I didn't even get to the point of noticing plot holes as no plot had happened yet.

Just something about the tone and pacing of that opening left me saying "this is just going to make a long flight worse."

Lani and I were pretty negative no Snow White and the Huntsman. It is hard for me to point at anything specific that was bad (though Stewart really isn't meant for that kind of role and anything build on the premise that she is more attractive than Charlize Theron is obviously flawed) but it didn't come together at all for us.

It was very slow to start and a slow crawl to the finish

I really liked The Woman in Black. Beyond the obvious plot holes of people remaining for decades where there's a deadly supernatural menace so that we can have a horror movie, I didn't see any obvious plot holes--other than Daniel Radcliffe failing to use his wand to stop the whole mess. I also think the ending had something of a twist, which, if it actually existed, I suppose I can say I saw coming, but it was still fun.

Prometheus was something really gorgeous to look at. Truly stunning. It left me pretty cold otherwise. I only found one character at all engaging, that being the android played by Michael Fassbender. (Not a spoiler. He's identified as such right up front) He gives an appealing performance, in spite of a confused screenplay that left me unsure how I was supposed to react to his character.



The movie wanted me to swallow a pretty enormous faith pill. I would have been more amenable if the token skeptic hadn't been a smug, dismissive asshole, who early on gets a single line of dialogue to express what is really a very reasonable doubt.



So, sense of discovery and wonder FAIL.

Also, the movie's twin missions of being speculative, mystical sci-fi, and also a graphic prequel to an established horror series sit very awkwardly together.

Noomi Rapace is really put through the emotional wringer here, and she's up to the challenge, but I was so disconnected from her story, her valiant acting efforts were in vain.



Charlize Theron's character could be edited out of this movie without making a single bit of difference. A one-note bore.

All that said, I'll watch this again when it hits Blu-ray. It really is stunning to look at, with some memorable icky bits.

Hated Prometheus. I agree with flippy's criticism's and then some.

Damon Lindelof brought us the last season of Lost, which basically said, "You know all those tantalizing mysteries we've been tossing around for half a decade? We're not going to answer them. Asking the questions is enough."

People defended that move, and now he wrote a crappy Alien prequel that does the same thing. Will there be "answers" in the next two movies? (turns out this is the first of a trilogy.) Who cares? He gave moviegoers Alien: The Phantom Menace (by way of Star Trek V). Screw him.

Spoiler alert: don't believe the lies that Ridley Scott floated about the plot. It's all hack work. If you think know what I'm talking about, you're probably right.

I'm looking forward to hating Lindelof's Star Trek script, too. Let the franchise-killing continue.

I didn't hate it. I also didn't think there were a whole lot of unanswered questions but I don't know if that is because I saw answers others missed or I missed questions other people saw.

As for the connective tissue with the Alien movies, I don't really care. I'm not a huge fan of Alien, liked Aliens enough but not enough to see it a second time and the rest are trash.

It was pretty. It moved along ok. It dealt in generally well established cliches of science fiction without breaking any new ground or asking any new questions (I'm fine with not answering questions if the question itself is interesting enough). If this is part of a trilogy I'l sure I'd see the next one but won't particularly be waiting for it.

That said, not a great movie for someone who had abdominal surgery a few days ago.

Though on reflection the biggest unanswered question may be:

Actually, the reason that

When I talked about unanswered questions, I'm referring to the basic internal logic of the film. I have no problem with crazy story lines in any movie, but when the the film acts important by addressing "big questions", then I'd at least like for there to be something there for me to hold onto.

The problem with Prometheus for me is that it presents plot points as major revelations without really revealing anything. It plays more like the B-grade horror movie than it is rather than the A-level science fiction film it purports to be.

In response to Flippy.....

Well, this morning I learned that there is about 30 minutes cut from the movie. If that's true, then maybe the Director's Cut will be a much better film. I personally do not think the DC of Blade Runner is an improvement but the DC of Kingdom of Heaven was a huge improvement on what was originally a listless movie.

Ok, unanswered questions. Yes, there are a lot of apparent plot holes, or massive issues that aren't addressed. The only one that I am thinking of that really impinges on the plot, though, is:



Other stupidities/oddities that I feel aren't necessarily important if the movie otherwise engages:




Moonliner:

Alex, I think you touched on many of the logical plot issues.

There were others, of course, which mostly had to do with the behavior of certain characters.



And as for the internal logic...



I'm sure there's more, but I'm at work now and apparently I have work to do...

Yes that bothered me at the time too. But, if I were more engaged with the movie



As for the reproductive biology



Other issues:

Me? I don't care about the implausibility of scientific procedures and alien processes in a sci-fi movie? Really? The last scientifically-plausible science fiction move was 2001 in 1968. The book has been thrown out since then.


The thing that really, really, super bugged me was:


But I actually enjoyed the film up till the last 20 minutes, when it went too far gay. . Other than that, the film was fun, gorgeous to look at (and 3-D that was pretty and not overdone), had some fun characters, and fun Try-To-Top-Ripley situations for its heroine. As mentioned above, many things were unbelievably dumb - but I've long since abandoned wondering how such things can get past the script and production stages of a zillion-dollar motion picture.

Overall I liked it. But I went into the, um, Alien Prequel expecting a pulp sci-fi horror film. What was everyone else expecting??

All good points, Alex.

Clearly, they bugged me more than they did you.

I think I was more annoyed with the 'bait & switch' of the marketing than some.

Not sure if I'll revisit it when the "Director's Cut" comes out on blu-ray, or if I'll wait until the trilogy is complete...

Hahaha. This.

Yes. Love.

Damn the next day. I was moderately ok with it yesterday. I suspect I will join mousepod in hatred by the end of the week.

I'm liking it less and less in retrospect, but I'm glad I enjoyed it while it unspooled (until the last 20 minutes ... seriously that set-up then ruin-the-set-up seriously unnerved me).

That said, I'll remain hopeful for the DC. The DC of Kingdom of Heaven really is massively superior.

Ditto on that. Usually I loathe Director's Cuts - they add back stuff that was rightly left on the editing room floor, bloating their movies, removing slick tightness, and ruining mood links for the sake of putting in scenes that perhaps are even good in isolation.

Kingdom of Heaven is a different animal entirely - and I can hardly believe the studio forced Scott to release a decidedly inferior film.

I am so sad. I had no idea (until I saw Jesse's FB) that this was a prequil to Alien(s). Horror movies are scary, I don't watch them. Is this more sci-fi dark/twisted/fvcked up horror or psychological/clown/gore scary horror*?


*For point of reference, I consider Farscape dark/twisted/fvkced up (but not horror)

That's alright, Marla. Prometheus gets confused as to whether or not it's an Alien prequel, too.

I predict:



In other words, this is not a prequel to Alien but rather Alien vs. Predator 3.

The three episodes I managed to stick through of Farscape didn't tickle any dark/twisted nerves in me. I thought it was supposed to be camp stupidity so maybe I was watching it wrong.

So I can't answer on that scale.

I'd say it is somewhere in between Alien and Aliens on the horror-action spectrum. Nothing was particularly scary but there is some gore and tentacles in orifices type stuff. But the action sequences didn't really have the heft to them that Aliens had.

Farscape is not horror and not intended to be scary--it's sci-fi. It also takes a while to get into the groove. I lived the first season, but it really grabbed me by the balls starting in 2nd season.

Wish I'd seen this Ridley Scott quote before going to the movie, would have gone in not expecting any particular intelligence in the story:

Anybody who can say von Daniken's name without smirking is probably an idiot.

As Ancient Alien Theorists believe.......

Ha! Love that.

No, but it's dark, twisted and fvcked the fvck up where some horrific things happen but its not horror. Torture porn moves like Hostel and Saw are considered horror but they're just gross. Trying to get a gauge on how "horror" Prometheus is.

I'd say about 56 % "sci-fi horror," with enough gooey or bloody bits to leave that segment of the audience satisfied.

Ridley Scott's fairly wacko views about extraterrestrial life and human origins are fairly well known, but I don't see how that matters when using the wacko beliefs as the maguffin of a movie. Who cares? It's an interesting maguffin as far as maguffins go ... but they are NOT the heart of the film - just the thing the characters are interested in that the audience is not really meant to care a fig about.


And I suppose what I thought was the set-up for the situation encountered in the original Alien movie was just a tease for how the actual set-up is going to be revealed in a sequel to Prometheus. UGH. My liking for the movie is plummeting minute-by-minute. At least I enjoyed it while I watched, but I don't think I'll be watching it again.

It matters because as far as wacko theories go, von Daniken's are internally inconsistent and I'd thus start with an assumption that a story inspired by them would be as well.

Plus, I would assume a mind that can take von Daniken serious would produce coherence only accidentally.

I was unaware of Scott's views so now I must assume any coherence in previous movies was fortuitous accident or the stabilizing result of collaboration.

And we've hardly even touched on the...

Says who?

Great. Perhaps

Are you saying if he looked like that not one single person would have mentioned his "curious" appearance? come on...

Also, re Prometheus, this.

I'm hating the movie more and more, but I'm glad I enjoyed the first hour and 45 minutes of it - and it IS beautiful to look at, with some fun bits that, alas, make absolutely no freaking sense.

That's the issue you have with that entirely absurd scenario? The impossibly advanced alien's could not make themselves look like a mythical human?

This movie is generating more discussion than many a better summer flick, anyway. (Even if a lot of it is sounding like post-Phantom Menace malaise.)

I'm happy to hate the movie based on what I saw on the screen, but if it turns out , Damon and Ridley are dead to me.

