to be in the movie. simple and concise. I was schooled in Star Wars by my little girl. I was both humbled and proud at the same time.

The sad thing is, and I may be wrong - but I've been led to believe a lot of that was NOT green screen and was really Tom Cruise himself, and not a stuntman, hanging off the side of a building (though not 103 stories in the air). Too bad no stunt work or action sequence is going to cut it as "authentic" anymore. (I believe the Bond series still insists on real stunt work, tho).

That all said, I loved Mission Impossible 4. It was great fun, and very much like a good Bond film. I haven't seen any of the other MI sequels, but went to this one because it was directed by Brad Bird. Did not disappoint. It was, imo, better than the original. I think I'll rent the 3rd one. I hear that's pretty good, but have been advised to skip MI2.


Carnage was good, but basically just an actor's studio type piece with no real point that I could discern and it storta just ends abruptly at a seemingly random point. Still, the actors were uniformly great, and the bickering conflict among the four of them pure fun and enjoyment.


The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo seeming a little too bland to me. Perhaps I'm too familiar with the material, having read the book and seen the previous movie - which this remake is a tad too similar to. Mara Rooney is spell-binding at Lizbeth, though. She's great and you can't take your eyes off her. Still ... I think Noomi Rapace in the original was even more captivating. Daniel Craig's a big improvement though (not too difficult, and his character's still rather dull). I expected something a little more stylish from David Fincher, I guess. And I was disappointed that where the book just starts to get creepy, this movie just cuts to the finale stuff ... after spending a long time getting to that point. Oh well. If you haven't seen the other movie, this one will be suitably entertaining.

I didn't write that as clearly as I should ahve. Yes, it really was Tom Cruise hanging off the building (and really high up there). I saw YouTube video at the time from people who got to watch from one of the observation decks (they didn't close the building). Obviously a lot of CGI was used to remove all the safety equipment but Cruise really did hang out there, swing around and run around on the side of the building.

BUT, i didn't know that at the time, and just assumed it was faked while watching the movie. Le sigh.

I did read afterwards some quotes from Brad Bird saying he knew people might think it was greenscreen bullsh!t, but he felt digital just never looks as real as real, and so wanted to avoid digital wherever possible. I'm not sure if he's right about that (since I assumed most of that was digital), but I applaud his directorial choices.



Moonie - I personally can't address your problems with The Empire Strikes Back - I think that much-loved film is a hot mess from start to finish. Yep, that cave scene makes little sense. The rest of the movie pretty much sucks as well. In my apparently lone opinion.


Oh, hey - in my movie outtings, I saw a trailer for the revival of Episode One - IN THREE DEE!!! Everyone's gonna rush out to see that dog again, right?

I admit to enjoying seeing highlights on the big screen again though

No, no Episode One in 3D.

But I find myself interested in Titanic 3D. Not so much because of the 3D but more just to see it on a massive screen again (I've never watched it on TV).

I'd like to see Titanic again on the big screen, too. But I don't want to see it in 3-D. And I hate seeing it with the great scene in the sinking dining room missing, which I can only do at home.

I don't watch Titanic much because it's really a pretty lame made-up passenger story, which bugs because there were so many really good real passenger and crew stories to tell. I can stomach its corniness only if I think of it as a melodrama in the style of entertainments popular at the time of the Titanic. Which is not much.

I've never seen Titanic. I was planning on it now that the mooncave is complete. I was surprised to find it is not on bluray yet.

I thought Titanic sucked. It was so long and incredibly boring I was praying for the ship to go down and take them all with it.

Ha! I knew it.

:snap:

And it was really difficult for me to feel tension during the many, "OMG, Rose is in danger, will she make it out?!" scenes when it was old Rose telling the story.

Well, I liked it as a massive display of cinematic spectacle. Which is why I haven't seen it since.

It's a much better movie if you fast-forward through the Rose and Jack scenes.

We had it on video (yes that long ago) and it got to the end of the first tape and I thought good lord there's a whole other tape left I may slit my wrists.

One other thing I like about Titanic is it is like Reagan in 1984. Nobody voted Reagan and apparently nobody liked Titanic.

I disagree. In fact, the only scene I'm interested in seeing in 3D is a Rose and Jack scene.

To hell with Titanic.

A Night To Remember (1958) remains the best movie on that topic.

In front of Tintin, I saw the trailer for Titanic 3D, and to my eye, the people were not very "well-rounded" but tended toward the flat, planar look of lesser quality post-conversion. (Some conversions have been pretty good - some, like Clash of the Titans, have been legendarily lousy.)

The best quality 3D experience I've had in some time was in my own home. (I have a "passive" 3D HDTV set from Vizio, and it's pretty great, especially for the price.) Last night I watched Carmen, captured live at London's Royal Hall, and I loved it. The high-def 3-D provided what the producers called a "shifting best seat in the house" effect. During duets, especially, the performers looked like living holograms being beamed into my living room (without the George Lucas-y static). It was a perfect illustration of the real difference between a true stereoscopic illusion, and the third-rate cheat of post-production 3D conversion. Plus, it was a really good performance. (I always forget how much I enjoy Carmen until I revisit it.)

Ever since I got my swell HDTV, I've amassed 12 3D Blu-rays, and am hungry for more, especially those that boast true stereo. The home 3D experience, for me, far surpasses the best theatrical 3D I've yet come across.

Most dazzling 3D eye candy ever? Rio!

Kind of ironic, considering nothing in the movie should have suspense - ya know, being that it's pretty well known the ship sinks. Heheh.

Actually, in the far better Titanic movie, A Night to Remember, it's absolutely amazing how much suspense was created from The Californian situation (completely left out of the Cameron film). You practically had to restrain yourself from yelling at the screen, even though you knew darn well the Californian never comes to Titanic's rescue. That kind of thing, where the outcome is known, but suspense is raised nonetheless, is brilliant filmmaking.


The Cameron film is not brilliant filmmaking - but it is visually striking.

I've heard that Cameron filmed some stuff with the Californian, but it got dropped from the final cut.

A bunch of movies in my Netflix streaming queue are disappearing with the new year, so I'm watching as many this weekend as I can. So far today I've tackled A Man for All Seasons and Sabotage, and now I'm on to the Incredible Mr. Limpet.

Watched all of those within the last year or so. I really liked A Man For All Seasons. I followed it up with Anne of the Thousand Days, which was not as well written or compelling, but it was a logical and relevant follow-up. (I revisited Mr. Limpet not long ago, which was nostalgic fun. I know that the sung chorus of "be careful, be caaareful" rang through my head for decades after I saw this at the age of maybe 6 or so.)

