Best Movies of 09

Best of the Year:
Inglourious Basterds - War movies is my favorite genre, and this one now ranks in my top five of all war movies ever made; it's the closest thing to Hitler on Ice I've ever seen.

Moon - It's a pity hardly anyone saw this movie, and movie chains didn't give it a chance; unless you live next to a indie movie theater then chances are you'll have to see this on DVD; it's hands down one of the best movies I've seen it recent years. It has a plot that's fresh, and themes that are quite powerful and even moving.

Star Trek - Is it Star Trek for generation Ritalin? I guess--but isn't that the point? To introduce Star Trek to a new generation of fans? It wasn't the deepest movie I've seen, but I preferred it to any of the original Star Treks, which always felt too poorly paced.

Up - Why does Pixar keep trying to make me cry? Next to Wall-e this was the most beautiful movie they've did, but I'm looking forward to seeing a Pixar movie that doesn't spend the first 30 minutes trying to depress me.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox - How does Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs make more money than this piece?! I've never seen a cartoon where I could actually tell who directed it--it was SO Wes Anderson, but that's what made it so grand!

Watchmen - This movie would rank much higher if not for that ridiculous love story; every time I see it, I spend a week complaining to Diana about how terrible it is. The girl is a bigger slut than Tiger Woods--I'm really surprised she didn't sleep with her father, because in the scene where she meets him she seems to be contemplating it. Still, next to Batman, it's one of the best superhero movies I've seen.

District 9 - I appreciate this movie because it was groundbreaking more than because it was good; for a sci-fi move to be this good on such a limited budget was quite impressive; as sci-fi goes, however, Moon was 10 times better.

Food, Inc. - One of the more important movies I've seen this year, and one that every person should have to watch.

Taken - It was a fun move. What more can I say?

The Hangover and I Love You, Man -- Just to round out the list and make it all even, two comedies; they were raunchy and over the top, but fantastically funny.

Guilty Pleasures:
G.I. Joe - I didn't expect this to be great; didn't even think it would be my favorites; I just hoped it would make me marvel a bit in my youth, and it did, so I really can't complain.

Most Overrated Movie:
(500) Days of Summer - What was all the fuss about this movie? It was boring and it really never went anywhere. It had it's moments of charm, but those moments were brief. The Hangover had better chemistry and romance than this movie did.

Julie and Julia - Not a horrible movie, but I would have liked to see more of Julia and less of Julie. Actually, I would have preferred to see none of Julie.

The Hurt Locker -- Interesting movie, but not much of a plot; didn't quite see what the fuss was about

Where the Wild Things Are and Away We Go -- I like Dave Eggers; he's a brilliant writer; but the movies he's writing are not good. His movies so far have been long, boring, depressing, and sort of confusing.

Worse Movies of the Year:
Bridewars - I've seen my share of chick flicks; they're never my favorites, but they're usually entertaining. This? Pointless. Words really cannot describe how bad this movie is, so I won't try.

2012 - It's a blow them up action flick in the grand tradition of Day After Tomorrow. But instead of no brainer fun, it's terrible--horrible--down right bad. The acting sucks; the plot sucks; the action sucks; the special effects made me laugh. I've never laughed so hard because something was bad. With lines like "Download my blog" how can anyone sort of take it seriously?

Wise Blood: A Movie Review

From: Disturbed Christian

2001 was the year I discovered Flannery O'Connor. I was a college senior doing an independent study on post-WWII Christian literature. My advisor suggested that I add O'Connor's "Wise Blood" to my growing list of semester reads.

It was one of those books that went on to change my life--the one that made me say, "I've never seen the world in this light before."

For the past four years in college, I had been intrigued by the idea of the sacred and profane; the idea that even in the most sacred places of the world were always broken vessel, more polluted and shameful then those who followed them.

I have been curious to see John Huston's adaptation of the movie ever sense I put the book down; unfortunately, it was one of those classic movies long out of print in any format.

Earlier this month, Criterion restored and rereleased the film on DVD; for obvious reason, I put my order in when I first found out, and got the chance to watch it this past weekend.

The film, like the book, follows Hazel Motes--a young soldier returning home to the South, who discovers just about everything, but the religion, has changed. Hazel is a changed man, and wants to forget that God ever existed; he's so convicted in his ways that he intends to start his own church called, "The Church of Christ without Christ" (which, Hazel later clarifies is a Protestant denomination!)--for those who have not read the book, Hazel actually called this "The Church Without Christ," and then another man started a church called "The Church of Christ without Christ" to rival his.