That really would be the most staggeringly stupid thing ever.

The Paramount 116
 

"To celebrate its 100th birthday, Paramount Pictures assembled 116 of the greatest talents ever to work at the studio." (and are still alive)
click here for a thumbnail you can hover over for a zoom
or
click here for the full-size 4987×2000 pixels image

I can only hope that one Mr. Mike White was thinking, "WTF am I doing here?"*






* And probably some others, but he jumped out at me for some reason

Yes, which in itself, makes it almost worthy of existing.

But, having read a lot of that discussion, now including this particularly fun and scathing piece, I'm amazed I actually enjoyed this abysmally craptacular film. Wow, must have been the 3D glasses pressing against the pleasure centers of my brain. ;)

I haven't seen the movie, but it sounds like it could lend some plausibility to the virgin birth.

Red Letter Media talks about Prometheus (major spoilers)

Oddly, Red Letter has a long-form, 30-minute, straight review where they give it largely a positive marks. Yet in that 4-minute comedy version linked to above, they rip it to shreds to great comic effect.


:confused: Confusing though.

Cognitive dissonance at work. Over time, I suspect the consensus on Prometheus will shift to the negative as people leave behind the fact that they wanted to like it so much. (Kinda like Phantom Menace. I had some friends who spent a year or two coming to grips with that one. Their inner struggle was actually more entertaining than the movie.)

Using graphics I found at the listed web site, here is the reproductive livecycle indicated in Prometheus:

VAM!

Not too much VAM. I just took the original graphic and presented it in a different way.

http://9gag.com/gag/4430817

Gotcha. Keep the mojo. You can use it if I forget next time.

From IndieWire.



Screw you, Ridley Scott.

I don't care. If it wasn't in the movie, it doesn't exist. It's that simple. How many people will research the director's mcguffin motives vs. how many will see the movie?


For all I know, there could be tons of crazy ideas behind far better films that never made it into those far better films. In much the same way that I don't care at all about the personal lives of artists whose work I enjoy, I really don't care about the backstory inside a director's head that remained hidden there.


What still matters is what a shoddy piece of work Prometheus is ... though I suppose this points out how it could have been much worse. :rolleyes:

Didn't they do that on the original Star Trek? "No, not sun . . ."

I am hoping to go see Brave tonight. I am excited to see how a Scottish princess plays out, lassie!

I thought it played out pretty well. Not instant classic well, but well.

I enjoyed Brave quite a bit. It was a good story, with good moral values.It wasn't my fav Pixar movie ever but it certainly wasn't the worst either. I liked having an unpolished Princess.

Saturday night, Rose and I watched Troll 2 (ranked the worst movie ever on imdb) and a favorite of my twisted childhood - "The Stuff".

"The Stuff" plays even better now than I remembered it.

The Stuff!! I remember that one. :)

Today I watched "The Hole" in 3D.

Apparently Cameron is going to film Avatar 2,3 and 4 all at the same time.

But what's weird is that actors are going to do them sequentially with one year off between each.

Cameron's that good.

It's amazing what you can do with CGI these days.

I guess tonight I will finaly see The Artist. I was surprised to see among the film geeks I know, I was not the last person standing who had not yet seen it.

I love that Uggie got his paw prints at Graumann's yesterday. The poor little guy looked stressed out, though. I think I'm glad he's going into retirement.

We saw Brave on Saturday. The more I think about it, the more I like it for a few particular reasons:



Saw Moonrise Kingdom the previous weekend. Had no idea what to expect going in, but loved it.

I saw "Brave" last weekend and I guess I was underwhelmed by it. I loved certain moments in the film but didn't love it overall.

Random thoughts:

Yeah, I was pretty disappointed with Brave.

I don't see what the big deal is about a princess who's not rescued or subjugated by men. I mean, sure, Disney recently told another ancient tale that had a princess/prince thing - but Pixar's never done that, and this hardly seems a groundbreaking thing in Twenty Twelve.

I rather liked the low-key and sorta-surprise way the tale turned out to be. I didn't see any characters at the Disneyland Meet'n'Greet, so I wasn't spoiled and it's not at all the type of road I expected the story to go down.


So while that was a plus, and while it was a really cute story - it was also a bit of a let-down. Just a very low key thing that I somehow didn't feel suited a Pixar TM release.

There's nothing wrong with it ... it just didn't WOW me, and so I also have to group it with the lower rungs of Pixar films, the same ones Gemini Cricket listed above. And I agree with him totally - needed more heart or more Pixarishness (though I did tear up once).

Also ... I didn't really cotten to the main character. She was, to me, quite Meh. Though her hair is awesome.

And in that vein of uber-computer-rendering ... I really find insane levels of verisimilitude in most of the scenery and the horse, Angus, conflicted poorly with the doll-face design of most of the human characters. The few cartoonish characters came off better ... but it was still an odd disconnect, since it seems Pixar went to great lengths to have the backgrounds look photorealistic.

Oh, and I think big nosed nice bod young suitor from the MelGibson clan was kinda hot. But when they next toted out fey prince from the other clan, I began to feel an overload of tropes. If it's something Monty Python made fun with over 30 years ago, it seems a little stale now.

I still put my Funny Scots Cartoon money on How to Train Your Dragon from a few years back (it was about Vikings, but they were all Scottish for some reason).

I liked Brave - especially the treatment mother/daughter relationship. But I had a problem with its twist, having been used in another Disney film in the last decade (as Brad noted.)

As for the independent-princess thing, the doesn't-need-to-be-rescued thing, that was incredibly meaningful to me. Is it perhaps a gender divide? Most of the women I've talked to who've seen it have agreed, and it didn't seem to have an effect on the men.

For me the significant departure was not the "didn't get a boyfriend" but that she was the primary actor throughout the movie. She got herself in trouble, she got herself out of trouble and she took responsibility for the former on her own.

It is far more common in fantasy that the "hero" is extremely passive in their own story. Often they're just living out Calvinist prophecy (Harry Potter, Aurora, etc.) or reacting to events they had no hand in causing.

Then they are guided to the solution for their problems by others with greater knowledge manipulating them. Then maybe at the end they get a little bit of control.

I found a protagonist actually driving their own story to be refreshing in a princess movie/fairy tale.

I agree with Alex about the lame passive hero stuff, but that doesn't ever seem to have been the case with Pixar films.

Oft times in tales, the hero is supposed to be our "window" into the story, and thus everything just sort of happens to them. Blech. Yet it's been one of Pixar's unsung hallmarks that I cannot recall a single main character being that way. So that was not really a breakthrough for me with Merida.

Perhaps it is a gender divide ... but I really don't see why anyone would feel such a character being female was a big deal. I was much more impressed when a main character was a robot. I've known tons of women who were complete people, and it's absurd to me that portraying one in an animated film is some kind of triumph. But I lack the proper chromosomes for that opinion, I suppose.


I feel bad being a bit disappointed. The tale was enjoyable. Merida was fine enough. I DID really love the mother-daughter stuff and was heart-tugged at the arc growth of the main character. But minor key where I was expecting something else, I guess. And I really don't think Merida carries a film the way other Pixar leads have done.


Also I have to wonder why they switched directors mid-stream. If they were going for more BIG or less feminine or something, I don't think they got anything of the sort in the finished product.

It isn't remarkable for Pixar. But it is remarkable for being within the genre they chose.

As someone who doesn't particularly care for most of the classic fairy tale movies, I felt it was a cut above that. But know I don't think it was up there with the Rataouille/Wall-E/Up/TS3 sequence. But leaps better than Cars 2.

Well, then was anyone bothered by Merida being a brat and kinda mean and her arc being simply to grow up a little? I know that's a standard arc for a teen lead ... but I hate that kind of thing, because it requires your lead to be a brat and mean, and I don't find that particularly likable in a character.




So I guess that's rather in line for fairytale type stories. But isn't anyone more upset about the fairy tale heroine being just as STUPID as every other fairy tale heroine? Perhaps more upset by that than how glad that she's too young or stubborn or lesbian to want to be married off??

No more stupid, than, say, Aladdin. I saw her as an impulsive teen trying to break free... and watching impulsive teens breaking free in my family, it rang true to me. I liked that she was complex and flawed, and I understood her. But I didn't love her, either.

As a woman (and a writer) I'm always on the watch for complex female characters in films and television. And they very rarely occur. And when they do, they very, very, rarely are the story-driver. And when they are, they very, very rarely are in a big-budget film. And when - ever - have we seen a big-budget animated picture feature a complex, story-driving woman who is the master of her own fate? The closest we come is Mulan, but she's still leaning on the man for help.

To be clear, I lean on my man for help. As he leans on me. But - also - when do we ever see a man lean on a woman for help, in animated films, or other media? It's pretty rare. If they're leaning, it's generally on another dude.

Also - I read that under Brenda Chapman, the film was almost entirely set in the snow, and after she was let go they went for lush scenery. I don't know how much that had to do with it, but it's a pretty extreme design change.

I have to admit, getting a sitter to go see Brave isn't anywhere near the top of my priority list, even though we've seen every Pixar film in the theater since Monster's Inc (except Cars 2). The first movie we saw in the theater after T was born was TS3.

Something about the advertising and word of mouth isn't making me feel the urgency to see it before it shows up on Netflix.



My MMMusings currently involve NOT seeing films. :rolleyes:

Cp totally understand on the movies. We saw TS1 right before Madz was born and I think we didn't go again together for about 5 years.