Concluded the day with The 39 Steps - my clear favorite of the today's assortment.

Wow, was I ever disappointed with The Muppets. What did everyone else like about this lackluster film? I enjoyed the songs. And I liked the bit about Fozzie reduced to performing in Reno with a Muppet cover band (the Moopets, bwahaha) and being forced to change his song lyrics to shill for the casino he worked for. Everything about that segment was as funny as the rest of the film WAS NOT.

It was mildly cute at best.


Next - Sherlock Holmes was fun. Wow, is Sherlock ever even MORE gay for Watson in this one! I found them both enjoyable as a couple, but less so than in the first movie since the fun of being introduced to these characters and their interaction was now absent. The plot was ridiculous, and Sherlock came off a bit less brilliant this time. But it was all good fun and I liked it well enough.

But, um, enough. I don't think I'll be splurging for any further installments at the movies.


I've enjoyed screener season way more than holiday movie season this year. So glad I got to check out Hanna. I'd been misinformed about the subject when it was in release, and it turns out to be a film I really like - about a girl bio-engineered to be a perfect soldier - then hidden in a remote ice-country to grow up when the project is shelved and all the other engineered kids destroyed. Rather charming mayhem ensues. If and when it's out on DVD, I highly recommend it. Eric Bana and Cate Blanchett star. The fantastic Saoirse Ronan plays the title character. You may have seen her in The Lovely Bones or Atonement.. She's awesome.

Ides of March was decidedly not bad. A little overwrought perhaps, but good Liberal entertainment. Good presidential campaign crew drama with a great cast - Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ryan Gosling and George Clooney (who also directed).

The Debt is a very fine film about Mossad agents in East Germany in the early 60's trying to nab a high-level Nazi and bring him to justice in Israel, and what happens in the present day as a result of that operation. Helen Mirren and Tom Wilkinson star. Seemed a little long because there's the full story of what happens in both time periods, but worth it.

I rather liked Anonymous. Quite the highbrow affair for the likes of director Roland Emmerich, and it's a fun take on the Shakespeare denialist theories. It actually makes me a bit curious to look into those a little more. Bookend bits by noted Shakespearean actor Derek Jacobi lend a bit of credence to the film's conceit that Shakespeare's plays were not written by him, and that the bard was actually (and to fun effect) a drunken, illiterate, blackmailing actor and charlatan. Much more romantic to have the works ghost written by a nobleman romantically involved with Queen Elizabeth who dare not reveal his authorship.



That's all for now. More as I watch more / remember which films I've seen.

"Young Adult" was better than the typical Adam Sandlerish "If I could only return to my youth" stuff, but it still seemed a little broad, and I'm not sure that I bought the lead character. The Patton Oswalt character was something new and worth the price of admission.

"We Bought a Zoo" was the best movie I'd ever seen about a family that bought a zoo. Good fun and reasonably involving even if none of its dramatic plot lines amount to much at the end of the day. I'm on the fence about where it belongs in the developing oeuvre of "Matt Damon as paunchy, put-upon widower" films.

I think I said it here before, but I'll repeat my impression.

I can't argue with anyone for whom it didn't work as a movie. Even as I was tearing up at nearly everything, I could recognize that it was not a particularly good film, and not a particularly good showcase of Muppetdom.

But for me (and the others who liked it), it simply nailed the correct emotional tone. Likely aided by the fact that Jason Segel is very close to my own age, meaning the way we experienced the Muppets growing up was very similar. So even though I can objectively see what was lacking in the movie, something about it spoke directly to how I FEEL about the Muppets. It was 90 minutes of, "I know what the Muppets mean to you, they totally mean the same thing to me, and I totally want them to mean the same thing to people again. You should have brought tissues."

That, combined with the a slew of online and TV Muppet bits that HAVE been good, that DO contain the spark of the old Muppets. That whole package has me hopeful that a real comeback is on the horizon. It will have to improve upon this movie, but I'm currently encouraged and happy to be part of the positive reaction that will hopefully spur Disney to let whoever has been doing the good writing continue to do so.

We watched Red Riding Hood last night. What a complete turd of a movie

Well, hopefully it put you into the mood for TWO live action versions of Snow White this year.

I watched Roger Rabbit last night for the first time since it came out. It more than holds up with all the humans with CGI stuff that has come out since. And I got misty yet again when Porky and Tink closed the show.

More screeners:

Albert Noobs was awesome. Glenn Close predictably fantastic in a story based on truth about not one, but TWO women who disguise themselves and live as men in a time when women were merely chattel. Very bittersweet and well worth watching.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy left me wanting to read the book. It had to have been mercilessly condensed (it was previously filmed as a 7-part miniseries starring Alec Guiness), but I'll be damned if I can figure from this movie what was cut out of the story. The cold war spy drama was dry yet fascinating. Good performances by Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Colin Firth and John Hurt.

Loved, loved, loved Arthur Christmas. So much adorable fun from the folks who do Wallace and Grommit. Gonna have to buy this one and add it to the films I watch every year at holiday time (or, well, most years - since I didn't watch a single solitary one of my obligatory holiday movies or TV specials of yesteryear this year).

Noobs is what I call my new boobs.

Bwahaha, I'm gonna start calling you Albert, and refer to them as Albert's Noobs.

Yeah, I'll be reading the book. But leaving the movie I did think that 14 hours (or 7, not sure if they were two hour blocks) would have been a horrible slog since at 2.25 it was so incredibly tight.

Out of curiosity, I read the plot summary on Wikipedia and, um, the movie didn't leave out any of that summarized plot. More curious than ever what the original story is padded with.

I'm sure this has been submitted for posterity more than once already. But, I did anyway. Snort!

Long tracking shots of Alec Guiness as George Smiley cogitating. ;)

I'm going to see TTSS this weekend, I can't wait. Only thing missing would be a cameo by Alan Rickman.

The only complaint I have about TTSS is that I was able to figure it out using the same method that generally works on TV.

Works too often in movies, too.

We're actually going to go to a theater and see a movie! What a concept. Pina on Saturday. In 3D.

The new Wes Anderson movie, Moonrise Kingdom, looks interesting in a very Wes Andersonish way.

Well, not off to too bad a start for the Oscar season. Of the 42 nominated films (excluding the shorts and the foreign language category as many of those aren't yet readily possible), I've seen 21 of them. And 65 of the 99 nominations total for them (The Help is the most nominated that I haven't seen).

Complete whiff on Best Actress though. And I'm pretty resistant to seeing Extremely Loud and Dangerously Close (not because it is 9/11 but because it looks awful).

First time since the Best Animated Feature award was created that Disney/Pixar has been completely locked out. And with two foreign titles they had to go deep to do so. Cars 2 was pretty bad but I thought Winnie the Pooh might take a slot.

