MCT Images

The Ten Commandments of Movie Going

Posted by Martin

I am a big fan of home theater.  More specifically my home theater, but I still love going to the movies and seeing them on an even bigger screen.

BUT some people seem to think they are still at home and have the right to behave as such.  Therefore I have introduced the Ten Commandments of Movie Going that were handed down to me from the Mount Cineplex 10:

1. Thou shall have no other movies before Me
2. Thou shalt be reverent with silence when the lights goeth down.
3. Thou shall not speak to the screen, for I will not respond to you.
4. Thou shall leave thy offspring of less than 4 years at home, for they cannot sit still, and cry often.
5. Thou shall not put your feet on the back of the chair in front of you, for your feet are unclean.
6. Thou shall arrive on time and not when the lights are dark for it is dangerous to look for a seat in the dark, and it is rude.
7. Thou shall not text or receive calls during the movies, for I am a Jealous and Angry Movie.
8. Thou shall not bring young offspring to an R Rated movie, lest thou be labeled a terrible parent by those around you.
9. Thou shall not shout out requests for snacks and drinks to thy neighbors, this shall be done before entering the Great Theater.
10. Thou shall not butt in a prearranged line, for I am a Movie of organization and fairness.

I hope these help.  When we follow these the movies will be much more enjoyable.

Other interesting articles:

Hellboy 2 Review

Wall-E movie review

Top Ten James Bond Movies

Behind the Screens of Quantum of Solace

More Behind the scenes with 007 on Quantum of Solace

Posted by Martin:

Here is another video from behind the scenes of the next Bond movie.  I'm liking this Reelzchannel site.

Quantum of Solace

Click here to see more behind the scenes of the next Bond movie

Behind the scenes with 007 on Quantum of Solace

Posted by Martin:

I am such a big fan of Casnio Royale, that I can't wait for November for the next 007 offering.

Quantum of Solace

Along with The Hobbit, Harry Potter 7 gets the 2 parter treatment

Posted by Martin:

This seems to be a new trend.  Make movie out of a book, but break it into two movies.

This is how The Hobbit will be done, and now apparently the last Potter movie will be done the same way.

Something inside of me cynical says this is just a great ploy to stretch out the franchise just..a..little..bit..longer...

Or is it as this article says because there is so much in the last book you can't leave it out?

Well that has happened so far with 5 Potter movies, and it definitely happened on the three Rings movies.  Why care now about cutting content?

Movies I'm looking forward to in 2008

As a new year post here is my list of movies that I currently most interested in seeing in the new year of '08

1. Cloverfield
    This looks more and more interesting as we get closer to the release date.  A 21st century update of the monster movie.

2. The Dark Knight
    Seeing the online trailer with Heath Ledger as The Joker helped realize just how good he is going to be as that villain.  Jack who?





3. Wall-e
    Anything from Pixar is worth waiting for and getting excited about.

4. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull
    Ford looks great for someone in their 60s.  This will be a winner.

5. Bond 22

    No name for the next James Bond movie yet.  But I was so taken with the last Bond movie that I have seen that movie more than any other action movie in years.

Leave a comment for what you are looking forward to this year.

300 and Zodiac comes to DVD. Tell me again what is the "filmlook?"

Posted by Martin:

This is an update of a post I wrote back in March when 300 and Zodiac were out in the theaters.

Zodiac comes to DVD tomorrow and 300 comes arrives on the 31st on DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray.

300 is a complete CGI-Fest shot on 35mm.  Zodiac is a tense, moody, atmospheric film shot on HD.

There is a statement I've seen around produce circles that "if you want the filmlook shoot film." 

After seeing Zodiac I no longer agree with that thinking.  How about you?  Check out Zodiac tomorrow and see what you think.

Here is the original post:

This post on The Genesis Project blog by Dennis Radeke about the "Film Look" in video got me thinking about does that term. Does the "film look" mean as much as it did just 3 years ago? In other words can "video" be indistinguishable with film?  And using two movies that are currently in your local theaters, 300 and Zodiac, we can look at what film looks like and what video looks like.

300, see my review here, is the current blockbuster du jour and it is a good one.  It has opened some eyes has to what really can be done with green screen.  The entire movie was shot in front of a giant green and therefore added all additional elements later.  300 is not the first to do this, Sky Captain and the World of the Tomorrow was the first shot the entire movie in front of blue/green screen, but 300 has done a better job at making that world seem alive.  300 is a feast for the eyes and the senses.  It creates real worlds out of the computer and makes them seem physical and real.

Zodiac on the other hand is David Fincher at his best.  I didn't have the time to review Zodiac but I would definately recommend it, I believe that this is Fincher's best work yet, and it shakes Jake Gyllenhall's role from Brokeback Mountain out of your mind.  But this movie is all about mood and atmosphere, no emphasis on special effects here.  The story is creepy enough to keep you enthralled.  The movie is shot in shadows and poorly lit offices and at night time.  Zodiac is all about creepy and emotions without the shock and awe of high powered graphics.

Not to say there were no visual effects in Zodiac.  There were a lot.  Recreating 1970s San Francisco was quite a task. 