Madz told me we had to see Brave together since it was a mother/daughter movie. She saw it first with her friends. I really enjoyed it. I agree with the points Heidi made. It's nice to have a girl who doesn't go all squishy when a male shows up. Although to be honest her suitors were kinda scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I don't think its the best pixar movie ever but I already pre ordered it on amazon and I know I will watch it a few more times. Maybe it will replace Maddies current obsession "princess and the frog". Which has a prince but she does pretty much have to rescue him.

Fantastic dissection of Brave's plotlines

See my link in the above post, as the reviewer addresses your complaint.

Thanks for the article Morri - very interesting.

This could be epic! (in a subtle understated even keel sort of way)

Take that, Burton!

You know how some people just can't do Mamet dialog?

I have a hard time imagining Depp doing the kind of acting that Anderson seems to require.

But hopefully I'm wrong.

I would have thought the same of Ben Stiller, but I think he's great in Tenenbaums.

I think (hope) Anderson's a strong enough director to get the performance he needs.

With that cast, even if they just sit in a room reading the phonebook for two hours, I'd watch it!

I mostly love Wes Anderson (though I sometimes wonder if it is a good thing to be able to tell who directed a movie by looking at a still from the movie) but my distaste for Willem Defoe is mighty strong.

However, I will hope that Anderson takes his queue from a Craig Ferguson bit and after the movie reveal that it wasn't actually Angela Lansbury in the movie but rather Paul McCartney.

I really, really, really loved Moonrise Kingdom (Anderson's most recent ... still in theaters .... catch it) - though I understand it might not be to everyone's taste. It's easily my favorite film of his (I like about half his oeuvre, really dislike the other half).



Oh, and Magic Mike was the most boring piece of wasteful celluoid I've seen in forever ... and that's even with hot near-naked men abounding. Sheesh. What was Soderberg thinking? There was nothing interesting about anyone's character, story, not a hint of insight into the off-the-grid world of male strippers they established, and really no fun to the choreography or male stripping either. What A Waste.

Yes, Moonrise Kingdom is very good.

But just to make sure that we don't bond too much, I really liked Magic Mike as well.

Alex, you are killing me tonight! Thanks for the laughs, literally sitting her all alone and laughing. The cats think I'm crazy.....maybe they're right!

The Dark Knight Rises is rad.



:snap: Saw it last night (this morning) at midnight, at the Irvine Spectrum, because that's the only real IMAX screen in Southern California. Worth seeing it in IMAX once. It's beautiful. It's touching. It's fun. I loved it.

:cheers: Heheh, all 21 screens were showing Batman at midnight, so the place was an awesome geekfest of thousands of people, several hundred in costume or some kind of Battire. Really fun.


I didn't learn about the shooting in Colorado till I got home at 4:30 a.m. And even that did not put a total damper on my experience. It was a fun midnight show, and I really love the movie.

Ahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa

Just got back from The Dark Knight Rises.

The first two hours were excruciatingly boring. It wasn't until talking to Lani after that I realized I may have completely zoned out for a few minutes.

The last 30 minutes or so were a fine action set piece but unfortunately it hinged on something extremely stupid several times over and all of the big reveals had been obvious almost two hours earlier. But it had enough energy to end on a high note.

But I didn't expect Nolan to actually bore me, to wallow in silly cliches, to treat the last movie in the trilogy like the last episode of a long running TV show where every repeating character along the way has to make an appearance (even a couple of the dead ones) and every core member has to have their dramatic curtain call.

So, overall, blech.

Those of you who are fans of magical realism and films that may sometimes be more interesting in approach than necessarily good, I strongly recommend checking out Beasts of the Southern Wild.

Just got back from a showing of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. I ADORED this movie. Fabby, and only slightly slow in places, but enough feel-good and warm fuzzy quotes to keep me and Stoat and MamaStoat very happy.

Just remember - everything will be all right in the end... if it's not all right then it's not the end.

I finally saw The Three Stooges. The violence was great, and the filmmakers are to be commended for crafting some of the worst child acting performances since the '30s and '40s. However, the Jersey Shore digression was a mistake, the Teddy character seemed more like someone Zeppo Marx would play and, while it's a quibble, I do feel that Will Sasso was physically too large for the part.

I'll admit it: I love Forrest Gump. I am watching it for probably the 40 gazillionth time (cable TV this time). I had planned on watching another movie tonight, but got wrapped up in this.

However, this movie has had an unexpected side effect: I hate Robin Wright.

I know she was just the actress playing the part of Jenny (who broke Forrest's heart), but for some stupid reason, I cannot separate them.

It's silly I know, but I hate Robin Wright.

It's understandable. Forrest Gump made me hate Tom Hanks, Gary Sinise, shrimp, the mall in Washington, helicopters, candy, Sally Field, black guys met on the bus to basic training, Robert Zemeckis, ping pong, etc., for a while.

Eventually I got over it (except for the Zemeckis mistrust).

VAM

Go right now and watch The Princess Bride

I always thought the Princess was a bit of a beeotch in that movie as well.

They've remade Red Dawn (with North Korean invaders this time around).

I weep for our civilization.

As long as the heavy weapons expert is still a hot chick, we'll get by OK.


EDITED TO ADD:

Ahh ha! No worries mate. They got it covered.

JAWS on Blu-Ray tomorrow. I'll have trouble sleeping tonight. :D :D

Just in time for shark week. I wonder if that is coincidence?

No, they've had Shark Week planned for some time now.

I have Jaws on VHS, laserdisc, DVD and some later-released uber-DVD. Please let me know whether the blu-ray is that much better and should be purchased. I like living long, but I'm really sick of having to buy the same beloved movies in format after format.

Sometimes the blu-ray is not really an improvement in picture quality, especially with older films.

It's been lovingly restored for Universals 100th anniversary. Amazon just shipped my copy.

Trust me, the picture quality on the JAWS Blu-Ray is stunning and revelatory. There's no going back.

Also, the very interesting fan-made documentary The Shark Is Still Working is included (in standard definition, but exclusive to the Blu-Ray.)

The other extras are all ported over from previous releases, and they look it. But, the real news here is that JAWS has never looked this good before, perhaps ever.

Happily, original mono soundtrack is included and preferred. No revisionist CG monkey business either.

Yay! Thanks. Gonna need a bigger boat(load of money), but - though I swore to stop buying movies - this is going to be one of the exceptions!

That’s a Big Boulder, Indy: Steven Spielberg on the Imax Rerelease of ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’And yes, it is being converted to Imax, not just being shown on a bigger screen.

Article

Darn you!!! I had to order it. You twisted my arm, you devil.

Best part of the article...

So Indy will still shoot first, just on a digitally enhanced print with re-engineered sound.

Then it will be interesting to note if they restore such things as the reflection of the cobra in the glass that separated H. Ford from the deadly snake.

If they don't, I call shenanigans on Spielberg's pledge. :p

So exactly how do you convert a film to Imax?

"Digital Enhancement" is just a fancy term for drawing stuff in. So do they go in frame by frame, blow it up to Imax size and then draw in all the missing details?

Not by hand most of the time, but essentially yes.

Oh, I thought he was going to reshoot the movie frame-by-frame in 70mm Imax format.

Alas, Raiders won't be playing in the L.A. area at the real IMAX or the two fake IMAX's, but only at the tiny "digital IMAX" neighborhood AMC theaters. Raiders plays often enough in L.A. on much bigger screens. Bah.

Same situation here. I smell a conspiracy.

The teen and I are going to Paranorman tonight. I really liked Coraline and am hoping since it's done by the same studio that it will be great too. I just love tightwad Tuesday at our local little theater, we can get tickets, drinks and popcorns for $20!

We really enjoyed the movie. I love the claymation style, it gives it life or something. Anyway, it was a lot of fun except for the power going out in the theater. I enjoyed the characters and they made them seem real, maybe because I have known people like them. We even waited after the credits to see how they make a claymation figure, it would have been nice if it was a little slower but was interesting little after piece. It was a fun and funny movie.

I can't remember if I posted about this or not. I recently caught up with a few foreign language Oscar films. The most recent was 2008 Japanese film Departures. It was wonderful, touching, sweet, and funny. The arc of the story was somewhat predictable, but in the end, I did not care, it's a beautiful film. A quiet film and I absolutely loved it.

Trailer can be seen here

Raiders of the Lost Ark is finally out on Blu-ray. However it looks like you can only get it by purchasing the "Complete Adventures" set including all four movies for $64,999.00

Yeah, I get it. Two and Four were so stinking bad few people in their right mind would ever purchase them so you are trying to force feed them on people. Sorry, but I'm not going for it. I'll just keep waiting until I can add 1 and 3 by themselves.




* OK, I might have fudged the price a bit to make my point but still... This is BS.

Sixty Five THOUSAND?!?! :eek:

Now that's a tad unfortunate.

In the new Bond movie "Skyfall" bond trades his shaken not stirred martini for a Heineken as part of £28million product placement deal.

Thats a pretty expensive beer

I'm with Moonie. Raiders may be perhaps my favorite movie of all time that I religiously buy in every format - but I will not be forced to purchase films I don't really like in order to get a slightly better-looking version of one I do. BS indeed.


Oh, and a beer-swilling Bond is sacrelige!

"Heineken - shaken, not stirred."

Eh, non-English-car-driving Bond was sacrilege too and it turned out we didn't care.

Indeed, I had to look it up. While non English vehicles have been featured since the start of the series, the first official bond car not to be a British make was a BMW featured in in 1994's Goldeneye. Coincidentally, one of my least favorite bond films.

If the film is otherwise enjoyable I'll quickly forget the issue and move on. If not the issue of what he's drinking will be just one more straw for the camels back.

