Ridley Scott mentions on the commentary for Gladiator that they took out frames during the opening battle to make it more visceral, some of the sword swings etc. are harder as a result, and it works quite well I think. But then they ruin it a few minutes later by doing that smearing rubbish.

I watched Blade last night and was surprised at well it held up - firstly, it has none of that grading crap we're forced to watch these days, and the action was fast paced but clear. The opening club scene is probably one of the best introductions for a character ever.

I honestly don't think Brave fits that description, as the second half is a natural progression from the set-up of act 1.

The first film I noticed doing this was From Dusk Til Dawn, which starts out as a typical Tarantino crime caper and then becomes this ludicrous and gory vampire action flick. And of course, there's Full Metal Jacket as well.

In terms of explaining the apparent resurgence of this type of device, I'd say it could be because the writer or someone involved gets bored of the project or the change in tone/theme is the shock twist. Children do it all time when telling stories or playing; and then Superman flies in and knocks Cobra Commander out!

Another element to the idea of film criticism is that it's not really there to serve the storyteller, to tell him or her how they messed up or how they got it right, it's there to inform the wider audience of the merits and flaws of the entertainment so that they can make an informed decision about whether to spend money on it. How that's communicated, a body gesture or a long tirade, is ultimately irrelevant.

I love Confused Matthew's review of No Country for Old Men, because it very effectively demonstrates why that movie is a complete and utter waste of your time. I wish someone had told me before I wasted mine.

I wish to emphasise this because an interesting development has recently occurred in the games industry with the release of Aliens: Colonial Marines. There was a review embargo on the game before it went on sale, which meant that no-one could post their review of the game before it was released (to have done so would have meant career suicide). Worse, no-one could also voice their concerns in previews due to NDAs. It has now received universal panning from critics, with scores far below what would be expected from a AAA title with 6 years of development time. It's a crap game really. And yet none of the critics could mention a word of it before it was released, before thousands of people pre-ordered the game or went out to buy it on its first day (based on PR and gameplay trailers which now appear to have been a lie). The entire review process failed.

I think it's been clear for a long time, ever since Cumberbatch was cast, that he's not playing Khan. To my mind, the speculation and rumours have been going back and forth over whether he's playing the role of Gary Mitchell (I say yes).

The problem here has been that they simultaneously want to go off and do their own thing but also want to borrow great elements from Star Trek lore, elements that most fans are aware of. So you say Khan and everyone knows, essentially, what's going to happen in the story, and you say Gary Mitchell, and everyone knows what's going to happen. When you re-tell old stories, much of the surprise is taken away, and I don't think the question 'how would this alternate reality Kirk take care of Khan?' is interesting enough for a remake.

"Excel in the Art of Extreme Creepiness".   

Interesting to hear your collective thoughts on Season 1 of DiF. I'd argue that your early commentaries are the most fun and enjoyable. I think it was because back then the analysis and review were done on the fly and came about naturally as you were watching it. I suppose what I'm trying to say, and trying real hard not to be an asshole about it, is that I perhaps preferred it when you're friends in my head chatting about the movie, your reactions and what it meant to you, and not trying to be critics and script doctors (where you sometimes do assume an authority on the topic).

It seems that I'm one of the odd ones out on the forums, my favourite commentaries are the love-fests where the range of topics is also diverse - Apollo 13 for example (unbridled passion for the movie, discussion of the movie's context, knowledge of the film's subject/genre, a classic Trey Rant™).

I'm going to guess that distance from the reality makes it easier for people to like the shits in Attack the Block. They probably seem like totally fictional characters for Americans in the same way that the drug dealers and killers in The Wire seem to me (but wouldn't to, say, someone living in Baltimore).

That's what I thought too, but as an Englishman I can't say it out loud 

I can only assume that this stems from a desire to see Kevin Bacon be awesome in TV, because I cannot fathom wanting him to stay out of the movies.

Empire of the Sun has some stunning work (I'd consider this to be Spielberg's best movie alongside Raiders).

The reveal of the plane I always remember fondly, just a simple dolly shot.

And who can forget the attack on the camp, with Jamie on the roof of the building yelling out in exhilaration and then the slo-mo of the pilot waving back at him?

There's a shot at 1:09 here which is just mindboggling, a perfectly timed pan with a fast flying plane to line up with a fantastic building filling the frame shot. They make it look so easy!

Possibly one of the most effective and powerful over the shoulder shots ever.

And there's a really effective scene in Empire of the Sun where Jamie (Christian Bale) watches a ship in the harbour from his hotel room. There's a loud crack and flash and Jamie falls backwards onto the floor and as he's lying there in shock his father comes in and tells him to get changed except the father appears reflected in the mirror which (I think) has been knocked over. It's such a wonderfully simple and effective set up.

It's stupid, but I figure that if all the stupid stuff has an outlet then it's less likely to show up in the real movies. I can always not see it.

I'm rarely impressed with these as well, except in Rope (which is essentially a filmed play) or a scene which is deliberately building tension by not cutting away, or is a chase scene (like in Children of Men). I was a bit bored by both of the Cuban examples posted. The problem I have with the long steadycam shots is that after a while I become aware that we've not cut away, thus I become aware of the camera. Atonement is a great example, it's a long expansive shot with huge scope and complexity, with all sorts of subjects and backgrounds in the frame over its duration; however, since I'm wondering in amazement 'they've still not cut yet' and am waiting for it, I'm not really into the story at that point. Sometimes, the more technical and outstanding feats of camerawork just give the game away.

The best cinematography, I'd argue, is that which doesn't draw attention to itself but still successfully evokes all the emotions and feelings you'd want with that story.

On another note, I cannot wait until this teal grading shit goes away. [Old Man Voice]It's ruining my movies![/Old Man Voice]