Click here to read an incredible  film & video article about how that was done

Here is your pop quiz.  Which one was shot on 35 mm and which was shot on digital with no film?

Bueller....Buuuulller...Anyone...anyone...

300=35mm film

Zodiac=digital

I'm more surprised at 300.  With all the emphasis on digital work I would have thought that they would have chosen a completely digital work flow, maybe some nervous producer got in the way.

Zodiac on the other hand is a completely digital production, film doesn't get involved in the process until the prints are made to go to your local theater.

But if you have seen Zodiac, unless you were aware of the tech specs as I was, I very seriously doubt that anyone would have guess that it was a digital production.  Which is my ultimate point.  You no longer need film to make it look like film.

Yes, I know, I'm a heretic....

Many people have been striving to get video to be as attractive as 35mm film (not talking about larger 70mm or IMAX stocks at the moment folks...) and that days has truly arrived.

I'm of the George Lucas and Robert Roderiguez school of thinking, I would never shoot film again.

Click here to see the tech specs of 300.

Click here to see the tech specs of Zodiac.

Now lastly class your homework is to go and see "The Grindhouse" in April and turn in a comparison between the two sections of the movie, "Plant Terror" and "Death Proof".

Death Proof is directed by Quentin Tarantino and is shot in 35mm.

Planet Terror is directed by Robert Roderiguez and is shot digitally.

So bring back your posts after you see this fine piece of cinematic history and compare the looks between the two sections, can you tell a difference between 35 and digital?  But examples in one movie will be great fodder for this discussion on "The Film Look".

300 verses Zodiac "What is the film look?" [UPDATE]

Posted by Martin:

This post on The Genesis Project blog by Dennis Radeke about the "Film Look" in video got me thinking about does that term.  Does the "film look" mean as much as it did just 3 years ago? In other words can "video" be indistinguishable with film?  And using two movies that are currently in your local theaters, 300 and Zodiac, we can look at what film looks like and what video looks like.

300, see my review here, is the current blockbuster du jour and it is a good one.  It has opened some eyes has to what really can be done with green screen.  The entire movie was shot in front of a giant green and therefore added all additional elements later.  300 is not the first to do this, Sky Captain and the World of the Tomorrow was the first shot the entire movie in front of blue/green screen, but 300 has done a better job at making that world seem alive.  300 is a feast for the eyes and the senses.  It creates real worlds out of the computer and makes them seem physical and real.

Zodiac on the other hand is David Fincher at his best.  I didn't have the time to review Zodiac but I would definately recommend it, I believe that this is Fincher's best work yet, and it shakes Jake Gyllenhall's role from Brokeback Mountain out of your mind.  But this movie is all about mood and atmosphere, no emphasis on special effects here.  The story is creepy enough to keep you enthralled.  The movie is shot in shadows and poorly lit offices and at night time.  Zodiac is all about creepy and emotions without the shock and awe of high powered graphics.

Not to say there were no visual effects in Zodiac.  There were a lot.  Recreating 1970s San Francisco was quite a task. 

Click here to read an incredible  film & video article about how that was done

Here is your pop quiz.  Which one was shot on 35 mm and which was shot on digital with no film?

Bueller....Buuuulller...Anyone...anyone...

300=35mm film

Zodiac=digital

I'm more surprised at 300.  With all the emphasis on digital work I would have thought that they would have chosen a completely digital work flow, maybe some nervous producer got in the way.

Zodiac on the other hand is a completely digital production, film doesn't get involved in the process until the prints are made to go to your local theater.

But if you have seen Zodiac, unless you were aware of the tech specs as I was, I very seriously doubt that anyone would have guess that it was a digital production.  Which is my ultimate point.  You no longer need film to make it look like film.

Yes, I know, I'm a heretic....

Many people have been striving to get video to be as attractive as 35mm film (not talking about larger 70mm or IMAX stocks at the moment folks...) and that days has truly arrived.

I'm of the George Lucas and Robert Roderiguez school of thinking, I would never shoot film again.

Click here to see the tech specs of 300.

Click here to see the tech specs of Zodiac.

Now lastly class your homework is to go and see "The Grindhouse" in April and turn in a comparison between the two sections of the movie, "Plant Terror" and "Death Proof".

Death Proof is directed by Quentin Tarantino and is shot in 35mm.

Planet Terror is directed by Robert Roderiguez and is shot digitally.

So bring back your posts after you see this fine piece of cinematic history and compare the looks between the two sections, can you tell a difference between 35 and digital?  But examples in one movie will be great fodder for this discussion on "The Film Look".

Save the date-May 22, 2008 Indiana Jones 4

Posted by Martin:

Finally.  After originally being told years ago that this movie would be finished between Episode 1 and 2, Indiana Jones 4 is officially arriving on May 22, 2008.

Cool.

Sundance Film Festival: On-Line shorts

The Sundance Film Festival started yesterday.  Now you can view short films from the festival on-line.

You can also get them from itunes as well.

I'm looking forward to the day when we can the feature length films as well.

How the independents change everything.

There is a great article over at CinemaTech by Scott Kirsner about the history and future of movies and the independents role in the advancing of the medium.  It's great stuff, check it out.