It has to be good because the last one sucked. :D

We discovered this evening that even when a theatre sells no tickets to a particular showing of a movie, they still show the movie. For this, we are grateful as we got to see The Dark Knight Rises (after watching ParaNorman).

In a sort-of corollary, the Spectrum did not take anyone's ticket for the first midnight IMAX showing of The Dark Knight Rises, so technically any or all of us could have gotten a refund of our admission price or a re-admit to a later show.

I know I don't follow movies nearly as much as many of you, but we saw the extended preview last night for the upcoming Les Miserables highlighting the "Live Singing" aspect of the film (which they are claiming has "never been done before"). I have to say I am rather intrigued by this and may actually go to see this movie. Since we were fortunate enough to see Les Mis on Broadway (and I *think* Colm Wilkinson was Jean Valjean), I did not think that any movie version would ever compare. However, based on this preview, I think that this version may be pretty good!

I'll go you one better, I might actually like it more than I did the show (because, well, I was not all that impressed with the show).

Normally, if I don't really care for a show, I won't go see the movie. But the "live singing" has me intrigued.

It's my favorite musical. I've seen 3 productions (Broadway, San Diego, London).

I was very skeptical when I heard about the film version. But that "preview" has me excited. The in-camera singing aspect is novel, and the snippets they show hint at some amazing performances. But what grabbed me the most was seeing the scenes on location in the streets of Paris. I think that will really bring it alive.

Thanks to Katie Sue on Facebook, I was able to confirm that we did see Colm. Cool.

BTW: we were in the fourth freakin' row for the performance!

I did and do love Les Mis. I'm always worried when one of my favorite musicals is made into one of my not favorite movies (I'm looking at you, Sweeney Todd). Unlike adapting a book or TV show, I expect a move from stage to screen to capture some of the essence of the original. This one looks good, though. Here's hoping...

Love the book, not a huge fan of the musical, intrigued by the movie.

The live signing thing is somewhat hyperbolic. For one thing, prior to sufficient technology it was the norm for musicals to record live, so it was definitely done way back when. But it has been done to various degrees since, though possibly not in a major mainstream musical.

I did find it interesting that Russell Crowe was never shown singing (in the extended preview thing).

Did y'all know Russell Crown played Eddie/Dr. Scott in an Aussie production of The Rocky Horror Show in 1987?

I won't hold that against him.

Much ado was made about the live on set singing in the disastrous Seventies Cole Porter musical At Long Last Love. so, if Les Mis starred Burt Reynolds, Sybil Shepperd and Madeline Khan, it wouldn't be very good at all!

If they could get Madeline Kahn to do the film, that would be quite a coup.

Madeline Kahn was fabulous, even in that really LOUSY musical. The only real singer in the bunch and she could act rings around anyone. I still miss her, she brightened many a dull moment in an otherwise not great film.

If Madeline Kahn were alive today, she would be wondering, "Why is it so dark in here?"

If Madeline Kahn were alive today she'd either be wondering "how'd they fit me in here" or "where exactly would I consider myself to be" depending on her ashes are still in an urn or were disbursed.

If I were an aspiring actor, which I suppose I still am, and a low budget filmmaker said he couldn't pay me in cash but could pay me with some of Madeline Kahn's ashes, I'd be suspicious about whether they really were her ashes.

I get the lamest autocorrects.

Your phone was just guessing based on your industry.

Had such a GREAT movie marathon today. The Perks of Being a Wallflower (see it), Pitch Perfect (rent it), and Looper (why aren't you watching it right now!?)

I hardly consider myself to be automatic, but I do try to be vigilant.

Saw Looper myself yesterday. Not bad, a pretty good time travel and moral story. Good acting, and interesting near future tech. Love the cell phones, and the gas to solar car conversions.

My fave line is Bruce Willis (older John) while at a diner talking (intensively, BTW) with the younger John, whom he calls "Boy":

"I'm not going to sit here and talk time travel with you, and make little diagrams with straws."

Yep, great line. I really liked it.

I was very impressed they bothered (and largely succeeded) with JLG looking like a young Willis via make up/prosthetics and imitational performance.

Aside from that plus, and a particular casting bonus, it succeeded by not being what I expected, and by still being a fun time travel / noir tale with plenty of heart.

BtS of RHPS
 

Since 1980 I've been a fervent Rocky Horror fan & collector of all things Rocky Horror. So it came as a huge shock to me that there was behind-the-scenes footage shot during the filming of RHPS! I have literally never even heard such this existed. I know there were stills shot by Mick Rock, but never film. For Rocky fans, this is amazing.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF9cZUuvYt8
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ab_haeNICA
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9HYqfkYKQ0
I don't know why it's split into three parts, but I'm so thrilled this has been unearthed I'm not going to kvetch about it. ;)

Interesting, I've always felt the ending was awkward. In Part-1 Richard O'Brien talks about taking his time with the work but rushing to add the ending.

Ooh, I've seen part 1 and forgot about looking for the second two parts. Thanks, SM.

Very interesting!

I actually listened to the music and had all of the songs memorized before I saw the movie. This was around 1978 or so. My roomate had the album (yes, kiddies- it was vinyl back then), and we use to just sit and listen to it over and over. There may or may not have been something smoked at the time, I don't remember. ;)

On paper I should be a huge Martin McDonough fan. In theory his style should tickle me but something about it just falls flat.

There was much that I admired as clever about In Bruges but ultimately I found the movie a bore with some good dialog and performances. I just got back from Seven Psychopaths and it didn't even have the good dialog, I was just bored throughout.

I've no interest in Seven Psychopaths, but I hold In Bruges in very high regard. I think most people missed that, and I consider it a semi-secret gem that I recommend everyone check out.

Yeah, so many people I respect loved the movie that I assume something was wrong with me. It just didn't click for me.

Almost kept me from seeing Brendan Gleeson in The Guard, which I very much did enjoy (and also almost nobody saw).

I enjoyed that one, too. That's a total of 17 people who saw The Guard.

Even less of a deal than I expected. The word Heineken is never uttered. Bond is lounging in a beach resort hotel room after months of inactivity and is seen drinking from the distinctive green Heineken bottle. The name is visible but they never gave it any prominence.

Having him in a tux and drinking martinis wouldn't have really fit the scene.


Anyway, the movie.

It a couple days too long. It relies on the omniscient villain to an excessive degree (I expect that from Bond films but there was one scenes that broke the camel's back).

It has a standing up sex scene against a raw stone wall. Apparently everybody making fun of that in Road House didn't make it to England or Sam Mendes.

The best action set piece is the opening action set piece.

It is better than Quantum of Solace but nowhere near so good as Quantum of Solace, partly because it doesn't really ever let up on the seriousness.

Way above average Bond movie but still just an above average action movie.

I found Skyfall to be a far better than average Bond movie, but a so-so action movie - which makes it all the more coolsville that such a thing does not prevent it from being that far better than average Bond movie.

Perhaps that's all I should say about it until a few more people have seen it. I respect general spoiler rules during opening weekend. I was not bothered by the omniscience of the truly fun villain. It was stated as a given, and I don't need my Bond movies more serious than that. So I was perfectly pleased when it turned out to be a pretty darn seriously-themed and dramatically well acted film ... not really typical - and very welcome - in this 50-year-long series.

Of the Daniel Craig Bonds, It was not as knockout fun and gangbusters as Casino Royale, but so much better than Quantum of Solace. Bond fans are used to the films being literally hit and miss (not necessary alternating perfectly), so it was nice to have a genuine hit after such a lousy miss.

There are things in the movie leading me to feel this is the last time Daniel Craig will be appearing as James Bond. If so, it's a nice send-off. I liked it.

One of the movie related podcasts I listen to is a BBC radio show and they had Craig on a couple weeks ago. During that he was talking about ideas he has for Bond and hoping to get to collaborate on them, especially with Mendes if he returns.

I was fine with omniscient villain until:

Serious spoilers in here so don't read if you don't want to know.

Oh, one other thing.

There is an island in the movie that I assumed was CGI. It wasn't. So I'm grateful to the movie for making me aware of its existence.

Heheh, I assumed many of the stunts in the digital age were CGI, but the Bond crew apparently prides itself on doing everything live. This is very impressive for some of the stuff - - but it's too bad most people will just think it's CGI. Double-edged sword that technology is.

Oh, and I didn't mind the product placement in Skyfall, supposedly setting a record number. A lot of ballyhoo has been made of it, and the modern Bond films, in particular, make a habit of it. But the Heinekin beer seemed totally natural, the Sony Vaio logo ditto (though obviously selected as the brand to model), and I never noticed that the motorcycles were Hondas, or any of the other 20 product placement deals that were so lucrative for the studio.

Alex, can you shed some further light on Craig's ideas for Bond, other than quitting?

Spoilers wherein I discount Alex's problems with plot holes and raise the one that instead bothers me a lot:





But neither detracted me from the enjoyment of this Bond movie, and rare is the one without absurd plot holes.

Battling spoilers!



And one thing has really settled poorly with me over the last date. One horribly wrong emotional note:

[quote=innerSpaceman;366617]Heheh, I assumed many of the stunts in the digital age were CGI, but the Bond crew apparently prides itself on doing everything live. This is very impressive for some of the stuff - - but it's too bad most people will just think it's CGI. Double-edged sword that technology is.


No I can't, as I don't remember specifics other than that he was talking about future films and his involvement.

In that same interview he addressed this, saying essentially: "Look, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to open a movie globally and you aren't going to get anybody to take the risk if you don't pay for a lot of it up front and we try hard to fit it in naturally."