Hmm...was prompted into noticing that the best picutre nominees have a strong bias towards the past.

The Artist - Set in the late 1920s.
Extremely Lous & Incredibly Close - 2001.
The Help - Early 1960s
Hugo - 1931
Midnight in Paris - Half of it is in the 1920s
Moneyball - 2002
The Tree of Life - Half of it is in the 1950s
War Horse - The length of World War II

The Descendents is the only nominee rooted firmly in the present.

I haven't seen "The Descendants" yet, but it's my understanding that George Clooney is forced to rexamine his past.

I'm not buying that 2001 and 2002 are past-oriented.

Have you forgotten which way time runs again, Steve?

Here's something: Those kids that W was reading to when he got the news about 9/11...they can vote now. Does that make it feel like long enough ago to call it the past?

I disagree. They're set a decade ago, and that isn't a trivial amount of time (unlike last years The Social Network and 127 Hours which were set only a couple years in the past). Plus they are both not only set in the past but focused on specific past events.

They may not be set far in the past but they are strongly set in the "not now."

Also, it isn't true for the casual fan but to an Athletics fan (as I am) the period of them competing each year into the playoffs is a thing of the distant past.

Troy was set more recently.

Yes, they are strongly set in the "not-now." But they don't, imo, rise to the level of what you implied the collective Academy was sorta going for in making the nominations.

In fact, if they weren't tied to specific actual events that happened to have happened a decade ago, nothing about the movies would give away that they happened in the "past."


But it was your statement about "bias"; maybe I'm just misinterpreting it.

I simply meant that they picked a slate with a strong bias towards movies strongly focused on events and times explicitly not now.

I think that having 8 out of 9 movies with significant portions a decade (9 years for Moneyball) or more in the past is an interesting quirk. I see no conspiracy and would barely speculate on whether any zeitgeist among the Academy produced the result.

But maybe when I'm as old as you I'll scoff at the idea of a decade being a significant distance in the past.

That said, the result is decidedly meh. It wasn't a strong year but I'd be disappointed if Hugo, War Horse, or Midnight in Paris won. I suspect I'd be disappointed if The Help or Extremely Close won.

Moneyball is my favorite of the six I've seen but I'd be ok with The Artist simply for it having the balls to be so far outside of convention (even if it then manages to be a thoroughly conventional movie).

VAM

The only two nominated movies that I haven't seen and are available for streaming on Netflix are documentaries (If a Tree Falls and To Hell and Back) so I watched the first one last night (really want to see Pina before it leaves theaters but I don't know I'll ever have the time).

It is a fair documentary in that it is interesting to see the thinking and general normalcy of the Earth Liberation Front activist/terrorists. But I couldn't quite tell if it was trying to provoke a sense of outrage or sympathy over what happened to the main guy convicted. It didn't, but I'm not sure if that means it failed.

If anybody else has seen it, any thoughts?

Of the Best Picture noms, I haven't seen The Help - but it's in my Netflix queue. Whether I'll get it before the Oscars is anybody's bet.

I don't particularly want to see either War Horse or Extremely Loud and Close, but I'm mildly curious to check those out - so if they come out on DVD before the Oscars ... if not, I don't really care.

I haven't seen The Artist either, but I intend to remedy that. I think that covers the Best Picture noms. Interesting that of all the screeners I saw, only three (Tinker Tailor, Albert Nobbs and Moneyball) have received more than one nomination. So if I haven't seen any of the other noms once I cover The Help and The Artist, that's where I'm gonna be stuck for this Oscar season ... except that I hope to cover the nominated shorts in the same traditional manner as we have in years past.

Yes, if the climax of Moneyball with the A's being eliminated in the divisional round of the playoffs was supposed to make us forget Damn Yankees or The Natural, I'm looking forward to the movie version of the stalled Mayweather/Pacquiao negotiations to make me forget Rocky.

Stoat suggested Grindylows.

I watched "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" for the first time last night. Bette Davis was awesome, and the movie's ultimately worth it to watch her, but it basically stunk. Tedious chunks of exposition, ultimately gratuitous Victor Buono and a non-climax. I had also mistakenly assumed that the Joan Crawford character gave as good as she got, but it was not to be.

I watched "Say Anything" today. It's been at the top of my Netflix queue for ages but I keep kicking other things up to the top. Apparently it was annoyed at being snubbed for so long and tripped "Macbeth" on its way to the top of the queue. The acknowledgment email that said Netflix received the returned DVD said "Macbeth" was next in my queue but the next email said I would be receiving "Say Anything." Vindictive little movie.

It's just as well I got it out of the way. It wasn't what I thought which was something I'd seen before that was more a road movie, nerdy guy follows cool girl somewhere, finally wins her over. What movie was that?

Watched one of my favorites this morning- "Journey to the Center of the Earth" - the 1959 movie starring James Mason and Pat Boone. It's still one of my favorites.

Probably The Sure Thing, which was a pretty charming Rob Reiner film.

Cool movie promo

‘Flying People’ Stun New Yorkers to Promote New Movie ‘Chronicle’

I think that's it. Thanks!

We just got the Blu Ray for 'Zack and Miri Make a Porno.' While it is a relatively short movie, there is another 3-4 hours of extras on that disk

I was assuming that The Artist would be a Avatar-like gimmick-fest, but it was fantastic. Loved it so much.

So we saw This Is It (the Michael Jackson movie they made of his rehearsals). VERY pleasantly surprised that we enjoyed it as much as we did. Only a couple of bits of people gushing about what a great guy he was - just a lot great performance footage, even if it was all rehearsal. Some of the performances were lacking because he was saving his voice, bit overall, he still had it up to the end, both vocally and his dancing. Billie Jean was the standout performance.

It looked like it was gonna be a helluva show. Catch it if you can (we caught it on Palladia).

This Is It was a good reminder of what an amazing performer Jackson was. I'll never be able to idolize him, or set aside concerns about his troubling personal life, but there's nobody else like him. (And for as astoundingly popular and influential as he was, I don't recall that anyone was really trying to imitate him or his style at any point.) Has anyone managed a really good, in-depth biography of him yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ3slUz7Jo8&ob=av2e

Timberlake is the only one who can pull it off, in dance and vocals.

So, I guess he could star in the inevitable biopic?

Anyone have a bit of free time?

Select AMC theaters (like the one in Downtown Disney) are doing a Marvel Movie Marathon leading up to the release of the new Avengers movie starting at 11:30am May 3rd.

Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor in 3D, Captain America in 3D and finally The Avengers in 3D.

