My problem with Ebert is how often his "reasoning" seems to consist of "I'm right and you're dumb." An occasional backpedal is not a bad thing if you can recognize you were wrong/ill-informed about something. Instead he takes the intellectually lazy route of declaring a position based on minimal information and impugning the character or authority of anyone who dares to disagree. Even recusing himself from the video games debate was less "I shouldn't have said anything because I don't know enough about the subject" and more "I shouldn't have said anything because you're all a bunch of mad Philistines who can neither be controlled nor reasoned with."

It was shot digital with an open shutter. It has the same effect as those "motion smoothing" televisions of making things look and feel like they were shot on a video camera (associated with being more "real" since people record their real lives with video) rather than film.

Now finally having a chance to listen to this and hear the bits I wasn't there for, the $10 word Brian may have been reaching for when discussing the more modern acting style could be "verisimulitude." "Simulacrum" would be a good $10 word for a pod person, though.

I actually kind of like the (initial) blase attitude toward the pod people, similar to the attitude the characters have in THE THING when discussing that it's a shapeshifter.

"There's a clone of you dead on the table."
"Yeeup."
"Hm. That's fucked up."
"Yeeup. Want some coffee?"

I dunno. For some reason I like it better than the modern tendency to either become immediately hysterical or just start shotgunning irrational denials in all directions. I feel like if something that crazy happened, but you weren't in immediate apparent danger, you'd almost be too freaked out to be freaked out.

Once the shit really starts going down and immediate risk starts to become apparent, then I see panic setting in. But as long as it's just lying there, after the initial shock I can imagine it being kinda like, "huh."

+1 on liking BATMAN FOREVER, for basically the same reasons Branco said. Pre-Nolanverse I actually think it's my favorite, RETURNS being second.

BATMAN & ROBIN is pretty indefensible though. Although you compare it to AIRBENDER and I think "boy, we didn't know how good we had it with 'bad' back then."

I deleted said bot post. Just so no one thinks maul2 is being a dick to Shifty.

ZARBAN HAS A GIIIIIIIIRLFRIENNNNNNNND

Although to be fair, I wonder how many laughtrack-based sitcoms that you or I consider actually funny would feel equally stilted and awkward without the laughtrack. I bet most of them.

I have only seen a handful of episodes but I couldn't say from which season(s) they came. They were just on -- though it was syndication, not new episodes -- so I thought I'd give it a shot. And...blech. I should probably try watching a few more but I don't think I could respect myself in the morning.

I didn't want to clutter up Zarban's commentary section with a response, so it's here:

Accusations of "ignorance" come from a very provincial perspective of a specific interpretation of the theology. I may not know (or agree) with his interpretation of the Bible, but he seems to be under the impression that his is the only-possible-everyone-agrees-and-certainly-correct-one -- which is, of course, what everyone he disagrees with thinks about their own. I also find it amusing that he makes such accusations of ignorance while himself demonstrating so little understanding of the history of the development of the Bible and especially of early Judaism.

I do personally tend to try not to bring up religion in commentaries unless the movie is religiously themed, in which case I think we should be free to discuss the film's underlying mythology like we do with any other.