Well, Alex, you're interpretation of the plot is so elaborately ridiculous, that it's simply not one I share. Your's requires absolutely every element of chance to fall one particular way. Whereas I'm assuming the villain is playing things much more as-they-go ... meaning the results must be the same, but he adjusts his game based on how things occur in real time, because ...

Damn, you're talking me into liking it a lot less than I did at the time.

I liked [i]Argo[i].

On a less nitpicky note about Skyfall, it seemed a little odd to me that we've seen only the beginning and what's feeling like the end of Daniel Craig as James Bond.

Much was made about his aging in Skyfall (he's still hot stuff, but time is not being kind to his particularly craggy looks), and the film is not subtle about him being too old to be a Double Oh (in fact failing the tests for reinstatement as an MI6 agent).

Since Casino Royale was his debut as a Double Oh, and Quantum of Solace took place immediately after that ... will there be a web series or an animated take on this James Bond's actual exploits? His obituary in Skyfall mentioned he's a Commander, and in the other two films he was barely above a recruit. What have we been missing? :D



Also ... the overt nod to Goldfinger was one thing. But the "Circle is Now Complete" ending just reeks of goodbye to Daniel Craig as James Bond. Reportedly he wants out of his 5-film contract, but Alex heard him muse on future installments of the series. I don't know what to make of it. But at the very least I feel we've been gipped out of Daniel Craig's prime James Bond adventures. (Le sigh.)

All the stuff about Craig wanting out seems to come from a single quote to Rolling Stone which reads to me like standard self deprecating talk. He said he's wanted out since he first got the role. So if that is true, he hasn't been very effective to date.

I don't know about in the Craig-as-Bond universe but in Fleming's-Bond universe his rank of Commander had nothing to do with his MI6 service but was his Royal Navy rank before becoming a secret agent. If that carries over he was a commander in Casino Royale as well as in Skyfall.

Ah thanks for that. I'm not familiar with the book history. My familiarity with the film history is hardly comprehensive ... but as I faintly recall, Bond's navy service and his commander rank wasn't mentioned until You Only Live Twice, which was Connery's first (of three) "final" James Bond movies.

But even if Craig's Bond has the same naval history, we still seem to be coming into Skyfall at the end stage of his 007 career, while his other two films were the very beginning. Just an oddment, imo.

I liked "The Perks of Being a Wallflower."

On a different note, I think I kinda hated Cloud Atlas, but my bf loved it. He thought it was romantic, but I hear the filmmakers added in those elements of love surviving through eons of time. I found it cheesy and trite, though I was entertained enough.

The theme of reincarnation did not have to be hammered home by having the same gang of actors appear in different roles in each of the six stories. They were shoehorned in, and some of the accents and especially the make-up was just cringe-worthy.

Some of the stories were interesting, too many were not. It's a pretty film to look at, and the mix of genre's is interesting. But I really hate it when a novel told in a certain way is made suitable (i.e., dumbed-down) for cinema by constant cross-cutting.

As I understand it, the novel tackles it Story A, B, C, D, E and F - each to a certain point, and then wraps them up F, E, D, C, B and A. To me, that's a much more interesting structure, and I contest the assumption it can't work on film and instead all six stories must be constantly intercut. That's hack work. Quite literally. Sure, it prevents boredom. It also prevents getting more than mildly interested in any of the stories.

As I also understand it, there is only one character reincarnated from story to story in the novel. The casting suggestion that everyone is reincarnated was silly, imo, and it was actually distracting trying to figure out who was playing who in each story under tons of make-up.


I'm going to read the book. Bah on the movie.

Sony Vaio isn't a sponsor, per se. The film is made by Sony. I know first-hand that any footage or marketing of a Sony film that includes any gadgets other than Sony (Vaio computer, Ericsson phone, etc) is not permitted. Like, "completely redo your CGI immediately" not-permitted.

Wow, that's way creepier than actual product placement.

That's pretty damn smart. Thought I did see a (very long and rather dumb) Sony VAIO commercial featuring Bond recently, so this one is technically a tie-in.

I think Cloud Atlas looks fascinating. I didn't read the book so maybe I will still like it.

Bill and I were discussing the rumor that Daniel Craig may be giving up the Bond roll. Then we thought; wouldn't it be cool if the next 007 was a woman? It's about time MI6 hired a woman for the position! "Bond, Jane Bond."

If Craig does leave there has been a lot of talk for Idris Elba getting the role (none of it from people who'd make the decision). So black is probably as radical a choice as is likely to happen.

Besides, this movie demonstrated that women are really suited to field world.

Oooo I love Idris Elba!

Finally saw Moonrise Kingdom.

I can give no objective analysis of whether that was a good movie or not. Wes Anderson simply gives me a raging cineboner and I love every color-filtered, socially awkward, dysfunctional frame he flickers in front of me.

I'm pretty sure you can get a cineboner at your local mall's food court. Way too many calories. And it is unlikely to actually use the best cinnamon in the world.

Cineboner distraction or not, Moonrise Kingdom IS a fantastic movie. I'm not an automatic Wes Anderson tumescencer, so this is an unbiased fact.

Two biopics. Both slice of professional life, one famous project each. One was surprisingly meh to me, the other nearly as surprisingly delightful.



I hate to say it, but Lincoln is a bit dry. It's an important film about an important piece of history. It's got fantastic performances throughout, most especially and obviously that of Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln. Any time he was on screen, I was captivated and the film soared. But when he wasn't, it started to fall decidedly flat and get a bit tedious.

The problem, of course, is that the film concerns lobbying and political machinations behind attempts to pass the 13th Constitutional Amendment - banning slavery - through the raucous House of Representatives. If passing a bill through Congress sounds like it might be a challenge to make cinematically interesting, you'd be right. It's a bit of a chore, and it left me feeling that every movie about passing a bill through Congress should be a musical (*cough*1776*cough).

Later in the film, when passage of the Amendment looks in doubt, A. Lincoln gets more personally involved with the project and the film picks up tremendously. But it's a little too little too late, and Lincoln, the film, left me a little disappointed. (Mindful, though, that Lincoln, the character channeled by Daniel Day Lewis, left me enthralled.)


* * * * *


Hitchcock, on the other hand, is breezy, charming, funny, and a pure delight. Reportedly, the biopic takes liberties with history and with the personal lives of its protagonists, Alfred and his wife & collaborator, Alma - wonderfully portrayed by Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren, during the making of Psycho. But it hardly matters. It's a really enjoyable romp through an interesting bit of film history, with some really interesting characters.

Sure, it's a lazy shortcut that Hitchcock's personal psychology is typically assumed to be starkly reflected in his own work. But Hitch himself worked hard to make "Alfred Hitchcock" a pop-culture character, and few directors have an ouvre that paints such a clear picture of obviously consistent personal obsessions.

The supporting cast is great, and the actors playing the actors from Psycho deliver a fine combination of imitation and inspiration. Hopkins appropriately leads the way with a performance that by definition requires such a strong reliance on impersonation.


I should also mention I enjoyed Hitchcock far more than I did The Girl - an HBO television production about Hitch's relationship with Tippi Hedron during the filming of The Birds and Marnie, that also debuted recently. Toby Jones doesn't fair nearly as well in tackling Hitchcock as does Hopkins, and The Girl is kind of creepy in portraying a slightly older Hitch as far more threatening and harassing.

Hitchcock is a bit more subtle with Hitch's dark side, often using the concepit of imagined scenes of the director communing with the spirit of Ed Gein, the serial killer who inspired Psycho, to hint at his own inner creepiness.


In both the cinema and cable TV movies about Hitchcock, a highlight is the director's personal and sadistic involvement with getting the most horrified reactions from his leading ladies when it counts. Fun, fun.

But there are too few delights in the TV movie, and a multitude of them in the movie movie, about the making of a movie ... and one of the best is seeing Hitch in the theater lobby while the shower scene plays for the opening night crowd. Priceless.


If you like slice-of-life biopics, both Lincoln and Hitchcock are worthy of your time. But if you've stomach only for one, I recommend it be Hitchcock.



Tellingly, Lincoln will take two-and-a-half hours of your time, Hitchcock barely more than 90 minutes.

For Thanksgiving we pulled out the Ice Storm to get in the Holiday Spirit. I was surprised by how much better the film seemed since my last viewing. Such a delightful morality tale about people's failure to communicate - and the whole Key Party sequence is worth the price of admission.

ISM, next you'll be saying you don't like Shakespearean histories.

Remember, this was a Spielberg/Kushner thing. The film was not about passing the Thirteenth Amendment. It was about the horrors of the Holocaust and Israel's need to stand up to Hamas. It was also about the imminent universal legitimization of gay marriage. That's why the Congressman who accuses Stevens of caving on broad principle was played by a fairly flamboyant actor and why Stevens's quadroon housekeeper lover whom we saw him in bed with was played by a notorious lesbian.

There. You can enjoy it more, now.

Hated pretty much everythign about The Hobbit. Seeing it in 48fps certainly didn't help it out (I thought it resulted in everything looking more fake, not more real and I never got used to it; but this is why I've never been interested in Bluray, the demo movies at the TV store look awful and cartoony and fake to me; wouldn't mind seeing it for something that isn't almost pure CGI).

There is 80 minutes, maybe, of move expanded to 170 minutes. All the worst excesses of the last half of the LOTR trilogy and King Kong without much in the way of narrative or character progression.

About halfway into the movie I actually got into my normal airplane seat sleeping posture and tried to go to sleep as a form of escape (I was in the middle of the row due to the 3D and couldn't tell if Lani was enjoying it). Didn't work for more than a couple minutes. Though I did manage to jump suddenly from Gandalf, Cate and Future Bad Guy having a talk in Rivendell to suddenly watching cartoons cling to Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Rock Bots.