I'm guessing there's another Avengers other than John Steed & Mrs Peel

While there will never be another Mrs. Peel *woof*!

Yes. This is the movie based on Marvel comics grouping of super heroes.

Considering how the last Avengers movie with John Steed and Mrs Peel went, I think it is safe to say it will be millennia (or 12 more years in the Hollywood equivalent) before they try that again.

I know I'm in the minority, but I loved the Avengers movie.

We just watched OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies (starring Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo from The Artist). It's a spoof of James Bond/spy movies. Unfortunately, I guess you have to be French in order to get the humor. Monsieur Dujardin is nice eye candy, though.

Just saw "Silent House".

What a dreadfull movie. Slow, depressing, I had the plot figured out half way through, and I hate that shakey "Look- I'm running with a camera" filmming.

Don't waste your money.

Wanderlust - Has its moments.
The Warrior's Way - Has no moments.
A Separation - One long wonderful painful moment.
Jeff, Who Lives at Home - A light pleasant moment that'll be forgotten.
The Double - Hunts down all your other moments and tries to kill them, leaving you with no moments to enjoy.

I'll be buying this the instant it arrives.

The features list doesn't mention any deleted scenes or extra footage, but my DVD of Harold and Maude includes the theatrical trailer, and it has some tantalizing glimpses of scenes that didn't make the final cut, most memorably, a couple of shots of Bud Cort and Ruth Gordon sharing a really passionate snog. I have wondered if this was deleted from the film out of concern that seeing a young man passionately kiss an elderly woman would be too off-putting. I hope this wasn't the case, and I'm glad I have the moment preserved in abbreviated form in the trailer, but it's a shame this didn't make it into the movie.

How I love Harold and Maude.

Tempted to buy, even though we also already own the DVD. It's such a wonderful film, one of few that I consider a perfect 10/10. There's not a beat that is off, not a millisecond of wasted time, not a word or breath out of place. Every single element of it is in service of the story and the characters.

Made my very conservative father in law watch it (though currently conservative, he is of the ex-hippie variety having lived on a commune and a fan of Cat Stevens). His review was something along the lines of, "It was a nice bit of liberal fluff" :rolleyes:

Ditto!

Catching up on Oscar and nominated films, finally.

My Week With Marilyn was a lovely film. Beautifully cast (although I did think Ormond was miscast as Leigh, but it was a tiny part). I never forgot that Michelle Williams was not Monroe, but she did a great job. The illusion of Monroe was very good. She had the voice down pat, it was a wonderful performance. She captured Monroe's insecurity and vulnerability.

Beginners was an interesting movie. I did not not like it, but it really did not move me in any way. I was more interested in the Christopher Plummer character than Ewan McGregor. There were some wonderful moments and I would have killed for McGregor's apartment. What I could do with that space!!!

I'm still gonna try to slog thru Beginners. Yep, the Christopher Plummer parts are rad, the Ewan parts unexpectedly dull. Can't seem to make it through the Ewan parts ... and I can't believe I even typed such a sentence!

Definitely gonna get Harold & Maude - the last copy I had was VHS.

Oh, and I loved Arthur, the dog.

I seem to be a bit weird on Beginners, I liked the Ewan McGregor parts and was left flat by Plummer's parts (he was not pick for Oscar glory).

I just added a few Oscar films to Netflix. Midnight in Paris arrived yesterday, but we're ending season 1 of Boardwalk Empire before we watch it. But first there was 30 Rock, Modern Family and season 2 of Downton Abby to get through. When did we start watching so much TV? (The answer is - oddly enough - after we cancelled FIOS television service.)

I loved, absolutely loved Midnight in Paris. LOVED it.

I also loved Hugo. Have yet to see The Artist (!)

If those, liked Midnight best. Enjoyed The Artist. Didn't like Hugo.

We saw Midnight in Paris and, while I adored the concept, I found many of the sequences where the whole modern group were talking to each other to be very high school theatre-esque in the delivery. I'm not sure I've ever actually seen a Woody Allen movie before (yes, I know), and I've not seen much with Owen Wilson either, so I'm not sure whether any of that was to be expected.

We tried to watch Tree of Life. After about 45 minutes of watching the director masturbate we turned it off. The volume was the single most annoying thing, I think. I have difficulty with loud noises, especially sudden loud noises. I can only imagine that the Oscar voters were experiencing an Emperor's New Clothes moment and assumed that because it was such a steaming pile of art school crap it must actually be deep and profound.

We've caught up on Bridesmaids (fun) and Hugo (liked it a lot). At home are Moneyball and 50/50. I intend to watch Moneyball before the MLB season starts. We'll see.

We also watched one of Louis C.K.'s standup DVDs, Hilarious. Lots of people have been prodding us to see his stuff. I've really liked the handful of bits I have seen of his, so I was really excited. But I think it was too much hype. Not that it wasn't good, but it wasn't quite the comic revelation that I expected based on how insistent so many people were that we see it.

I liked Midnight In Paris, but never felt it transcended the basic idea. Heather described it as "a good short story." I get that.

I wanted to love Hugo, but I couldn't connect with its heart the way I think Scorsese wanted us to. I appreciated it.

The Artist? It was fun at the time. It didn't stay with me... but my memory is elevating it, so I might pick up the blu-ray when it comes out.

I think of all the Oscar movies I saw in the last year, the only two that I absolutely loved were Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and (sorry, Prudence) The Tree of Life. Unlike Hugo and The Artist, which famously "celebrated film", these two movies were both exceptional examples of filmmaking that told big stories in (mostly) small ways. They celebrated film by being great movies.

OMG, for fun get Bullets Over Broadway. Crimes and Misdemeanors, excellent. Radio Days, all good fun. Hannah and Her Sisters, excellent. Zelig is also good. My feeling is you either love or hate Woody Allen films, I happen to love the way his mind works. Wilson (whom I'm not a fan of) did an okay job doing the Woody Allen character in the film. The premise of Midnght in Paris I loved. It was also Woody's love letter to Paris in a fashion. ymmv.

Regarding Tree of Life, my hat's off to you. I could only get about 30 minutes into the film before turing it off in disgust. You nailed it Pru, cinematic masturbation.

Of the three, I adored Hugo by leaps and bounds above the others. It's the only one I will be buying. Midnight in Paris I found charming, but unmemorable four seconds after leaving the theater. I enjoyed The Artist, but it's a fluff piece based entirely on a schmaltzy gimmick. I liked it least of the three, and will never understand how it could have sweeped the Oscars. That said, I enjoyed all three films and am glad I saw each of them.


On Tree of Life, I love that it's a Love It or Hate It film. I'm in the Love It camp. But to Prudence's point - it's the only DVD I've ever seen with an on-screen advisory at the beginning to turn your volume up real loud.

