The cinema is so shit its not funny and if you are seeing more than 40 films a year you might as well get a HD projector and decent surround sound system it will be infinetly better than what a cinema can offer.

even though technically a cinema should be able to do things better they muck it up getting sound levels wrong , focus wrong , marks on scree, idiots in room with you WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU WANT TO WATCH A FILM IN A ROOM FILLED WITH PEOPLE you don't know !? , noisy food , uncomfortable seats , adverts before film , trailers that show whole fucking plot of future films , anti piracy bullshit messages , waiting in-line for a ticket , 60% of the seats in places that are a detremnt to the viewing angle and the sound.

for $3500 you can get a home system that avoids all the shit of the cinema and delivers things to a higher quality than what would happen on average when you see a film at the cinema.

Granted you might just "enjoy the cinima" for no real objective resoins purely its an engraind thing you have done from a young age and then regardless of all the shit you will probably enjoy it more than a home cinima , and there are definelty some cinimas around that actualy have a degree of charm and add something to the exsperance , but if you are talking about your average multiplex cinima when a new film is out or when its normaly operating the cinima is utter wank.

sorry if you read all that !



Cinimas drive me mental every now and again I fall for the trap and go along thinking oh hay this time it might be ok and every time there is always some shit.

If sum one said you can see a film for free at a cinama or pay £2 not to see it and you had to chose I would pay £2 not to see it.



>> ^budzos:

I came close to that pace in 2001 and 2002 and 2003, seeing 75+ movies theatrically in each of those years...
Drive is showing in the local VIP auditorium, which charges a premium for nicer seats (basically leather recliners) and reserved seating. You can also have a beer in the licensed lounge beforehand, and have drinks delivered to your seat, as it's age restricted to 19 years and up (the legal drinking age here). You can usually count on less miscreants being at those screenings than say the Friday midnight screening of Transformers 3 that I attended in a town that is, shall we say, closer to the airport. However, you still can't count on actual conscientious comportment. In fact I would say most of the most eggregious cases of talking or what I call cinema calisthenics have occured in VIP screenings. Not to mention the actual screen is garbage and I always forget to check but I'm pretty sure they leave the 3D lens on at all times.
I'll probably go see Drive tonight or tomorrow night, and keep my fingers crossed. Because I do really want to see it, and I haven't seen a movie for at least a month.
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^budzos:
I know what you're saying but I honestly can't remember the last movie that was both really good and unspoiled by the audience and or exhibitors. My best movie-going experiences of the past five years can only be described as tolerable. The best ones were probably when I was going through an alcoholic phase in early 2008 and seeing lesser-grade movies while drunk and sneaking beer and cider in there with me (helps when it's winter).
I'm currently having the dilemma that I really want to see DRIVE, especailly after loving the shit out of VALHALLA RISING by the same director on blu-ray. But I know if I see the movie in theatres some jackass will be there on a first date, or with his little brother, or having some other reason for non-stop jabber.

As someone who sees something like a hundred movies theatrically per year, I definitely feel your pain. There's nothing worse than having your theatre-going experience ruined by some no-good douchebag who thinks it's okay to talk, or to text, or to generally be an asshole in the theatre. But it is possible to have a good movie-going experience. Sometimes it's even in your control -- one big tip is to be willing to move, which seems obvious but a lot of people aren't willing to do it, for whatever reason. Obviously this doesn't work when the movie is packed, but otherwise, even just moving a couple of rows away from a talking douchebag is generally far enough to be able to enjoy the movie again.
There's also some theatres that, for whatever reason, seem to attract a certain group of people. Figure out what these theatres are, and avoid them. Then of course, there are going to be times when you're going to have a bad experience no matter what. But, to me at least, the good experiences make up for the bad ones.
And see Drive. That is a seriously good movie -- probably one of my favourites of the year so far.

I love this film. I bought it on dvd for my bro but I think it might be a bit too dark for him. I heard Cronenberg is working on a new film with the screenwriter for Schindler's List, Searching For Bobby Fischer - American Gangster - hope that turns out alright.

Hells yes. Bet you don't even remember that Jabba the Hutt was briefly seen in The Phantom Menace.

Watching the animatronic Jabba in ROTJ you can "feel" his weight just by watching him.

But, the march of progress...Avatar sucked, but that CG was a triumph.