You would think people would just pass up Hazel as a crazy war veteran, but they don't; they are intrigued by his church, and that lies the power of both the film and the book--we all have a void inside us that we try and fill in some way; if we try to strip away religion from our hearts we still are searching for something to replace it. Every character in the movie has something that's not God which they cling to as a form of God--from a gorilla to a historic artifact. Hazel tries to believe that you don't need God if you have a car, and even uses that vessel to play the part of God and take someone’s life by running them over.

====================================
<<<--------S P O I L E R A L E R T---------->>>
====================================

The tragedy of the movie is Hazel never can replace God; when a police officer’s pushes his car into a lake, he takes away the one thing that Hazel thought could replace God, and it crushes his soul. He inflects bodily torture on himself to try and redeem himself, but none of it works because only God is capable of giving this kind of redemption, and Hazel refuses to accept God, and is left empty.

=====================================
<<<--------E N D O F S P O I L E R---------->>>
=====================================

No film can ever match O’Connor’s, wit, or gothic charm; and it would be impossible to capture the idea of free will and redemption that O'Connor thematically, and perfectly, captures in her novel--but that's not to say it's not a worthy viewing; however it is you that you get your movies: rent, own, or illegally download--get this movie, watch it, and tell all of your friends to do the same.

And if you have never read the book, then it's about time you did so...

Don't Watch, Man! Save to Rent!

I wasn't as excited about Watchmen as some people; I had read the book and I didn't quite think it lived up to its expectations. It was a fun read, but not quite the masterpiece everyone claimed--it was ahead of its time, but that's about it. So when I went to see the movie this weekend, I didn't have high hopes--despite Roland (from the book)'s claim that it was one of the greatest superhero movies of all time.

I think part of the problem is it's not a superhero movie--it's an anti-superhero movie. As we stood in line to buy tickets, two teens went away disappointed when they learned it was R; the teen said, "What kind of super hero movie is this?!" I couldn't help but laugh. The movie used gore where other super hero movies left it up to the imagination, had dialogue that was silly at best, and had a story that just went on way too long--you could have easily cut out 40 minutes and it still would have made sense.

I suspect the director wanted to stay loyal to the book, and perhaps this is another one of its follies. Print doesn't transcribe well onto film; you have to change things around. It felt like the director wanted to pay homage to the book, and give something to true fans--but he forgot that for a movie to do well you have to make a movie that sells well to the mass, and not just the fans.

As I walked out of the movie, I could help but wonder if this was nothing more than an R-Rated version of the Incredibles (then again the Incredibles was nothing more than a PG version of Watchmen)...the storyline is the same in many respects--super heroes must become normal people, but they never quite fit this mold and always secretly wanted to get back into action; the villain turns out to be someone the good guys know in both movies to--a villain, in both cases, that became corrupt in part because of fantasies about what a super hero is. The only difference is the Incredibles was funny--even charming; Watchmen is just long.

The Dark Knight is the perfect example of a dark superhero movie done right; people's bones are broke, but unlike Watchman, the audience doesn't see the bones sticking out of their body--and there's no slow motion clip of people's faces getting smashed in--and there's certainly no sex scenes with a slutty girl who can't keep it in her pants on (please tell me I'm not the only one just a little creep out when the girl was hitting on her father? Totally unnecessary and weird!)--Diana said it was also weird that she left the blue guy who could basically please her in ways not human for a guy who couldn't even get it up at first was also a bit weird...I agree.

The soundtrack was great (especially the title sequence); and parts of the movie was entertaining--but the just of the movie was a sloppy, unedited mess, that needed more test screenings and definitely more cutting. If movies carried a letter grade, then this one would get a B-...a good effort, a potentially good movie, but too many flaws to get into A turf.

Did You Watch It?

I didn't make it out to the cinema this weekend to see Watchmen, but it seems like everyone else did. Check out Roland (from the book) review of Watchmen...I can say with certainty that he gets one thing right--the My Chemical Romance cover of Dylan's "Desolation Row" is HORRIBLE.
Watch the video below and see for themselve...I think what happened is some guy in a suit said, "Hey, the Watchmen people will pay you a bundle of money if you cover a Bob Dylan song." And they said, "Who the heck is Bob Dylan? He sounds old." And the guy in the suit said, "It doesn't matter. Here's the words. Just play it super fast. The important thing is that you let the guitar sound more important then lyrics." And why did Watchmen pay them lots of money? Because they knew the song would be horrible, and if the movie was bad there is no possible way it could be as bad as the cover.

