Plei keeps trying to get me to watch it. I have so far resisted.

I'll bring it over next time I see you. Or IO it, but IO takes forever from the bowels of my part of campus.

Did I mention there is dancing to Bowie??? Did I? Cause there IS.

Oh, and you can judge the demon/Satan chick from Devour's acting ability in something that doesn't suck! Sadly, as pretty as she is, and she is pretty, Devour was pretty representative of her skills.

On a note related to my earlier post on Juno, which is two fatfingers away from Jump if you're touch typing with a headache like I am, I'd just like to point out something I think got lost in the shuffle of Stuff Movies Get Wrong, I think there's a HUGE difference between handwaving factual accuracy and reinforcing commonly held potentially damaging/harmful ideas, and it's the latter that has the Juno critics twitchy.

I think there's a HUGE difference between handwaving factual accuracy and reinforcing commonly held potentially damaging/harmful ideas, and it's the latter that has the Juno critics twitchy.

Well, yes, but often how movies present history and what they get wrong (wars, patriotism, etc.) is just harmful, if not more so, in the the long run. For one thing, it's far more pervasive.

The Knight's Tale haughty bitch is on Moonlight, too.

And I'm in total agreement with the "Nooooo! You go with the smith chick. She's an actual person. And can fix your armor!" and the Bettany love. And the Alan Tudyk love. The out-of-era music makes the DH grind his teeth, but I love it. How not? It's Bowie! And Queen!

She's srsly stunning. Shame about the acting skills. In my world, blacksmith chick found a nice woman and settled down.

I love Knight's Tale so much I can forgive the ingenue for her lack of depth.

Alan Tudyk was my main reason for watching Firefly.

But Paul Bettany's entrance is my all time favorite in the history of cinema.

Well now I'm glad we're not showing Cloverfield. So far other theatres have had several complaints of nausea and I just got my first report of an actual puking.

Finally saw Sunshine, and while it was pretty and had a great cast and a wonderful score (damn, was that hard to find, but I finally succeeded thanks to *ahem*) it fell kinda flat for me.

It wasn't so much that I would change anything, but that it had left out a lot of storytelling and it needed more added to it.

What little meaning I could glean from it I got from commentaries and interviews, which to me is a sign of failure (which is how I felt about the LotR trilogy). If you can't say what you mean to say within the given medium, you haven't successfully told your story.

I didn't mind the sudden shift in tone towards the end, but the lack of any foreshadowing of where the movie would go. Or maybe I was expecting too much... but, no, because from what the director and writer said, there was supposed to be more, but I didn't get that from watching it. Not at all.

Still, pretty.

when you watch a DVD, if it goes straight to the menu, do you go looking for trailers? Or do you watch the film without trailers?

Just got back from Memphis where I saw Cloverfield. The camera style thankfully didn't end up being problematic for me. And I was SO thankful when I realized I was wrong about which actor played Hud, and it wasn't Best-Night-Ever Guy from the trailer after all.

The monster actually reminded me of the thing Craig Nelson hacked up in Poltergeist 2 what with the elongated vaguely skull-like head and the crawling around supported on its forelimbs .

My review of Cloverfield, after some sushi talk.

I thought it was great, and it didn't disappoint in being a really cool monster/disaster movie told from a hand-held camera's POV.