>> ^Sagemind:

I'm so completely tired of CG characters. I believe that's partialy what killed the Star Wars Experience in the new films.
When I was a kid, the magic came from the behind the scenes making of sets, ships and creatures. The CGI aliens just don't have that tangent real feeling. Sure they make a great stand in and I understand certain things just can't be done in reality but use the real Creature Creation wherever possible.
Use the green screen for sets and for group or far shots but at close up, Use Real.
Imagine if all the Orcs in LOTR were CGI. Sure they used CGI but they had a hell of a lot of actual guys in makeup and costume to sell it as well. I know, Gollum was CGI, wouldn't have been my choice but they did put a lot of effort into him.
I believe with today's technology for Real effects, Creature Creation (and added CGI where needed), they could make far more convincing characters where we would identify with them emotionally as well as visually.

I'm so completely tired of CG characters. I believe that's partialy what killed the Star Wars Experience in the new films.

When I was a kid, the magic came from the behind the scenes making of sets, ships and creatures. The CGI aliens just don't have that tangent real feeling. Sure they make a great stand in and I understand certain things just can't be done in reality but use the real Creature Creation wherever possible.

Use the green screen for sets and for group or far shots but at close up, Use Real.

Imagine if all the Orcs in LOTR were CGI. Sure they used CGI but they had a hell of a lot of actual guys in makeup and costume to sell it as well. I know, Gollum was CGI, wouldn't have been my choice but they did put a lot of effort into him.

I believe with today's technology for Real effects, Creature Creation (and added CGI where needed), they could make far more convincing characters where we would identify with them emotionally as well as visually.

>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^Raaagh:
Ok, I'll admit it - I shouldn't have switched from wine to scotch on Sat night.

I was under the impression that scotch was for breakfast. No? Oh.


Scotch is for all the time.

>> ^Raaagh:

Ok, I'll admit it - I shouldn't have switched from wine to scotch on Sat night.


I was under the impression that scotch was for breakfast. No? Oh.

I always interpret someone nitpicky-tearing apart a TRAILER as a premature criticism. I don't spend too much time worrying about how much a crap-resolution mis-soundsynched-from-frame-one trailer does injustice to the 18-year-old prequel. I try to relate it to whether it might excite me enough to go see the movie itself, and if it's a delightful old franchise sequel, if it has enough carryover for me to determine there is a plausible link between the old and the new films.

Given what they showed, I say yes to both. I might be wrong and the movie might very well suck, but it won't be because some colours got changed. Geez.

(And the clip works for me.)

I also think it's rather small minded (from a feminist mind, who you'd think would be very open) to suggest that the films 'have a female presence' if they have 2 named women pop up and have a chat.

"Hey sara"
"Hey lucy"
"I bought some new lipstick"
"Cool"

-- That's the start of my new film, the rest is all about muscle bound men cracking wise and comparing muscles. Apparently it has the feminist stamp of approval.

(I hope i've made my point that there's more to "female presence" and fighting female stereotype than some stupid list of rules that can even count out films about female heroes)

Teaser for the new film, 'Feline Centipede'.

Can't find a replacement. Here's the transcript in case some lonely wanderer wonders what this video was about:

Oct 14, 2008
"MADDOW: Coming up, Academy Award-winning director, Oliver Stone, joins us here in the studio to talk about his new film “W” or “double-u” if you‘re one of those east coast media elitists. Hopefully, I can persuade Mr. Stone to share his opinions about the life and career of President George W. Bush, but you know how shy Mr. Stone is. I will do what I can.

First though, it‘s time for a few underreported holy mackerel stories in today‘s news. Ready for the first one? Quote, “In the beginning of the timing of the laws, I said there is no difficulty‘s base.” What? Huh? What I said was, “In the beginning of the timing of the laws, I said there is no difficulty‘s base.”

Does that make any sense to you? Yes, me neither. And neither did it make sense to the judge, the military officers, or lawyers working one of the tribunals at Guantanamo recently, when an American paid Arabic translator dictated to them that nonsense sentence, as if it made sense in English.

Does the phrase “lost in translation” spring to mind? Five key defendants charged in conjunction with 9/11 are moving towards jury trials. The U.S. military lawyers assigned to defend them say that translation services have been done so on the cheap that they estimate about half of what a defendant stated in the hearing room was mistranslated and a ¼ of what was said in English in the courtroom never made it back to the defendant. There are standards for these sorts of things, you know, at, say, federal courts or the international criminal courts but at Guantanamo, apparently? Not so much.