So let me condemn this movie in the strongest way: I'd rather have to spend a weekend watching the Transformers trilogy over and over (and some of you may recall how much I hated each Transformers movie) than sit through half of this one again.

=====

Conversely, I'm surprised by how much I loved Lincoln. The opening scene is bad and the epilogue is Spielbergian glurge but I adored everything in between.

I really enjoyed Life of Pi.



I may not even bother seeing The Hobbit. Unless I'm suddenly in the mood for a three hour train wreck.

I enjoyed a fair chunk of The Hobbit, but big swaths of it washed past me as the late night wore on. I just don't like gimmicky action sequences, and there is no shortage of them here. Three movies out of this slender book was a bad decision, made for craven reasons. I really like Martin Freeman as Bilbo, though.

Saw Hitchcock. It was fine. Didn't much care for the gimmick of it and Hopkins' performance never stopped feeling like an impersonation to me.

Mirren was very good and she'll get a nomination simply for her 45 seconds of telling off Hitchcock.

Of interest to me was seeing Michael Stuhlbarg in minor parts in both Lincoln and Hitchcock. He jumped off the screen both times while not having much to do. He was good in A Serious Man (a film I didn't fall for like a lot of people did) a couple years ago.

I'd like to see more of him.

Ditto that. He's got a recurring role on Boardwalk Empire.

Some thoughts on my viewing of Les Mis.

It was almost exactly what I expected, which is fine but never the best thing.

I am waaay too familiar with the score. I couldn't get caught up in it, because I was too busy cataloguing what was new, what was different, and so on.

I didn't mind the extended long takes in head-and-shoulders close-up as much as I feared I would.

Packed house. About two-thirds of the audience I saw it with applauded throughout, could be heard sniffling here and there, and gave a solid ovation at the end. But that other third? They HATED it!!! Quite a few walk-outs, and lots of post-movie comments such as "I was bored every effing millisecond!" and "Why didn't you tell me this was three hours of singing!?"

I think I will enjoy it more on a subsequent viewing, as I'll be more at ease with it. But I'm not in a hurry. (Alas, I'm a little burned out on the show, even though it is a long time major fave of mine.) I suspect I'll own it when it shows up on Blu-ray in a few months, and I'll be glad I have it, but it isn't going to be in heavy rotation.

Amanda Seyfried's warbly trill caused a lot of giggles.

Eddie Redmayne deserves award consideration as much as Anne Hathaway.

Overall, a marginal win, and I hope it grows on me a little more.

The Hobbit wasn't as bad as I feared, despite some really stupid and poorly-timed additions that are not from the book, and a really large plot hole featuring the made-up villain. I call shenanigans on that, because if you are going to make things up that Tolkien never wrote, you might want to make sure it doesn't leave a gaping plot hole that is patently absurd (not to mention lazy, as it could have been fixed with a camera shot or a line of dialogue).*

Other than that, though, when the film was sticking to the book, I found it a perfectly credible - if not spectacular - adaptation of The Hobbit. Not bad, and I have higher hopes for the remaining episodes. In fact, if there's ultimately an "un-extended" director's cut released for home video, it might be rather good. :D



* The invented bad guy, an albino orc named Azog, is shown harrasing and chasing our heroes on one side of an immense mountain range, the Misty Mountains. Our gang is then shown going through a series of intense adventures and adverse conditions crossing the mountains - - only to find that same bad guy magically and unexplainedly on the other side. WTF?


There was also little need for TWO prologues. The one featuring cast members from LotR was useless and should have been ditched. Oh, and one wholly-invented tangent backstory just as the plot gets going was bad enough. But to have a second one barely five minutes later really stalled the plot just as it was starting to pick up steam.

Another non-book introduction of LotR stars at Rivendell was also stupid. But the sour points were few, and everything else was decidedly Not Bad. I did not brave the 48fps version. The normal, 24fps 2-D film looked suitably pretty.

Though The Hobbit did not drag at nearly 3 hours, I found Django Unchained really breezed by at that same length. Full of mayhem, horror, violence and black comedy, it's the perfect Christmas Movie!

Quentin Tarantino is back in fine form with this revenge-plot send up of spaghetti westerns. Everyone in the cast was having a ball, and there are great performances by Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christoph Waltz, and Samuel L. Jackson.

Also digging delightfully into the depths of Tarantino's beloved B-movie casts, the supporting players included the likes of Don Johnson, Franco Nero, Tom Wopat, Russ Tamblyn, Bruce Dern, Lee Horsley, James Remar, Michael Parks and Ted Neely! Bwahahah, I missed most of these, and will have to try and spot them on very warranted repeat viewings.


Tarantino did not overdo it on the dialogue scenes this time, which are perfectly interspersed with action bits. The film is brutal in its depiction of American slavery two years before the Civil War, but the violence is by-and-large comic-book gory, and comedy is paired nicely with action and suspense.


I loved it. Not Tarantino's best work, but that leaves it better than many other's. A whole lot of fun. Five stars from me.
:snap: :snap: :snap: :snap: :snap:

I like Django Unchained for the most part. Unfortunately (fortunately?) the non action parts were working so well for me that I was kind of sad to see it descend into a John Woo gunfight.

Also had no problem with the length but will admit that when it became clear the movie was not ending when it first look like it would that I was concerned.

High recommendations for Promised Land.

Saw Les Miserables. Liked it about as much as the stage production.

How did you like the stage production?

About as much as I liked the movie.

Both much less than I like the book.

They're fine, no complaints. But I'm not particularly engaged by the musical.

I love Les Mis. It is my favorite musical.

Saw the movie. Despite a few glaring flaws, the elements that are good are stellar (assuming you like the show to begin with). Jackman is powerful, the production is lovely, and the story and characters come through crystal clear.

The negative points (Crowe, HBC, SBC) were disappointing, but did not at all keep me from being enthralled.

However, I do not recommend seeing it before attending a party. Not exactly the best emotional state to put yourself in in preparation to celebrate.

I'd say it is one of the worst-filmed big budget movies I've seen in a long time. Everything being in extreme closeup kind of rendered breaking the confines of a stage pointless.

Therefore I give Russell Crowe the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he just had trouble singing with a camera up his nose. It was like Tom Hooper figured that rather than using the opportunity of film to expand the stage he'd instead use it to make the audience feel like they were sitting in the front row.

And, Anne Hathaway was very good. But if she wins an Oscar because she sang one song reasonably well I'll be disappointed. I know the precedent is set by Jennifer Hudson, but still. (Also sad to learn that even in heaven she didn't get her hair back.)

Castle in the Clouds and Master of the House are my two favorite numbers and they both came of kind of flat in the movie. Things did start to click in the last 45 minutes or I'd have ended up hating it a fair amount.

Oh, one other minor distraction. By the end, Hugh Jackman was looking an awful lot like Michael Landon on Little House. Especially the one scene where he comes out in an undershirt, wearing suspender. "Who am I? I'm Charles Ingalls!"

Oh, agreed for sue on Master of the House. By far the biggest disappointment for me. Completely sucked all the energy and humor out of it. Bleh.

I had been warned nasal-cam, but was totally okay with it. I suppose because when I heard about it the first thing I thought was, "Well, at least it's not like the Phantom movie where the cast was so bad at emoting that they shot all of the heavy emotional song solos from a helicopter so you didn't have to look at their faces." Being in their face worked for me in a show that's so dependent on the individual characterizations and their intense emotional struggles.

Les Mis was much kinder to its stage source than the Phantom movie. That said, I adore the live Royal Albert Hall production of Phantom released to video this past year. It squashed all memory of the Gerard Butler version. I kind of hope that eventually, a really good complete live staging of Les Mis will happen. (Not a concert.) I'm going to take in a second viewing soon, because I had mixed reactions to it, but now that I've calibrated, I might enjoy it more next time. (So much do I enjoy the show, I really want to get as much out of its imperfect film incarnation as I can.) The close-ups didn't bother me, either. Reviews had led me to expect something much more drastic than what I saw on screen. ("You can count their nose hairs and give them a thorough oral diagnostic exam!")

I don't see how the camera could have been closer. Often it was so close that the actors entire face didn't fit on screen. I think I achieved first name status with some of the pores on Jackman's face.

The reason it doesn't work great for me is that it is redundant. So much of the lyrics are expository. So you end up watching the actor go to great lengths to emote while they are verbally telling you how they feel and why. They're showing AND telling. Completely, in my opinion, undercut Redmayne's number at the end after he'd recovered.

Watching him grieve quite demonstratively while he is also telling me, quite explicitly, how much he is grieving. The result is like one of those literal videos on YouTube.

I hated the show, so I'm not going to bother with the movie till its out on disc.

Some friends saw it last night - but there was a popcorn fire in the theater, so the audience was evacuated before the final half-an-hour. They can go back for free, but have to sit through the whole thing again in order to see the ending. Sounds like torture to me.

Reminds me of when we saw Born on the Fourth of July and a man had a seizure during a particularly intense moment. They stopped the film for a half hour while paramedics came in. This was back in the old-school film projection days.

Catching Up on Oscar Nominated Films, I'm a tad disappointed.

Beasts of the Southern Wild was very sweet, but Best Picture material? Not unless standards have drastically slipped. And I seriously don't understand all the general buzz about this movie. The young thing with the child Oscar nom was very good - but since most of her "acting" was voice-over done in studio, I look a bit askance at an Oscar nom. This film is Highly Over-Rated IMO.