Moneyball was (to me) unexpectedly great. But Bridesmaids? WTF? A few funny moments, but I will never for the life of me grok what the big deal about this movie was. A D-List comedy in my book.


Being in the Tree of Life Love It camp, I recently watched Melancholia, often cited as the year's other tone poem artsy film, but with a more downbeat tone. This is the one I felt was cinematic masturbation and, though not entirely uninteresting, I really didn't care for it. Tree of Life is a work of genius, detractors notwithstanding. I will pray for them. :cool:

I definitely felt by the time we watched Bridesmaids it was over sold. Funny, but not quite worth the accolades. Honestly, I think it's a little bit condescending in that it really did seem to be getting extra attention because "girls made it". Is that still news? Women can be funny? Seriously?

Maybe if you're Jerry Lewis... :rolleyes:

I wasn't a Bridesmaids fan either. Some funny bits but it was pretty depressing for most of it. And boring omg how long was it?

I only saw six of the nine best picture nominees but my ranking would have been (best to worst):

1. Moneyball
2. The Descendants
3. Midnight in Paris
4. The Artist
5. War Horse
6. The Tree of Life
7. Hugo
8. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
9. The Help

Yes, I was so unenthralled by Hugo that I am willing to claim that one movie I haven't even seen (The Tree of Life) is better than it.

There were some really good things in that concert, but at the same time, while watching it, I found myself grated by a few of his ticks:

- He whines a lot. When he's ranting, it gets really bad. ("hi-laaaa-ri-ous!")
- The mocking voices he gives others (especially women!) are irritating.
- He uses the "I just enjoy pissing you off" card when he says outrageous things, but there is no context in which "Maybe I'd f*** a dead kid" is amusing. (YMMV, but he made my "I'd rather avoid" list with that one.)

I see where the comparisons with Carlin are coming from, but no, Louis CK is very much no Carlin.

Hanna and Her Sisters is my absolute favorite Woody Allen film. It has been a top 10 film for me from the moment I saw it. Of course, Interiors is my #2 fav, so what do I know. (Radio Days is joyous!)

We also recently saw Scoop. While not a great film, I can always appreciate Woody Allen.

50/50

I need to call my Mom.

Louis CK's stand-up is fine, but it's his monumentally remarkable TV show that really stands out to me.

Snowflake, for the love of Pete, SEE THE ARTIST! You of all people!

I liked Bridesmaids (but saw it before hype. Didn't love it.)
I HATED Tree of Life - but I get that those who love it, love it.

And here's how my nominee order would go:

The Artist
Hugo
The Help
Midnight in Paris
The Descendents
Moneyball
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
War Horse
The Tree of Life

Streamed some very early Woody Allen on Netflix this week - What's Up Tiger Lilly, and What's New, Pussycat - neither of those hold up too well, I'm afraid. Scattered chuckles, but, Woody's come a long way since. (It doesn't help that the print of "Tiger Lilly" seems to be the bowdlerized and partly re-recorded network TV version.)

We just watched The Muppet Movie. I really liked it, it had that old school Muppets feel to it. Now I want to buy season 2 & 3 of the Muppet Show, already own 1.

We got the Muppet Movie on Tuesday and loved it too!

Muppets Tonight with Sandra Bullock - one of our favs.

Per usual, blame the marketing execs that this is a rarity.

I laughed my ass off at the **** a dead kid bit, but I don't expect anyone else to have my sense of humor. except CoasterMatt

Even so, I got annoyed at the hypocritical nature of calling us out on certain first world problems and then whining about his own first world problems. He did not present it as ironic or silly. Overall, he was pretty funny, and I'd be down for more of him.

The only Woody Allen movie I've ever really enjoyed was Annie Hall. Everything else has been just ok. I'm interested to see what Midnight in Paris is like since it's been many years since I've bothered with his stuff.

I know, he's much better. Signed, someone who never really got the Carlin love.

Le sigh - from someone who never got the The Muppets love.

I can guarantee that no one else had as good a movie experience seeing the Muppets in a theatre as Susan and I did. We were the only ones in the theatre.

:D

I liked seeing it with a crowd. It's such a communal childhood memory.

I'm going to guess their good experience had little to do with childhood or memories...or the movie...

DOWN IN FRONT!

Saw Midnight in Paris last night and was totally charmed - of course, Paris is one of my favorite cities so I could only nod in agreement to this little love letter to the City of Lights.

Of course now I want to break out all my favorite Paris movies, Henry & June, Last Tango in Paris, The Dreamers, CQ, An American in Paris, Amelie...

Any Paris films I should add to the list?

Paris Hilton's BFF Thanksgiving Special?

is it available on Hulu?

I could watch the opening "slideshow" many times over. I love that city.

Before Sunset
Charade
Frantic
The Professional
Ratatouille ;)

When you're done with all the Paris movies you should watch Forget Paris.

Paris, Texas.

Hunger Games is a very literal translation of the book.

Have you seen Paris, je t'aime?

The Hunger Games was more engaging than I was expecting it to be. Shaky-cam-phobes beware. I moved from mid-theater to the back row thanks to the use of that hated technique here. (I guess it doesn't bother everybody, but is there really anyone who would fail to enjoy a movie if it did not use the damn shaky-cam?)

I haven't read the book, and I'm not especially inspired to do so, but I was surprised at how much this turned out to be a satire, not so much of totalitarian government, but of the present-day "reality TV" elimination genre. Since I've ever-loathed that entire field of programming, I was pleased by this aspect. (Early on, Katniss' studly guy friend says "If everyone would just stop watching," to which Katniss gives a resigned "never gonna happen." I knew just how they felt.)

Perfect casting went a long way toward getting me to willingly suspend a lot of disbelief. A couple of tropes, however, bent me to the breaking point.

This:


And this:


And, I wished for a slightly different ending:


I know how I'd like to see things go, but I'm not sure I care quite enough to read three books or watch two more movies to find out. Still, this is so many leagues better than any sparkly vampire crap.

Question 1: Yes, they were. Explained in the book. Not explained in the movie.
Question 2: Yes, this is a problem in the book as well. Super technology inconsistently present.
Question 3: She couldn't because she had to survive and take care of her sister. Future movies will explore the rebellion issue more.

Personally, I thought the movie was pretty much exactly the same quality as the book. Relatively shallow presentation of complex issues. Not bad, not particularly good. Better than half the Harry Potter movies and better than two out of the three Twilight movies. But still very YA in tone and scripting.

Very good performances, better CGI than I'd been lead to expect (except for the big cheat at the end).