Remember the case there about Osama bin Laden‘s alleged driver? That actual phrase, “bin Laden‘s driver” was repeatedly translated as “bin Laden‘s lawyer.” What‘s the difference?

And time is running out for American troops to be in Iraq legally. The United Nation‘s mandate that allows our troops to be there expires at the end of this year. What happens when that mandate expires? Well, the Bush administration has long expressed confidence that the Iraqi government and the White House could sign a status-of-forces agreement—a country-to-country, one-on-one plan for keeping our troops there.

But after months of a stalemate and trying to reach such an agreement, one of the Iraqi vice presidents this week finally said that he doesn‘t think it‘s going to happen in time. So, that means after December 31st, it will be illegal for American troops to be on Iraqi streets.

Karen DeYoung from “The Washington Post” reports today that American officials are looking for a plan B if the status-of-forces negotiations really don‘t work out. What is plan B? Apparently, the Bush administration might try to get that U.N. mandate extended. That would require a vote in the U.N. Security Council where Russia holds a veto and Russia, you may recall, would just love an opportunity like that to shove us our locker and steal our lunch money.

So that makes me think “B” in that plan stands for “bad,” as in if that‘s your only plan, that‘s a bad plan. Karen DeYoung suggests that a few other plan Bs might be in the works as well, though Plan B-1 - I guess we‘d call it. A plan B-1 would be, quote, “a simple handshake agreement between Bush and the Iraqi prime minister to keep troops around until the next president takes over and starts negotiating again.”

A handshake deal? You would ride 150,000 American lives on a handshake deal? Maybe I could suggest a plan C, “C” as in “see you.” If the Iraqi government doesn‘t want us to stay enough to sign a deal for to us stay, how about we leave?"

In reply to this comment by ant:
Screw those newer actors. http://www.videosift.com/video/Star-Trek-as-The-A-Team FTW!
New actors but same characters..maybe in some parellel universe the new actors are old and Nimoy and everyone are young and they are starring in the new film!

A whole new film language. Before you had to use fake depth cues to make a scene translate to a flat image. Now with 3D you have real depth cues. Cameron has spent years just to figure out this new film language. He hasn't made a less than great film yet! I hope this one holds up.
-Karl

>> ^enoch:
to quote alizarin:
" And Afganistan... the Taliban (whom attacked us) controls a big chunk of the country and the recent national elections were tainted with fraud. It doesn't make you a hawk to say we might regret this if we don't fix this before we go home does it?"
this is false.the taliban did not attack us,nor do they have a global agenda,they are strictly vying for power in the afghanistan region.ironic that it is the US that put them in power.according to US intelligence it was al'qaeda that attacked the US and they are no longer representative in afghanistan.
http://www.videosift.com/video/re-think-afghanistan-security-brave
-new-films


Indeed, WE put the Taliban in power. This fight isn't about the Taliban. They have their issues and those issues need to be delt with by the governments of Afganistan and Pakistan to be sure, not by us.

We are there for Al~Qaeda. Thats a very different organization with a world wide agenda. The simple fact that so many people mix those two up, or worse consider them the same exact thing, is another legacy of the failure that was the Bush administration.

Frankly no president in the last 80 years has come in to office having so many messes to fix. From multiple wars to the second worst economic crash in our nations history. As much as Faux 'News' likes to announce that Obama is a failure and hasn't done anything in his 10ish months, he has done a great deal and reversed a world view of America and our Government that took 8 years to build up. If thats not worth a Nobel Piece Prize I don't know what is.

to quote alizarin:
"* And Afganistan... the Taliban (whom attacked us) controls a big chunk of the country and the recent national elections were tainted with fraud. It doesn't make you a hawk to say we might regret this if we don't fix this before we go home does it?"

this is false.the taliban did not attack us,nor do they have a global agenda,they are strictly vying for power in the afghanistan region.ironic that it is the US that put them in power.according to US intelligence it was al'qaeda that attacked the US and they are no longer representative in afghanistan.
http://www.videosift.com/video/re-think-afghanistan-security-brave-new-films

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sanders, moore, capitalism, brave new films' to 'sanders, moore, capitalism, brave new films, scandinavia, education' - edited by gwiz665