I Wish This Movie Was "Expelled" from My Mind

From Disturbed Christian:

I knew nothing about Ben Stein’s documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" except that it was about intelligent design and he related Darwinism to Nazism...not the best combo, but it’s an instant view on Netflix and I was hopeful that somewhere in the film he would say "Buller" in a way that made laugh (he didn’t).

I won’t say I was disappointed in the film. It was sloppy and biased, but I expected that. What troubled me about the film (aside from the Nazi stuff, which I will address later) was the fact that he didn’t really explain the theory of intelligent design--aside from saying it is not creationism.

If intelligent design should be taught in schools, as Stein believes, then it needs to have an actual theory, but no such theory is explained. I don’t really get the debate--God is faith, not a theory. Evolution doesn’t teach that there is not an intelligent designer; it merely shows a scientific theory used to show how species evolve over time to meet the conditions of their environment needed for survival. You don’t need to talk about how the cell began to teach it.

I happen to believe there is an intelligent designer, but I’m not sure how this fits into science, and Stein doesn’t help me out at all. I believe faith and science can coexist, but not in the world Stein sets up. I don’t see anything wrong with studying the theory of intelligent design if you are a scientist, but until there’s more of a hypothesis behind it, I’m confused about why it should be taught to mere students.

My belief is religious ideas, such as creationism or intelligent design, should be taught at all schools--but not in science class. There should be a religious history (covering all religions) in every school in the country so we have a better idea about why people feel so strongly about things and why wearing something around your head doesn’t make you a terrorist. But maybe that’s just me.

There’s a reason this film got a 10 rotten on Rotten Tomatoes; it’s not because all critics are liberal and bias--it’s because the film went about things all wrong.

Instead of looking into the matter of design objectively, it said with bias that intelligent design theorist are victims being denied freedom (this from a guy who is pro-life (so am (though my feelings on the issue are probably much different from his own) I but I’m not the one preaching freedom)). Further, he concludes that there is a secret plot to get Protestants to believe in evolution just so they don’t sound like fundamentalist. That’s really where the film turns from bias to sloppy and in bad taste because this is where the Nazi stuff comes into play.

Stein is quick to point out that Darwinism didn’t lead to Nazism--it just was a key component. Because Darwin said survival of the fittest, many scientists believed we should kill off the weak. It was a bad idea and was even practiced to a lesser extent in America. Was it right? Of course not! Was Darwinism to blame? Let’s look at that question in another way...was the Bible to blame for the Salem Witch Trials? I suppose if Hitler is the product of Darwin then ex-President Bush is the product of intelligent design; I would prefer to believe science doesn’t lead, or even inspire, evil—only man can lead to evil.

The film further says that evolution can only lead to atheism, and evolutionists are all hopeless about life’s outlook. The movie could have been good if it explained the theory of intelligent design and used facts. Instead it was just a broad generalization that ultimately fell flat. Watch if you must, but don’t expect to learn anything.

Man on Wire: A Review

There are many things a movie about a man walking across the Twin Towers on a tightrope can be; being a documentary, however, history is the first thing that comes to mind. What makes Man on Wire so great, however, is it isn’t a history—it’s a story, and a moving story at that.

When the film opens, Nixon is on TV talking about Watergate; this sets the timeframe of the movie, but the camera quickly pans over, and it becomes apparent that the history-making news conference doesn’t matter to this movie—time becomes frozen, because what was going on culturally and socially doesn’t matter to this film.

Had time matter, the director probably would have spent more time talking about how many people were upset that the Twin Towers were being built, and how people saw it as a bit of waste, but that the man’s dance actually put a renewed interest in the towers, and helped boast it’s public image. Had time matter, the director probably would have also talked about how such a project was funded and how Philippe Petit made money. And had history matter, he surely would have talked about the history of the tightrope act giving at least a vague reference to famous acts like The Flying Wallendas. But, of course, none of this matter, because this film was more a celebration of life and accomplishment then a documentary of the act itself.