Due to circumstances beyond my control, I went to "Mirror, Mirror" yesterday. From the commercials I had seen out of the corner of my eye, I had initially assumed that the movie cost about five dollars to make. I now realize that this assumption was grounded in Julia Roberts' snarky dialogue. The movie is actually visually stunning in all respects, but with a Nickelodeon-level script, it was pretty tough sledding.

One interesting touch: it had the semi-obligatory musical number over the credits. From his name, the director sounds like an Indian fellow, and the number seemed like something out of a Bollywood movie. (Of course, it could be a number one pop hit, and I wouldn't know it.)

Napoleon vu par Abel Gance, an incredible event, an incredible film, an incredible day. Worth every penny, worth the time ans beyond grateful I had this opportunity.

I meant to go to that, but then forgot about it.

don't let him fool you folks; SL has been DYING to see this movie!

I'm tempted to see Mirror, Mirror simply because it was directed by Indian-name-sounding Tarsam Singh. His movies are always visually splendiforous. And I hear Julia Roberts is in finer form than in a million years.

But I think I'll wait for the DVD. Then I can watch it with the sound turned off, except for the Julia Roberts parts. :p

Sounds fantastic! I like a movie with a lunch break. Link. I saw the Carmine Coppola version at the Shrine Auditorium, back in 1980, and we had the VHS at VideoWest when I worked there. The Bioscope article says "In 2000 Brownlow unveiled the film’s colour tinting and toning for the first time at a UK screening at the Royal Festival Hall," but I remember color tinting being a big deal in the version I saw. Also, during the films triptych sequences, and to the audiences astonishment, screens were lowered down on either side of the main screen for a 1929 version of Cineramascope. I'm sure I still have my program in a box somewhere.

The director is Tarsam Singh. Tarsam Singh, as in The Cell, The Fall, and The Immortals. Visually stunning is his speciality.

Yes, definitely on the visually stunning. Sadly, not so much on the good movie.

As a Birthday Pressie for Stoat, I'm taking him to see Titanic in 3D.

Yes, we like the movie.
Yes, we like Celine Dion
Yes, our heart will go on.
No, we don't want to pay extra for glasses. We have our own.

Snow Flower and the Secret Fan - gorgeously filmed by Wayne Wang. I found the modern story uninteresting and the historical not engrossing enough. I expect that was because they kept switching back and forth between eras. Joy Luck Club was much better in that regard. I understand the book is very good. The binding of feet, barbaric!

The Descendants - I got nothing out of this movie and came away really wondering what was the big deal. I found the basic premise to be contrived, sterotypical and the execution pedestrian. I like George Clooney, but did not see how this was such an award winning piece of work. Much better in Michael Clayton IMO. The actors playing the daughters were pretty good, though. The younger one was really good.

The Iron Lady - I am an unabashed and unashamed Streep fan. I thought she really nailed the elder, dottering Thatcher, as I imagine the aging dottering Thatcher to be. The make up was skilled and I completely forgot I was watching Streep, no mannerisms. The take on the retelling on Thatcher's highlights was interesting and curiously uninvolving for me. In the end I did not know more about Thatcher and it really did not make me interested enough to seek out more. I also adore Jim Broadbent in anything. If his was an accurate portrayal of Denis Thatcher, all the better. Strange movie, but I did enjoy it.

The Young Visiters - More Jim Broadbent with this and a dash of Hugh Laurie and Bill Nighy. Based on the Daisy Ashford book, this had enough whimsy and pathos to amuse me. It came close to reflecting the 9 year old author's view of social life of her protagonist Mr. Salteena in Victorian England. Absurd, silly and a little sad, it was well acted. Bill Nighy was an absolute HOOT and spot on.

I actually enjoyed The Immortals beyond its visual stunningness. A great throwback to the 50's/60's style of Greek Mythology movietelling, but with Singh's trademark visual stunningness. Win and Win.

I posted this clip on Twitter, but wanted to share here as well. It is a hilarious clip from a Bollywood movie called Singham. I have got to get this movie.

I am so glad you loved it! Tom did too.

I can't put my finger on quite why - maybe my penchant for concise storytelling? - but Napoleon overwhelmed me in a way that I could not appreciate it as you both do. LOVE that last act, though.

Oooh! When did you go? I'm sorry I did not see you both! But, I am SO glad you went. It was a once in a lifetime thing.

LSPE, I will give you that 2 weeks later, I could recognize and appreciate the flaws of the film. Mostly the lack of cohesive narrative and I do wish Gance had not added the useless Violine story. Had Brownlow not restored that, I would not have missed it.

For me, the whole package was the thing. 3000 people, live orchestra, incredible print and everyone (at least around me) were just embracing the whole thing, festive, going with the film, appreciating the incredible technicalities of it (for 1927) and when the triptychs revealed, well, it was just fab.

Parmasan Jim, I know you would have loved revisting this too. People I know who saw the 1980 were blown away by the latest restoration.

If you want more of my blather on it, here's my 2 centimes for the internets.

Jaws is getting the full restoration treatment for it's blu-ray release in August.

And as long as we're talking upcoming blu-rays, Disney just announced a ton of catalog releases for 2012:

Apparently the original Barnabus doesn't approve of the new Barnabus.

Apparently he also died last week.

Well... That's one way of showing your disapproval, I guess.

I would have died, too, if I'd seen what Tim Burton did to Dark Shadows. I bet they didn't give him a clue when he filmed his cameo, but upon seeing the trailer promptly had a heart attack and expired.

That's my theory.



On a more modern note, Go See Cabin in the Woods.


That is all.

I was on the fence about whether to see this one or not but now it's an easy choice for me.

Thanks!

Clearly the blu-ray event of the year for me. I'm especially glad that the fan-made documentary "The Shark Is Still Working" is going to be included as an extra. August 14 can't come soon enough.

On other matters, holy crap does Dark Shadows look pathetic! I haven't had much faith or interest in the Depp/Burton pair in a long time (though I give Sweeney Todd a B minus or so, because I love the source material so much, mostly.) but it almost looks like they're trying to piss off fans with this one. I'll be happy if the restoration and Blu-ray release of House of Dark Shadows and Night of Dark Shadows happens.

Regarding the long list of Disney catalog releases, it makes me think of a time when Disney released lots of movies every year. Not all of them were winners, but at least they were out there pitching. These days, it seems like an ever-shrinking slate of expensive wet squibs from the mouse. And though Avengers may end up chock full of Whedon-y goodness, I'm pretty pissed about the Avengers monorail - I detest the monorail as billboard concept, and this is ugliest yet.

So Much Awesome.



I'm absolutely convinced this is why Jonathan Frid chose this moment to die.

