Search options

oh yes sir! i was mildly skeptical going in (i am not a Dave Eggers fan) but from the opening of the film i was sucked in. i related to Max Records portrayal of Max in so many ways. i agree with a review i heard somewhere that said it was a "Junior Cassavettes" film. the whole time it was like watching someone carry a beautiful Faberge egg, and i kept thinking "please don't drop this!" fortunately, for me, spike jonze never did. it's really an emotional narrative, not so much a straight forward story, but it hits all the right notes (again, for me).

definitely worth a rent (i bought the blu ray dvd combo for when i someday own a blu ray player).

wow. i am sounding like an asshole. which i never meant to do. i meant i don't own an HDTV. i by no means think i am better than someone who does. in fact, wish i did. i so badly want a blu-ray player, it's not funny. but i can't swing it right now. besides, what's the point without the hdtv (1080p not 720... come on, i want true HD).

ANYWAY, sunshine...

so it's revealed in this commentary that dorkman has an ipad...

ipad (particularly first generation)? really? my hatred of Avatar was finally supplemented by my hatred for the ipad. my party line on that product is it's the easiest way to say "Fuck you. I got money."

but i still love you dorkman.

oh and even though sunshine, to me, is almost two different movies, i liked them both.

what i remember from Constantine: brain demons and gavin rossdale. that is all. should be good

Sorry. It appears I exaggerated (but only slightly). I think the last 3D movie i saw was Avatar (on IMAX) and since then I remember hearing they have raised the price.

I just did some quick research (via Movietickets.com) and it appears the difference at the theaters near me (several of which offer IMAX) are:
Regular price - $9
Real D 3D (not IMAX) - $14
3D IMAX - $16

I know it could be much worse, with some cities charging the real D price for regular movies, but there hasn't been anything released recently that i felt the need to pay $7 extra for.

btw, are these prices reasonable? What are theaters charging in other cities?

Love Dorkman's summary of the plot at about the 47 minute mark: "Okay...okay...I'll go talk to the Fallen (who didn't exist before"...'shut up. fuck you.'"

this commentary helped me understand the movie better than the movie did. it still doesn't make sense. but thanks for trying guys.

can't wait to listen to this one!

derek. same name and icon as the last message board. i live in the midwest and though i studied film both here and abroad (a year in australia) i do nothing in the field now

but i do own a down in front hoodie which i wear with pride.

“Let's go see a $500 million sci-fi allegory about the perils of wasteful human behavior”

In this sense I was using the definition of “exploitation film” from the Stephen Heller work “Nightmare U.S.A.” which since I don’t have it near me at the time I can’t quote exactly but I can paraphrase as a film that sacrifices plot in place of some form of spectacle (he quotes I believe Friedman as saying Jurassic Park was one of the most expensive exploitation films ever made, which I am not sure how I feel about that). But more to the point…

I haven’t watched or read much from Cameron about the film, but every television ad I’ve seen (and I don’t watch much television either, but it’s constantly playing when I am out in public) has the text “Movies will… (Shot of blue people)… Never be… (Shot of that lion creature jumping at us)... The Same (robots or something).” So that’s where I was pulling that from. I guess I just felt making this claim was a touch of hubris, and for some reason that really irritated me. But to be fair, as you said, marketing is a completely different beast altogether, and they certainly can’t say “This movie… will do… absolutely nothing.” Knowing that Cameron’s intention with this film was to push the limits of visual effects helps clarify things a little more for me.

Still I wonder (again, without having seen it) how this is going to change CG film making. As beautiful as the trailers look, and they do look stunning, it still has a somewhat cartoon-y feel to it. So much so that someone I saw the trailer with asked me “So this is an animated film?”  Isn’t there an asymptotic effect when it comes to CG? Perhaps I am just being naive.

On a side note: I have been on a big kick since I started listening to the podcast a few months back of going back, re-watching and really appreciating movies with practical effects, in no small part because of Trey’s expertise and input in the discussions (I loved watching the Thing and my new all-time favorite zombie movie is now Return of the Living Dead).

Before I make any further judgments, I am going to completely roll over and see this film, probably even tonight, you know, after my screening of Old Dogs, and most likely have a good time. So what was I arguing about again?

Oh and I completely skipped 2012 (it looked dreadful), but I would like to hear more about this losing the will to live story.

Just finished listening to the commentary and I am going to have to join Mike in that Nightmare loving (1,2,3... and so on). I feel the same way Mike does about loving this film and not quite being on board with the Princess Bride. But hey, that's why they make lots of movies.