Silver Linings Playbook was adorable. A sweet piece of RomCom fluff with a flavoring of mental illness, which was a cute theme affecting many of the characters - and not just the central couple - which I appreciated. But sweep of the actor categories AND Best Picture? Um, not if this movie had been released before November. No one would remember it. It's an adorable trifle. And just because actors are playing mentally ill does NOT mean those performances are automatically Oscar-worthy. I'm very tired of that trope.

BUT - I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It's just Very Overrated, IMO.


Argo was a very well-told, 70's-era true espionage tale. Very well done. Very entertaining. Also slightly over-rated imo, but only because there's such gushing about it. I've got nothing bad to say about the movie, but it didn't strike me as OMG Fantastic.


Oh well, at least I'm catching up on Oscar noms.

Les Mis is not ironic.

Reminds me of this piece I wrote on having to let go of being distant if you want to embrace all things Disney.

It's so much easier to judge things from afar than to let yourself be moved by someone else's art.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118049265/

Hey Lisa!

Interesting end note:

You'll have to ping her on Facebook, she rarely shows up here these days.

Three Movies.

:snap: Warm Bodies. A completely charming RomCom take on the zombie genre. Really sweet, not too dumb. Completely worked, which I think is quite an achievement. Nicholas Hoult, an adorable teen zombie with an inner mind quite alert and self-aware, is trapped in a zombie body that can only grunt and shamble - until he falls in love with a human girl, becoming more human in the process. The only quibble is Hoult is way cuter as a zombie and becomes kinda less attractive as he becomes more human. But that's a quibble without a complaint. The movie is adorable and funny, and you should go see it. (Besides, I have personal experience proving it's easier to be a cute zombie than a cute boy.)



:cheers: Bernie. Jack Black's finest hour as an actor. Yeah, not a particularly high bar - but this under-appreciated film is quite remarkable. And in a more perfect world, Black would have received some serious acting nominations for major awards. It's the bizarre true story of an East Texas mortician who becomes a community superstar and gets involved in a co-dependent relationship with the town's bitchy rich widow, played by Shirley Maclaine.

Alas, the good times eventually end, the bitchiness returns with a vengeance and Shirley makes Jack her lackey pet. But not before she's already entrusted him with power of attorney over her huge fortune. In a spat, Jack shoots Shirley in the back four times, killing her. But most bizarrely - and TRUE - he successfully conceals her death for NINE MONTHS.

Jack Black is insanely awesome as the title character. Do yourself a favor and rent Bernie.




:( Lastly, I finally got around to seeing Les Miserables.

What a frelling mess!


I fault the source material, and not necessarily the film. There was nothing particularly wrong with "nasal cam," as the close-up-heavy style has come to be derisively known. Also, I can't find too much fault with the decision to have all the music sung "live" and not lip-synched to prerecorded vocals. It was fine for most of the cast and arguably added an urgency and drama to the proceedings.

Much has been made of Russell Crowe's inability to sing - all too sadly true - but not enough has been made of his inability to act. He conveyed far too little menace or obsession as the intractable pursuer Javert. A very weak link in a wobbly chain.

And that's because, as a piece, and despite its vast success, Les Miserables sucks as a musical, or as anything. It's boring. The "songs" such as they are, reek of interstertial meandering and sing-songy inbetweeny droning on. There are only two what could properly be called Songs - one is a misconceived, poor-man's Sweeney Todd rip-off that is the show's only legitimate "number," but falls flat and stands out like an unwelcomely sore and third thumb. The other is a nice enough song, sung by Anne Hathaway as Fantine - - but it's absurd that she's sweeping all the awards and will likely win the Oscar for her 4-minute performance.

She's fine. But Best Supporting Actress? Pulease! She's in the film for 10 minutes, and has one song - albeit the only decent melody in the entire long piece. Yes, she sings with a swollen red crying nose. And she dies. Give her the Oscar!


I think the problem with the piece is its basically four vignettes (and Hathaway indeed features strongly in one of them), that become increasingly less interesting as they progress. Not the preferable arc of a story. Hugh Jackman is fine in the lead role as Jean Valjean - but his character completely disappears for the 3rd vignette and he hasn't really had much chance to cement his character by then - as each vignette suddenly stops and flashes forward by 10 years or so ... and it left me feeling I kept getting cut off just as I was getting to know him. Then he reappears for the last vignette, but it's too late. His whole arc has been choppy and then he comes back after being gone for a whole segment of the story. Just weird.

But an even bigger problem with the piece is, of course, the music is horrible. That's a bad thing for an operatic piece where 95% of it is sung. Yet it's also a common trap of opera, where there's too little tunefulness and too much sing-songy droning. I think Javert and Valjean each had a couple of what could be called songs - but I really couldn't tell when they started or ended. The whole piece seemed to be droning on in a vaguely musical vein of low-key dirge - except for two actual songs - as I said, one horribly ill-conceived, and the other inexplicably Oscar-bait.

Despite the purportedly epic scope of the 40-year story, it was ultimately boring. It would have been ok if it were depressing, or emotionally resonant in any way. But it was just dull.


Again, mostly due to the source material. The filmmaking was really ok. Yeah, I know it's a widely beloved piece. But it sucks. I'm a gay man, and I know musical theater. Quasi-Operas are a bit more difficult, but there are good ones and bad ones. Les Miserables is one of the worst. I can't believe this is nominated for best picture. It's a decent version of one of the worst musicals ever conceived. Do yourself a favor and skip the movie ... read the book.

I still adore completely disagreeing with you, iSm. :iSm:

And I get to agree with him.

Except for nasal cam. That sucked pygmy-donkey balls.

I watched a screener at home. So the nostrils were not 4 feet wide each. I think nasal-cam works better on the small screen. But the movie still sucked.

Saw a film on HULU's Criterion collection called "I am Curious (Yellow)"

At one time this was supposed to be a shocking, X-rated, banned film but now is nothing but a bunch of nonsense. I wonder if the controversy overpowered anything redeeming in the film...?

I rented it years ago and found it, um, talky. I rented it because I remembered my father telling me as a kid about the lines in Times Square to see it while I nodded in bafflement.

Oh pooh. It's only on HULU plus and I'm a cheap ass bastard.

Interesting note, I also checked Amazon Prime streaming and it does not have "I'm curious (yellow)" but suggested I might like "The Partridge Family Season 2" instead.

I remember hearing there was a controversy with Jackie O being photographed exiting the theatre playing I am Curious Yellow. I'm sure she was disappointed too.

A classic he said/she said moment this evening.

We were walking Jack (The Jack Russel) in a light rain when I started humming "Singing in the rain". That got us talking about what a great movie that was. It wasn't too long before we realized, she was thinking Gene Kelly and I was thinking Malcolm McDowell.

Green Lantern Writer To Pen Blade Runner Sequel

So much horror in so few words.

They're remaking Plan 9 From Outer Space. It's called Plan 9. Here's a sneak peek.

What a... curious choice for a movie to remake....

Wasn't Plan 9 the ninth plan of the evil aliens, not a plan of the survivors?

I'd give them props if they had the foresight to cast a big star who died in the middle of the production.

Yes, it was.

Sorry, this silly ass trailer looks like it's missing half the fun of the Ed Wood original with 100 times more budget. Hell, Burton's Ed Wood is so much more fun.

Going to watch The Fifth Element tomorrow as a nostalgic romp.

A fine movie, but you NEED to watch "The Princess Bride".

Watched Burlesque instead. Christine Agulthingy can sing, can't she? and Cher was FABBY.

Fifth Element Thursday and then Princess Bride on Friday Night with Pizza.

Excuse me Mr. Bear, but I have not heard any updates on your viewing of the Princess Bride. Don't make me come down there and pull a Clockwork Orange viewing party on you.

Seriously WTF?

Disney has made the top two most expensive movies ever made. Go ahead guess which two. I dare you. I double dog dare you to guess them.



Yeah, didn't see that coming did you?

Source

I noticed that list was created in 2010. However, the list doesn't change much when updated OR adjusted for inflation

Tangled had something like seven years of abandoned development before they started on what finally turned into the movie. Did all those sunk costs get included?

They filmed Pirates 2 and 3 as a single production, how'd they split costs?

I would emagine they have a work order for each scene they shoot, and which film it was for. I'm sure costs were very carefully monitered for for each work order and script, and if something like catering were shared, the cost could be split (by head perhaps). Just a guess.

Oh, I'm sure Disney has an internal method of determining how to split costs. I just highly doubt that was shared since such things are rarely announced or publicly confirmed.

Finally saw Inglorious N-word Django Unchained

Pretty much exactly the same reaction I had with Tarrantino's previous historical fiction revenge porn fantasy. Well put together movie and all, but in the end, so much of the emotional impact it's supposed to have relies on the, "F yeah! Those sons of bitches got what they deserved!" factor. And I can't help but be immediately crushed with the followon thought of, "Oh..wait...they totally DIDN'T get what they deserved. That's a bummer."

I'm sure for most people it's just a cathartic fantasy, and certainly I am on board with other impossible fantasies...but something about the historical certainty that, no, this did not happen just ruins it for me.

Loved Gravity.

A side note: The previews were the usual special effects dominant yuk that one would expect to see prior to a movie full of special effects. Which this was. Except this truly was not that kind of movie, so it seemed a bit tin ear-ish to run those previews

Did you see it in Imax 3D? I'm planning to see it in that format on Friday. It looks like it will be good.

Quite like it. Have to be willing to ignore the liberties taken with delta-v, but otherwise compelling without too much physics issues.

That's exactly what I was thinking during the combined Alien/Barbarella homage.

