DISQUS

I agree with what Brian Henson said when somebody asked him about motion capture films like these, "We don't move from the outside in."

These films fail to look right because they're going at it from the wrong direction. They don't even begin to understand real musculature and movement, and they look dead.

It has Michael Welch in it.

That's all the reccomendation I need. I'll go see anything he's in that's not Twilight (that I'll catch on DVD soon, couldn't bring myself to give it the box office).

So yeah, I'd be there opening night to see him and Aaron Himelstein.

What interests me is how often people will say these kinds of things, like the second translation being "wrong," when nobody really goes in to find out which translation is actually more correct.

This happens in anime often. A fansub will come out, everybody loves it. Then the official sub will be released, the lines will be different, and everybody vilifies it because it isn't what they remembered. But when somebody who actually speaks the language takes a look they find out that the second translation was actually more correct.

I would like to see any movie with a correct translation, I don't really care about what came first or what people like. I want to know what the writer wrote and what the actors said. Sadly, that's part of why I prefer subtitles, because I can hear the original acting and tone.

No. No. Absolutely not. Leave it alone. Back away slowly. I don't care who you are, who good you think you are...nobody in Hollywood is good enough to touch that memory with a ten foot pole.

I realize this is coming from a personal place and not a film one, and normally I just roll my eyes at any planned remake and figure somebody will watch it. But for my own reasons, this makes me more depressed than I can say.

Stop it, stop it, stop it. This is the third film blog that has said Never Let Me Go is just like The Island.

They have one single superficial quality in common, in that they have clones in them. Otherwise they couldn't be more different. Is E.T. the same film as Independence Day because they both have Aliens? No.

It takes 2.5 seconds to read a summary of the novel, and maybe two days to read the novel to know they're nothing alike. Why is that the last thing anybody wants to do? Is it because as a society we're terrified of different and new things so we have to force them to become something we're familiar with? Everything has to be just like something we already liked for us to like it?

Or is it because one person said it and every other blog is just regurgitating the same stuff over and over again instead of actually coming up with it's own topic and tagline?

Besides the fact that it's depressing that nobody has read the book. It's a fantastic book.

There is one movie on this list I would want my guy to tolerate (The Cutting Edge) but otherwise for the most part _I_ hate these movies. When I was making a list of movies my husband should have at least seen, and preferably like it was more classics and a lot less frippery. We both like action movies and sci-fi.

Plus, since I have some really controversial opinions about films that come up in class a lot (I didn't like Jerry Macguire at all) I don't really hold him responsible for liking movies that I like. Tolerating-different story.

Philadelphia Story! THAT is a movie that both sexes should appreciate.

I'm glad to know that my taste in movies gets SOMEONE's stamp of approval ; ) Rooster Cogburn is one of the most classic and amazing characters of all time.

You know, after everything I've read and heard about Brazil when you consider that the truth is usually somewhere in the middle I'm surprised at how much people don't want to give Gilliam any blame in the whole situation. At the least, he acted unprofessionally. Sure, film is an art but getting a film released and shown to people is a business. But I guess it all goes into the popular model of everybody making the producers and the studios the bad guys no matter what.

Thank you for this. My dad made me watch this film years ago because he told me it could show me what bravery and heroism were really about. He wasn't wrong. It remains one of my absolute favorites and I recommend it to anyone that I can.

I honestly think that this particular scene is done in a very cinematic way. It is using something I just learned about and filmed for class, multi-angularity. My teacher was talking about how that was rather unique to the cinematic form but I think I'll have to mention this to her as an example of it being used in another medium.

But yeah, while I could agree for most of the comic, looking at this scene specifically here on this page, I think it's very cinematic and already spot on and ready to be considered a storyboard.

I think most actors having to portray that character would find filming the scene exactly as it's shown here would still call it violent, difficult, and draining to do. Morgan could easily just be referring to having to film the scene at all, and in filming you have to remember that you do things over and over, and that the most minuscule moments get highlighted and crafted to get even the shine of a fill light just right.

I'm still finding filming for a day at a time draining, I can't imagine spending three days to get a pivotal scene just right. So I can easily imagine that all of this talk is about it being done almost exactly as it was in the comic.

Until I actually see it on the screen, I won't pass judgment on it or speculate. It could go either way. Of course, if they made it more violent or more explicit then it's pretty much unnecessary and on this side of glorification of a heinous act. But I don't know that I think they did.