Several years ago, Knott’s Berry Farm in Buena Park had a high wire show to promote the opening of a new part of their park (I think it was the opening of The Boardwalk, although I’m really not sure, because I can find absolutely no history about this historic tightrope walk anywhere on the Internet (so I guess there are some things only found in books?!)). Basically, a high wire was placed at the top of one ride (I think it was Boomerang), and stretched to the top of the Sky Jump ride (a tall tower 225 feet high). My parents drove my brother and I to a parking lot adjacent to the park, and we watched with hundreds of others the walker make the walk.

There really was nothing spectacular about the walk; the walker might have walked backwards or did some kind of trick, but that was about it; but to my eyes, that walk was amazing, and the person who performed the feat was instantly my hero. I don’t know what made it so great, although I suppose a lot of it was because there’s something mighty in the fearlessness of a person who performs such a feat.

I imagine what I saw in the man walking the high wire in California is what New Yorkers saw the day  Philippe Petit walked between the towers; they saw a man who was fearless—who was cheating death—and there’s something morbidly heroic in that—even inspiring. And that’s what the film is about: a man who wants to go face to face with death, and ultimately wins.

I felt a bit cheated by the end of the film; I wanted more conclusion that said whatever happened to Philippe Petit and his friends, but I guess the director wanted it to be clear that it didn’t matter—the film was the celebrations of a moment, and to show what happened to the people involved would take away from that moment.

The movie can be watched for free if you have a Netflix account; if you do then do yourself a favor and watch it—you won’t be disappointed.

I Want a CJ7!

I spend more time talking about bad movies then good ones; partly because I like to complain, and partly because if a movies good, then chances are you already know it because everyone else is talking about it, so why bother saying what's already been said?

Earlier this week, I finally got around to watching CJ7, and thought it was worthy of a blog--mostly because no one else is talking about it. Stephen Chow is one of the most original writers/directors in cinema today in my opinion, but he is also pretty unknown to most of the United States. Most people stateside only know him for Kung Fu Hustle and perhaps Shaolin Soccer, which is a shame, because he has so many other movies. 

CJ7 came out last summer (2008), and received average reviews. It made less then $300,000 in the United States, but over $40,000,000 overseas (mostly Asia), which just shows how big Chow is elsewhere. This was mostly because only 30 movies in the U.S. bothered to show the movie. I'm not going to say it was one of the best movies I've seen in awhile, but it was certainly better then a lot of other movies that got much bigger releases, and it deserved far more coverage.

I think part of the problem with the movie is it was a PG family flick, and Hollywood figures kids are too dumb to want to see a movie from another country even if it's dubbed (perhaps they are right?). But the little furry star of the movie, CJ7, would have got any kid interested because he is so darn cute.

The movie is about a poor father who is trying to raise his son to be virtuous; his son is a bit of a misfit, and is always getting into trouble. One night, his father discovers an alien critter in the trash and takes it home to his son as a toy. Throughout the course of the movie, the father and son form a bond in part because of the foreign creature.

The movies plot is zany and weird, but that's sort of Chow's style. It didn't have the humor of his best movie, Shaolin Soccer (if you haven't seen it, then do yourself a favor and rent it), but it was nonetheless sweet and worthy of more attention then it got. 

It also left my wife and I wondering where we can get a CJ7; they are way better then dogs!

Zack and Miri Make a Hancock (Spoiler Alert)

I have a new Hancock review, and with it a spoiler alert; so if you actually want to see the movie Zack and Miri Make a Porno and don’t want it ruined, then stop reading here.

 The movie started much better than expected; Zack and Miri have decided to make a porno, which is no big surprise, but the porno they chose to make (a parody of Star Wars) was quite clever. Unfortunately, a fire shut down production on this potentially classic romp full of awesome innuendo and wickedly funny puns, and they decided to instead make a porno about people working in a coffee shop similar to Star Bucks; there’s really nothing clever or original about that. It’s just people screwing around in a coffee shop, which doesn’t make for great comedy. Having someone drop coffee beans on two people making love is neither sexy, erotic, or funny—it’s just plain dumb…as it a girl pooping on the camera man who is filming an anal sex scene from an angle (yes, this was actually in the movie and it’s as disturbing as it sounds).