Had an interesting discussion about "Gravity" this weekend, despite no one involved having seen the actual movie.....

What film genre would you put "Gravity" in? I think it's a Historical Drama. A period picture.

I think "Gravity" has moments of novel and unexpected beauty, which is what one goes to the movies for.

The big problem (and I haven't read the science nitpicking spoilers) are, and I could easily be wrong:



But I've seen Cuaron quoted as essentially saying "I had a story I wanted to tell and it could be told with real world orbital placements. So I put everything in unreal orbits and told the story."

I'm ok with that.

I enjoyed it despite that lack of physical truth. On that particular note, more troubling to most people seems to be that Sandra Bullock's hair stays flatly in place in zero gravity environments when they took so much trouble to establish zero gravity with other effects.

I think movies can establish their own laws, even physical ones. So having her body be in Zero-G, but not her hair seems indeed a mistake. But the orbiting debris and chain-reaction failure of most com satellites is a movie McGuffin which I was happy to accept.

My problem with the film was how shallow it was - though it serves well its own purpose as a space disaster thriller told practically in real time. It was indeed thrilling, and absolutely stunningly beautiful. But it was empty of anything but the battle for survival against the elements and constantly upping ante.

So I enjoyed it, but it's not super memorable or impressive. Even the beauty results from it being practically an animated film. I think there are a few actual live-action shots in the third act, but the movie is basically a cartoon - and somehow I give less points to a gorgeous cartoon than I do to a gorgeous live-action film.

Alas then, I also have to give less points to the fantastical 17-minute shot that opens the movie. It's fantastically choreographed, but how hard is that in an animated film? Ironically, the director, Alfonso Cuaron, achieved some truly spectacular, exceedingly lengthy live-action shots in his last movie, Children of Men.

This all being said, I'm planning on paying to see Gravity again at the Chinese IMAX next weekend - and I can't even think of when I last paid to see a movie twice. But this film simply will not be a 10th the film it is once it's reduced to home video size.

So go see Gravity, see it Big, be entertained, and then be prepared to forget it.

Dude:



So there.

Yes, that was the one scene in the movie, including the bit that took me by surprise but was supposedly a deadgiveaway to anyone with a pulse ... that was the only scene in the movie that seemed like there was any sort of anything to this movie. I really really liked that scene. I cannot expect a movie that was doing what this movie did to have any more scenes than that which made it seem more like a movie, but nonetheless I felt like it was a pretty empty exercise at the end - except for that one really good scene. Everything else was super tense rad fun beautifulness, but empty. Empty as space. :p

We saw Gravity at the Chinese last night. We both loved it. It's worth the drive to see it in true IMAX (not this "IMAX Experience" BS).

If you have not been to the Chinese in a while, you'll be in for a surprise. The seats are no longer raked, it's stadium seating now. The interior has been spruced up well http://instagram.com/p/fRrIOQBT0K/# and the screen is gigantic and wonderful. http://instagram.com/p/fRrKyyBT0O/#

BACK UP






We?

Yes, it is a movie directed by Madonna.

Just a heterosexual friend. Sorry, didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Aw shucks, got me all twtterpated fer nuthin' :)

Just made it back from seeing "Saving Mr. Banks."

If that movie does not get a nod for best picture it will be a P.L. Travesty!

As time has gone by I've thought less and less of it. It entertained me while I was in the theater but whenever I think about it ever since I like it less, it's just so trite in its psychobabble.

I'm still working my way through my extended Netflix queue. Today they are shipping me:

"Lady and the Tramp" and "Kill Bill vol. 1"

Says a lot about my life right there.

Yesterday I saw The Galapagos Affair: Satan Came to Eden, a documentary in pretty limited release (I think it is in 8 theaters).

Found it very interesting and recommend it if it is in your area (or when it is eventually streamed somewhere).

Primarily it is a documentary about the story told here, supported with lots of great home movie footage. But it also touches a lot on what it is to remove yourself from society (these are people who moved to an uninhabited island in the Galapagos specifically to get away from all society and authority) and how that trickles down into the next generation.

I'll have to look for it, the story looks really interesting.

I was guessing it was about an invasive species, I was wrong.

Well, you could argue you were still right.

Well, I finally got around to screening Saving Mr. Banks. On the home big-O-vision, which is less than optimal than the big screen.

I was a little bothered by some of the glitchy modern things, like the security door lock in the hotel room for P.L. Travers. Back in the day it would have been a chain people, nto the sliding hinge! Also, I realize they could not CGI the Carousel in Fantasyland to the original location, still bugged me. That's all minor crapola caveats.

I loved Thompson (as always) and thought Hanks was good but he just did not really try to sound like Walt at all. Or is that just me and a faulty aural memory? Just sounded like Tom Hanks.

Other than that, I adored the movie. Wept like an 8 year old.

So apparently JJ Abrams have tapped a writing team from within the unwashed ranks of Bad Robot writers to write the script for the next Star Trek movie. They have no produced credits to their name (though apparently they've also been asked to write an upcoming new Flash Gordon movie being produced by Fox).

Briefly met one of them at a party this weekend. Unfortunately didn't have much of a chance to talk to him (and he was a little embarrassed that the host made a point of announcing those two facts to those within earshot). But I had 2 observations. 1) Dude appeared younger than me. Weird. 2) I overheard him talking positively about the influence of Bob Odenkirk on his sensibilities, so I have some faith that I like this guy's style.

My version of that story:

Yes, you can take a 4 year old to a party by the beach with nothing but adults in attendance.
Yes, you might meet a person who is co-writing the next Star Trek film.
No, you won't be able to talk to him.

Cool. But after the last movie I have no faith that JJ Abrams has any sense of what a good Star Trek movie would be so even if they write one I doubt he'd make it.

If it makes you feel better Abrams is only producing this one, not directing.

I liked both of his, but can see why someone would not like them.

It doesn't make me feel any better since I assume as producer he is picking the script. But Star Trek is so ingrained in me from childhood (I was much more into it than Star Wars) that I'm sure I'll see whatever BS he continues to spew out and then slap a "Star Trek" brand on.

(And I was moderately ok with the first one. The second was was just awful, stupid, awful some more, and so far down the path of being a comic book movie that it couldn't see the Star Trek universe with the viewscreen on full magnification.)

Get used to it: the feeling will hit you more and more as time goes on. For the firs time in my life, I am working for someone younger than me.

Sorry for getting off topic… Movies, writing, plots, etc.

I just wish Abrams would quit the stupid lense flare crap. It's in his movies and TV, and it's awfull. And awfully annoying. It use to be called bad filming, now he thinks it's artsy fartsy or something.....

Good things come to those who wait. I was able to pick up Raiders Of The Lost Ark plus Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade from Amazon today.

That price wouldn't be too bad if it came with a solid gold idol....

Just not snippets about the interesting part of the story (you have no idea what happened to the ballplayers).

For as purely formulaic movie as it was it was well enough done. But I walked away feeling they took a very interesting story and focused on the least interesting part (the personal growth of the savior white guy figure).

Just saw The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug.

UGH, what an utter waste of time. A movie created to bridge the furtherance of the plot. Truly, a bridge to nowhere.

It was a movie to further increase Peter Jackson's paycheck.

Disney is making a movie from "Into the Woods"

Rapunzel is in into the woods.




In "Into the Woods" Rapunzel dies.

She is chased through the woods by a wolf. But she comes to a cabin made of candy, and takes refuge. She is quickly confronted by an old hag that runs a house of ill repute and an Appple Store with seven dwarfs. She is killed by the old hag, and eaten.

But fear not! She has her revenge as a huntsman on the back of a dragon fly in and set fire to the cabin and surrounding woods, causing all of the animals to flee! I love happy endings!

;) :evil:

Have any of you been to see a movie mixed for Dolby Atmos in a theater with Atmos (AMC seems to call it "ETX")

I noticed there are now a couple of theaters in my area that carry it and I'm wondering if it's worth the cost/travel time.

I have seen the Regal, AMC, and Cinemark versions of these premium screenings. No idea as to what supposedly is involved.

Other than being louder I've not noticed anything worth the extra money. I've not paid for the even more premium service of sitting in one of the special seats with build in speakers and whatnot.

But I'm nowhere close to an audio snob (we'll leave out the part where I'm convinced 99.99% of audio snobs can tell the difference either, they just like thinking they can).

I usually go to the AMC downtown Disney, and they don't have it. But the AMC 30 at the block does. I may have to give it a try, it sounds interesting (pun intended). I enjoy the IMAX 3D, but at $19 a ticket it's getting expensive!

Which brings me to the point that I think that to gauge a movies' success, they should also publish the number of tickets sold, not just the dollar figure.

I'd like to give it a try this weekend, but having to see transformers 4 is a heavy price to pay for trying out a new audio format.

I generally agree, but that's about speaker qualities like tone and timber. Simply adding more speakers is a difference that's easy to spot no matter how un snob-ish you might be. Speakers overhead give a different sound stage than just the typical wall mounted speakers or at least that's the theory of Atmos.

Oh, I can tell it is different. I can't discern any improvement.

From what I have seen:

Not all special/enhanced/whatever they call it theaters have Atmos.
(For example "Imax" theaters don't seem to have it)
If it is an Atmos theater, only a few movies are mixed for it.
If it is an Atmos theater, and the movie is mixed for it, the locals don't always remember to turn it on.

So it's possible (probable?) you have not seen a movie with Atmos yet.

Rocky Balboa: [noticing Mickey's hearing aid] What's that in your ear there?
Mickey: What it is, is I hear stupid things better.