City of Ember was an amazing book, and I've heard that the art direction and production design for the film was top notch, so I'm excited to see it.

But I can see how it wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea.

The story is generally that two kids live in Ember, where they rely on large lights which are powered by a generator. When the lights are out, there's no light whatsoever and you can't leave the town because it's so dark that the only people who have tried either go missing or insane. Except, now the generator is failing and the kids realize the people have to find a way out.

Sadly, the movie's advertisements have completely given away the ending. I'm still grumpy about this.

I'm just over this entire movie. Everything about it from the top down is wrong, wrong wrong.

I was HOPING somebody else noticed this. I haven't seen the series ending though, so not spit takes here ; )

Every time I think of a director, I realize that the material is beneath them. Actually, I think that was probably a large part of the problem here too, Hardwicke tried to make it into something she could care about, and that was what made the studio and the fangirls angry.

How can you act like "fangirls" is a new term? It's been around just as long as fanboy, which is to say, around the time the internet was born if not sooner.

I know I've been using it since at least 1998 or so. You can't coin a term that already exists and is in popular usage. Maybe the mainstream media has discovered it, but "coin?" Hardly.

You can't call George Lucas an overrated director. He's made six or so films. One is just downright weird but had some interesting stuff. One was very deservedly praised. Star Wars changed film as we know it on multiple levels.

Then he didn't direct again until Phantom Menace. People act like he's directed all this stuff but he HASN'T and his efforts at directing the prequel trilogy are universally mocked. So you just can't call him an overrrated director at all. As you've said, he's very accurately rated.

My vote is for Hitchcock.

I'm always going to be partial to the first vampire film I remember seeing, The Lost Boys. The music is still on my mp3 player and it still brings back memories of being younger and thinking I was watching the coolest movie ever. Maybe it's not high cinema, but it's a movie that will always be with me, and I find that more important.

Nio, there are already two more books. The People of Sparks and The Prophet of Yonwood. Sparks is a sequel, Yonwood is a prequel.

Melrey, you say, "hey if you didnt like the trailer then dont watch it!! nobody cares what u haters think…"

But the article itself that we're replying to says, "if Twilight didn’t have the crazy cult-ish following that it does now, and you were to see this trailer, wouldn’t it pique your interest just a little bit?"

I think we were asked to give our opinion. And we gave it, I don't think the trailer actually accomplishes much to draw in people who haven't read or didn't like the books. The only reason I might go watch it is that I actually really love the actor playing Mike, who has gotten no press or been in a single promo.

I don't think the films can really be compared because while they might be both about a vampire and a human and their relationship, it's like comparing a romantic comedy to a dark drama.

Twilight is a YA Romance. It's simplistic and follows a very specific formula because that's what it's supposed to do.

Let the Right One In seems like a really interesting movie, and it's certainly more my style. But I don't think the movies should really be judged together at all.

The book doesn't reveal why the world ended either, because it's told entirely from the point of view of our protagonists, and they don't know the answer (as Nish points out).

The book is flat out fantastic, but don't be too tempted by the sequel. People of Sparks is a pretty big let-down. It does explain a little more about the end of the world because it involves people who are descendants of the ones that survived above ground.

Now if you're even more curious about what ended the world, the story is told in the Prophet of Yonwood, which I haven't read because Sparks was so disappointing. But I've heard it doesn't capture the magic of Ember either.

I think it really is that Ember isn't about the message of the end of the world. In fact, you don't even know that the world ended or really much more than that until the end when you discover that the city was underground the whole time (this is actually meant to be a big reveal, I'm sad that the movies promotions feature it so heavily). It's about the end of Ember, and the main characters.

It isn't the type of story that would interest me in the first place, and the trailer reminds me far too much of that cheesy movie that came out years ago...The Covenant? It seems very much along the same lines and that movie was pretty bad.

Silent Hill aced the art direction and atmosphere portions of it's report card.

But it failed miserably in the Screenwriting portion, and unfortunately that's a large chunk of your grade.

It actually literally had a moment where they said, "Now we're going to explain everything with a large chunk of dialogue." That's just poor form no matter which way you slice it.

With a better screenplay it could have been an amazing movie, and it only really fell apart in the last act. Which is a huge shame.