The Hancock, however, is not pulled when they decided to do a new film; the Hancock is pulled much later in the film—at the end. I expected Zack and Miri to end up together in the end, and they did, but as soon as they hooked up the director decided to roll the credits and pull a Hancock. There was absolutely no mention of if they actually released the porno. Perhaps there was something at the end of the credits, as is often done in comedies, but I just couldn’t bare to waste anymore time with the film to find out; and for me a movies plot ends when the credits roll—directors who decide to tidy things up in some lame montage as the audience sees the names of stuntmen and assistance to the director are just being sloppy. The point of the movie, at some point, changed from a comedy about making a porno to a comedy about finding your true love—unfortunately the director forgot to explain any of this to the audience through believable scenes.

For as raunchy as Kevin Smith can be at times, he actually has a way of giving meaning to the most bizarre plots and people; this is part of why I wanted to see the movie; you connect with the characters in ways you didn’t know was possible. But in this film he just gives cheap anecdotes and cheap laughs. It’s like Smith set out to prove that making a porno can be romantic and heartwarming (and maybe it can), but he certainly didn’t prove it in this film. The only thing missing was a cameo by Jay and Silent Bob being gang banged for a scene in the never released in porno…but maybe that was in the credits.

Seven Pounds of Spoilers (SPOILER ALERT)

(THIS BLOG CONTAINS SPOILERS ABOUT THE MOVIE "SEVEN POUNDS")

What's happened to Will Smith? He used to be a good actor, then he pulled a Hancock, and it's all been downhill; I had a feeling his newest movie would be doomed when I saw the previews for his newest movie "Seven Pounds"; it just seemed to have a plot that they were hiding the details to because it was so horribly bad...I was right. Apparently, Will Smith has decided to be the M. Night Shyamalan of acting, and now only does movies that have bizarre twist.

Instead of paying ten bucks to see a bizarre twist, I decided to just read it for free, so I scurried the Web for spoilers. The best I found was at New York Magazine. If you are like me, and don't want to pay ten bucks to see a bad movie only to find out the a bizarre twist, then I'll make it simple for you by saying it here. So turn away if you don't want to know, and don't complain because I spoiled the movie....ready? Will Smith plays a man who is using his Blackberry while driving and crashes his car killing seven people (including his fiance); he decides he is going to kill himself in a bathtub with a deadly jellyfish (yes, you read that right--a jellyfish!). So here's the twist...to redeem his life, he is donating body parts to seven different people. Basically the movie is about him making sure those seven people are deserving, because he can only give it to good people.

I'm not sure at what point he "Pulls a Hancock" but I'm sure it's in there somewhere. If you find that scene, then comment here.

Role Models

I am a bit conflicted; I saw Role Models with my wife the other day, and, while I want to say it was funny, I equally feel guilty for paying money to see a movie that exploits little kids.

I knew what I was getting into when I saw why it was rated R; rauchy humor doesn't really bug me. My problem in the movie isn't why it was rated R, it was who was making it R--often it was kids--mostly it was Ronnie, the little boy who played Seann William Scott's little buddy. The only thing he liked more then saying the F word was talking about how much he liked "bubbies" (something that he saw later in the movie, which was another thing that really bothered me--what parent let's there child act in a movie that requires them to see nudity?); it's bad enough to put a little kid in a movie that has adult's swearing left and right, but when it's the kids doing the swearing it's even worse.

The reason Ronnie sweared was completely uncalled for; it was shocking for the sake of shocking. Would the movie have been funny without it? Yes.

I have a feeling somewhere in Hollywood parents were sat down and they had to sign a contract saying it was okay for their little kid to do this.

People used to drop f-bombs with a little more class; when they said it, it truly was shocking and even funny. Now it's purely shock, and shock carries no lasting value. It's actually become just sad.

I'm not for censoring...except for kids; if that violates their rights, so be it--they're kids, their rights are supposed to be violated. Whoever Ronnie is in real life, his right to be a innocent child was taken away by some producer who said he could make him a star--and I paid ten bucks to support that.

Did Indiana Jones Pull Out the Hancock?

You’ll recall earlier that I made a reference to “Pulling a Hancock” (which is the point when a good movie becomes bad…sort of like “Jump the Shark” when a good TV show becomes bad); someone commented that it was actually called “Nuke the Fridge” (a reference to when the latest Indiana Jones movie went from good to bad).

I was eager to see it for two reasons: one, because I enjoyed the first three movies, and two, I wanted to see if indeed did “Nuke the Fridge.” I finally had a chance to see it, and am ready to give my thoughts.