Cabin in the woods was good. A little self aware, but worth seeing.

Did Jaws get messed with, ala ET and Star Wars? I'd be kind of shocked if he left the shark alone.

Spielberg gave an interview at AICN a few months ago stating that he learned his lesson with E.T. He no longer wants to tinker with his films digitally, feeling now that the flaws and eccentricities of the originals should be preserved, so, no enhanced Bruce. (the interviewer suggested Steve pass that sentiment along to Lucas.)

Now if he'd just go back and unfrell Close Encounters. (That's right, I contend it's not yet been done.)


I'm on the fence about buying Jaws on BluRay. Is it really going to be that much better than the DVD? Plus, the only kind of extra I care about is a running director's commentary, and Spielberg simply does not do those.

From what I saw on the linked video, yes. Of course since I don't have the DVD it's an easier choice for me.

If anyone is interested, Disneynature Four-Movie Collection (African Cats / Oceans / Earth / Crimson Wings) (Blu-ray/DVD Combo) is the deal of the day on Amazon: $47.99

In truth, the existing DVD transfer is kinda awful, less pleasing to look at than even the Signature laserdisc release of yore. If you have Blu-ray, I'd say go for it.

I would so love to find out that your contentions about CE3K are true, as long as they were addressed and fixed by an upcoming release. Lone voice in the wilderness is a thankless place to be. (I have no corroborating memories to help you, though.)

Eh, that's ok. I'm fine with being a nutjob on this issue. Lately, all sorts of in-theater cassette recordings of Star Wars have surfaced from 1977. If only I'd been fanboy enough to do that with Close Encounters that year.


I don't think I've ever even watched my DVD of Jaws. Perhaps that's why I'm loathe to buy it again on BluRay.;)

I like the idea, but it looks to be getting some push back.

I'll bet the next generation of kids look at 24 fps films like people today look at B&W films.

That's exactly my complaint about the motion-smoothing tech on HD TVs. Especially for a fantasy movie where I don't want it to look like people, because then it just looks like actors. I want it a gloss of artificiality so I know I'm looking at Frodo or Gandalf, not Elijah Wood or Ian McKellan.

Perhaps, but then again the first color movies don't look like what eventually became the standard for color movies. No one gets a new technology right the first time because they don't know how to use it yet. It's going to have short comings, it's going to "feel" wrong, and it's going to change in response to feedback and experience.

Get off my lawn, 48 fps! I detest the "soap opera" look of motion-smoothing, and understand why it would be very disconcerting to see in cinema, especially fantasy cinema. But, it's the content of movies these days, not the format, that is making me feel increasingly old and irrelevant these days.

Despite the high accuracy of compact discs, there are many who believe that vinyl still offers a superior sonic experience. This despite CDs having a higher frequency response range and other technlogical advantages.

Then, other digital formats (MP3, etc.) have come into prevalence and become "acceptable" despite their inferior sound quality.

Not sure how this fits into the higher FPS argument above, just something I was thinking of.

I wonder if the success or failure of The Hobbit at 48fps will effect what James Cameron does with Avatar2 (which is also rumored to be filmed at 48fps)

Will CGI critters look more or less convincing at 48 fps? I'm curious enough that I won't avoid going to The Hobbit on account of it, but I hope there will be a 24 fps option for the Blu-ray release. (Or maybe it will have no option but to be 24 fps?) The future is relentless.

I just hope theaters don't go through with the awful plan I've heard floating around which is to stop charging more for 3D screenings of movies than 2D screenings, instead raising the price of 2D screenings to subsidize the 3D*. :mad:




* Although the more I've thought about it the more I figure that really the theaters want to raise the prices in general and they're using 3D as the excuse.

Theaters are doing a great job of keeping me happily ensconced in my living room.

1) Back in the 80's Brainstorm used segments at 90fps. I didnt' really notice the difference nearly as much as those segments going to a wider aspect ratio. So I'm not quite sure what the advantage or disadvantage is to 48fps.

2) I ranted about this on Facebook recently, but AMC is charging more for something called "ETX" which is nothing more than letting you sit in their multiplex cinema with the best sound and biggest screen that they were charging regular price for a month ago. They received a pointed letter from me, and have lost me as a customer. If I must pay extra, I want something. 3D. IMAX. Other local theaters have offered plush leather chairs. Or no kids allowed. Or alcohol served. But AMC's ETX offers nothing - except charging you more for what they once did not.

Not a trend I'm happy with.

What if they raised the prices across the board, charging the same price (somewhere in between their previous normal price and the higher "ETX" price) for any theater, whether it's the biggest screen with the best sound, or the tiniest screen with crap sound showing the romantic comedy that came out 8 weeks ago? Would you be happier with that trend? Because that would be the alternative.

Yes, I'd be just as happy with that. Um, sorry GD, but that's exactly what all multiplexes have always been doing. Have you paid a different ticket price for that tiny theater of theirs, only slightly bigger than a 1 percenter's home screening room? No, never. Multiplexes have a wide variety of different size theaters, and charge the same price for all of them.

Well, at least, till now. But, as far as I know, only AMC is experimenting with this.


I thought they made all their money off the popcorn anyway. What do theaters care what admission prices are?

On the other hand, one gripe I've always had with the neighborhood multiplex is that many movies are shown in multiple theaters with no easy way to tell which one is in the theater with the best sound and bigger screen. This would at least take care of that problem.

So then you're okay with them raising the price for 2D showings and lowering the price for 3D showings so they are the same price and the 2D tickets subsidize the 3D?

I've always considered it BS that you're charged the same for a sh*tty screen as their best.

No, not at all. If they want to offer something extra, then let them charge extra for it. A larger auditorium is not extra - they are only now pretending it's so.

It's like if they suddenly charged for including sound with the picture. Oh, you wanted sound? That'll be five bucks.


And before you claim that a big theater with decent sound IS an extra - multiplexes have long waived that claim by their own policy of ALWAYS, since the invention of the multiplex, having charged the same for a ticket no matter the size of the auditorium your movie happens to be screening in. That size, btw, depends on the theater's determination of how popular a movie is. So are you suggesting theaters charge more for movies that are actually "good?"


That might not be a bad idea, since I have no desire to see The Hunger Games, but really enjoyed The Cabin in the Woods. ;)

No, they're just no longer pretending it's not so. It's not about # of seats, it's about screen size and sound quality. And the fact is that up until now, by charging the same price for all showings in all auditoriums, they've been subsidizing their higher quality screens via their lower quality screens.

I'm perfectly okay with a tiered system where you pay for what you get. Less popular movie in crappier theater? Week 15 of the big summer blockbuster showing on the last screen on your left? Yeah, I'm okay with those costing less.