First things first, Indiana was bad, but nowhere near as bad as Hancock. It’s bad. At one point Shai LaBeouf was literally swinging through trees on vines; and the aliens in the plot had potential, but it just never carried through. The whole movie was full of bad clichés and even worse jokes. But let me stress—it’s not as bad as Hancock. Nor is that Nuke the Fridge scene where a good movie becomes bad—the movie is consistently bad.

Despite the silliness at times of the movie, I could actually see LaBeouf going on to make a whole spin-off of Indiana films, which, I’m sure, is exactly what Lucas and company is planning on.

Unlike Hancock, which outright angered me, I was perfectly fine with the cheesiness of Indiana; it’s a summer action flick—I want to enter the theater and be entertained, not enlightened. It had good action sequences, so I can’t complain that it didn’t do what I thought it should have. It just had an overall lameness that made it hard to come even close to the original movies, but it at least kept me entertained.

So I’m sticking with “Pulling a Hancock” on this one.

Hancock

Today, I will say what many people have said already: Hancock is a bad movie. But I’ll go above what some critics said, and say not only is it a bad movie, but it is hands down one of the worst movies ever made.

I was excited when I heard about the movie—Will Smith as an alcoholic superhero! How could you go wrong with that? The synopsis of the movie tells you everything that’s going to happen: PR guy helps superhero finds himself and become a better person. Predictable, yes; but predictability isn’t always a bad thing. It’s summer, it’s hot, and a nice predictable action movie isn’t such a bad way to escape the sun.

When I saw the bad reviews, I didn’t really care. I wasn’t racing to the theater or anything, but I knew I’d see it eventually. Eventually came this past weekend (yes, I'm a little late to the game, as the movie is a couple months old), and all I want is my two hours back.

The movie was pretty good the first half. Then it "Jumped the Shark;" usually that’s a term that’s reserved for TV shows. I think an exception needs to be made for this movie.

The moment it turned from good to just plain dumb was when Hancock attempted to kiss Jason Bateman’s wife; those who have seen the movie will know why. After this point the movie loses all predictability and is just weird—really, really weird. What was the writer thinking? It was like he said, "I don't want predictable--people like twist." Yes, people like twist; Batman had a nice twist, but it was a natural one; this one was forced down the throats of the audience, and it didn't even make sense.

What should have happened was this: Hancock is a drunk, PR guy is going to help him, Hancock is helped, Hancock has a crisis that makes him doubt everything (perhaps his love interest is kidnapped because of some error he makes), and something happens to make him resolve this crisis, all is well again. Predictable, but fun. There’s nothing wrong with that.

There have been Will Smith movies that have been just OK (pretty much every drama he does), but usually they are good (pretty much every action movie he does)--not super, but good enough to make me happy. This is the first time I ever left one of his movies angry. I think he needs to stop hanging out with Tom Cruise, or his career will be ruined. His next movie, Seven Pounds, sounds lame as well.

Maybe it's time for him to team up with Alfonso Ribeiro for a buddy-cop movie or a Fresh Prince reunion show where Will decides to run for C0ngress, and Carlton somehow gets addicted to heroin and Will has to put politics aside?

The Dark Knight

While people in the thousands lined up to see the new Batman, I stayed away. I enjoyed the first one, and wanted to see the next installment, but I was no hurry, and would have even waited to see it on DVD.

When I heard, however, that six scenes were shot using IMAX cameras for the IMAX presentation, and later learned that the Anaheim Garden Walk had just opened a new movie theater with an IMAX screen, I suddenly became more interested.

For those of you who don’t know it, most blockbuster movies, when shown on the IMAX screen are simply blown up to fit the screen; there’s nothing special about the presentation except the fact that it’s big...it's not true IMAX. It’s a big step for a director to use actual IMAX cameras for the movie.

The Dark Knight was (big surprise) a great movie; Jokers performance was, of course, chilling; and nothing about the movie fail short—except the IMAX screen. I had never seen an IMAX movie, and now that I have I don’t know what all the fuss is about. It sounded and looked great, but so did the first one when I saw it on a 60 inch TV with surround sound—in fact, I actually think it looked better.

The same markers trying to convince people that Blu-ray is better then a DVD are the same ones pushing this IMAX stuff. Yes, Blu-ray is better then DVD, but if you buy an up-converter DVD player and use HD-def cabling, most people will be unable to tell the difference; if you put then side-by-side, people will say ones better then the other, but when they stand alone who cares? That’s also my view of the IMAX experience.