Just because you're acclimated to the subsidy model doesn't mean a different model is invalid.

I'm clearly coming at this from a legal perspective. And if they now, after 30+ years, start charging more for an auditorium that conveniently holds more higher-priced seats, I will be bringing a class-action lawsuit. :p



btw ... I asked the AMC manager what I was paying extra for. His response was the state-of-the-art sound system. He had nothing but stammering in reply to my follow-up question of, "Then I'm paying for poor quality sound with my regular admission ticket?"

Get my drift?

State-of-the-art is NOT extra. It's what I'm paying for when I attend a first-run theater. And the last time I experienced a movie in a first run-theater that did not have bitchin', quality, and ultra-loud sound was in 1976, before Star Wars changed all that forever.

Since they disclose upfront that you're paying more, regardless of whether you think that something is provided to justify them charging more, what exactly would be your tort?

It's extra over what's in a non-first-run theater. And in fact you have NOT been paying for it, at least not in full. You've been paying for a PORTION of it, the rest being subsidized by the fact that a ticket for the non-first-run auditoriums, which offer a lower quality experience, are the same price. Purely from a standpoint of paying for what you're getting, you "should" have been paying more for that ticket all along, but for marketing reasons that hasn't been happening.

Again, simply because you've acclimated to how it's been done for 30 years doesn't mean they can't change it. For a long time, if you signed a contract, nearly all cell phones were free or some nominal amount significantly less than their retail price. But once there was more differentiation between phones, and premium phones like the iPhone came to be, that changed. Yeah, you still get the premium phones at a subsidize discount below retail, but not anywhere near the deep discount that was standard before. On top of that, there's greater range in pricing and fewer and fewer phones are free anymore. Yeah, it sucked as a consumer that you could not longer get a pretty good phone for free, or a really good phone for slightly more than free. But that doesn't mean the carriers weren't within their rights to alter the price structure in response to new market forces.

Well, I'm free to find that underhanded, cynical, and poor-customer service and, as a result, refuse to patronize such an establishment. That's my market response.

If AMC finds enough rubes to pay this week for a bigger theater than they paid for the same theater last week, bravo for them. My only option as a consumer is to be one of the suckers born every minute or one of the curmudgeons born every ten. :p

Market response is one thing; a class action lawsuit is another. I encourage the former, but think the latter is just silly.

Also, significant improvements in sound began before Star Wars; remember Sensurround? Lucas did make significant improvements, but credit also goes to companies like Cerwin Vega, BGW, and others.

Yes, but I enjoyed Feelaround better.

oh HEEEEELLLL no!
 

Theater Chain Execs Consider Allowing Cell Phone Use in Theaters

Thank gawd the Alamo Drafthouse CEO hasn't lost his mind too.

Historically younger people go to more movies. According to the article that's no longer the case. If not being able to text is the real reason behind the drop in ticket sales then theater owners would be pretty much forced to embrace texting, taking, or whatever else the core audience wants.

I wonder if we are going to end up segregated. Texting/non-texting/etx/non-etx/2d/3d/2d texting/3d texting/2d no texting/3d no texting/48fps/24fps/48fps 3d with texting/48fps 3d with no texting, etc.....

Screw that, my living room is more comfy anyway.

What if they want to make pooh pooh on the theatre floor, which is about on the same level as talking and texting during a movie?

Reductio ad absurdum aside, like most businesses theater owners will follow the money. If society changes to where more people want to text than sit quietly then theaters will adapt. Much like we adapted from the grand theaters of yesterday to the shoebox sized multiplex's of today.

That doesn't mean I have to like it, but it would be unrealistic to deny the economic factors.

Already this same issue has reared its head at live theater as well. Some theaters are encouraging patrons to text and tweet during the show, presumably by way of interacting with and commenting on the performance. This is happening at the Broadway revival of Godspell, for instance, and the textors are seated in one specific area. i'll be seeing this in a few weeks, so I can comment then as to how distracting this ends up being. (The theater is in the round, so I can't help but think that the text-section will be noticeable from just about anywhere.)

There just might be some way of creating meaningful and engaging theater pieces that include live social networking, but if an audience is simply texting away during a traditional musical, it would be hard for the performers not to feel like their audience is bored and distracted. We actors usually want to weave a spell. Texting and tweeting feel to me like awfully mundane activities, inimical to surrendering to the spirit of a performance. But then, I'm instructed by the media to feel more out of touch and useless every day. (Maybe I'll write an interactive multi-media show about it.)

The main issue with texting at a movie theater is the dark environment. At concerts and many plays the room is not as dark so someone near me texting (especially on a nearly silent touch screen) would not bother me at all assuming they had it on silent so it's not buzzing and binging with each received message.

I already don't want to see movies in a theater very often; this will continue to keep me away. I find texting very distracting and I don't want it around me when I'm trying to pay attention to a movie.

I would read someone texting during a show as bored, yeah. I've heard about some theaters doing this, setting aside a section where you can tweet or text to people who will tell you about the show, but I can't see myself doing it. Totally takes me out of the mood.

That would be interesting. Get all the audience members to subscribe to your tweets prior to the performance, and then during the show, using twitter as a means of doing mental asides inbetween lines of dialogue: "That's funny... John never has a second cup of coffee at home..."

So, the younger set isn't going to movies?? I thought Hunger Games, Harry Potter and Everything Aimed at Young People makes far more money than everything else??

Even so, they're going to scare away old folk with texting in the hopes that teens will start paying $13 each to see a movie? Sounds idiotic to me. No 19 year old is saying "I would totally take my girl to see Avengers for $26 plus $9 popcorn and $5 drinks even though I have literally dozens of entertainment options at home, but they won't let me text in the theater."

So I went straight to the source on this one and asked a teen.

Headliner is aghast at the idea of allowing texting in theaters. Not being able to text is definitely not keeping her and her friends out of the theaters. Price is annoying but it's also not the main reason. Nope, according to an actual teen they don't go to more movies because there just are not that many movies they want to see.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it theater owners of America.

They are still going to movies, just not as many/often as previous generations.

In 1946, 4 billion movie tickets were sold in America. The number last year was less than 1.3 billion.

See! Disney killed the movies after Song Of The South.

PS: The Haunted Mansion Reboot has me excited:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but she's a smart kid, probably a 90 percentile type or better. She's your daughter. Makes Headliner a bit of an Outlier, if you ask me.

Usually you lads are in the future...how did you get stuck in 2010? :P

:blush:

After posting this I read more about films based on attractions and there are quite a few in the pipeline that I hadn't heard about.

:blush: