If you're going to eat noisy food, like popcorn or candy with crinkly wrapping, finish before the movie please! I'm talking about you, annoying lady who sat next to me once and ate a huge thing of popcorn 1 piece at a time, at a voracious speed like you'd never had a meal before, with continual crunching/smacking noises through half the movie. e_e
If you're going to eat noisy food, like popcorn or candy with crinkly wrapping, finish before the movie please! I'm talking about you, annoying lady who sat next to me once and ate a huge thing of popcorn 1 piece at a time, at a voracious speed like you'd never had a meal before, with continual crunching/smacking noises through half the movie. e_e
If you are going to make a crinkling noise, kill yourself.
If you are selling things that come in crinkly packages, also kill yourself.
If you produce crinkly bags or sell products in them, I will kill you if I find you.
Up here in Canada, everyone is too polite to bring food into the theater. Except, of course, for me and my friends. We once brought an entire pizza in.
Oh mans, I can talk a good length about movie theater etiquette and stories of dealing with assholes that I want to shoot/slice.
Recently Jeremy went to go watch a movie and was playing Theatrhythm in the theater before the movie started. This old lady asked him to turn off his 3DS or turn it down. He replied to her, "You really care about watching commercials before a movie that have nothing to do with movies?" The lady apparently gave him a mean look and said nothing.
We had a big department meeting yesterday in a big studio room with lots of space, and an old lady pulled out a candy with a crinkly wrapper, which echoed everywhere. Why you do this, old ladies everywhere?
Local art house cinema sells craft beer. Needless to say, it's the only place I go to watch films now. The French bistro next door is great for dinner before and sometimes has ticket deals.
I don't know what theaters you guys are going to, but every one I've been to sells candy in non-crinkly boxes and hot dogs in quiet soft aluminum wrappers.
I don't eat in movie theaters either, though. It's super aspensive and if you get a drink and have to pee during the movie, that's bad news.
People in New York are mostly too smart to pay for overpriced food in the theater. Especially when the movie theater has a drug store right next door, everyone smuggles in food.
Woke up today with an appetite for a crappy movie, so I decided on Season of the Witch aka Nicolas Cage Fights a Witch and I Guess Also Cures the Black Plague or Something. It certainly sated my appetite, but I was also surprised that it had the potential to be a half-decent movie.
We saw Life of Pi last night and there was a woman that was (verbally) translating the ENTIRE film to an older couple. I loudly shushed them and a friend we were with sarcastically thanked them for "adding to his enjoyment of the film" by talking throughout the majority of the movie.
It didn't ruin the movie for me, but it was annoying. Why would you bring someone to an English language film that is not being shown with subtitles if they don't understand English? Further, why do you do it at a popular movie time (Friday night) instead of choosing a less popular time and sitting far away from other people in the theater?
The movie was worth seeing in the theater and in 3D (not something I normally endorse), IMO.
The movie was worth seeing in the theater and in 3D (not something I normally endorse), IMO.
It was filmed in 3D, not converted. It's an important distinction, and not one most people understand or know about.
I've not seen the film yet. Did you read the book? I enjoyed the book, though I took some issue with its message.
I'm aware of the distinction, and I am glad that they supersaturated the colors to make up for the color loss inherent in current 3D displays.
I did read the book. I had no issues with its message because it is inherently open to interpretation. I took it more as an explanation/exploration of the mechanics of faith, not necessarily the case for faith (as the author stated he intended). Just because the author intends something does not mean his work lives up to or fulfills his/her intentions and, to my mind that is the case here.
There is a spoiler tag below; please take it seriously. If you have any interest in reading the book and/or seeing the film, DO NOT read the text as it includes direct quotes of a crucial, poignant moment toward the end of the book & film that will genuinely spoil your experience-far more so than the average "spoiler." Consider yourself told.
Consider that when Pi's favorite teacher, an atheist, describes his views on religion Pi confesses, "It wasn't for fear of angering Mr. Kumar. I was more afraid that in a few words thrown out he might destroy something that I loved." Thus, Pi openly admits that is faith is fragile and, most importantly, can be easily refuted.
The effective thesis statement of the work appears below:
"I told you two stories that account for the 227 days in between" - yes you did "Neither explains the sinking of the Tsimtsum (ship)" - that's right "Neither makes a factual difference to you" -that's true "you can't prove which story is true, and which is not. You must take my word for it." - I guess so. "In both stories the ship sinks, my entire family dies, and I suffer" - yes, that's true "So tell me, since it makes no factual difference to you and you can't prove the question either way, which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals" - the story with animals "yes, the story with animals is the better story... and so it goes with God."
It is evident that it is an intellectually dishonest, but emotionally gratifying and perhaps psychologically necessary choice that Pi continues to put his faith in a "story."
While I would not make the same choice as the character and, as a reader, my tendency was to accept the more horrific story to be the more likely (though what that says about humanity, or my view of it at least, is tragic to say the least-I had trouble sleeping after I read the book and was up until 4:30 a.m. last night after seeing the movie). This, in many ways, echos my experience of realizing that I was an atheist. I would like to believe in an afterlife, supernatural occurrences, and compassionate godlike beings that will somehow make the experience of life better. However, I have seen no evidence of any of that. Additionally, the repercussions of long held, organized, and codified religious beliefs seem to be a hindrance at this stage of human societal development.
All that being said, it would be nice to be able to delude oneself-ignorance is bliss. However, just as I choose not to drive while intoxicated, I also choose not to think with intellectual blinders (as much as is possible).
Ultimately, the choice of blind faith or unrelenting reason is equally available in life as it is in interpreting the the novel and film.
Just got home from The Silver Linings Playbook. David O. Russell (The Fighter and I Heart Huckabees) has knocked it out of the park once more with a great film. This is a very difficult film to watch because of how raw Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence's performances were. It also is one of the few films I've seen where it does not treat mental illness with kid gloves and being someone who has mental handicaps himself, I have to give this a film a big thumbs up. It is a very challenging, funny, and truly heartwarming film that so worth seeing. Also it has Chris Tucker in a role where you don't want to shoot him for once. Please see this movie or you will be missing out.
Same spoiler warning as Kate's - don't click if you haven't read or seen The Life of Pi
The issue I have is that Martel assumes we agree that, like the animal story, God is the 'better story.' I don't. Many scientists and atheists have expressed similar sentiments, and can articulate them much more eloquently than I ever could. Dawkins wrote an entire book (Unweaving the Rainbow) in support of the idea that the world is more beautiful without belief in a deity. I understand that Life of Pi is an exploration of faith, but I think, to some degree, it falls apart when you disagree with such a fundamental assumption of the story's ending.
You make a good point (and I love Dawkin's writings, that book in particular), but that we are now entering rather subjective personal judgements, tastes, and sources of inspiration. That is not to say that a a full discussion of the various merits is not worthwhile (as Unweaving the Rainbow does).
In the case of the the stories within the novel, I would say that the more fantastical/miraculous story is more appealing, if only because animal on animal violence is far less appalling than human on human violence. In this, the author makes a poor comparison to the reality of various religious stories when compared to more rational explanations. He frames the argument to be more favorable to religion, but that does not mean. With the promise of an afterlife, one could argue that some religions present a more attractive story than rational evidence can provide. Contrastingly, one could argue that being uncertain of an afterlife imbues import and meaning to the experience of life.
Again, I am not offended or put off by the author or character's choice to believe in God, nor the-albeit flawed-argument made endorsing such belief. The author's assumption or intent mean nothing to me when reading a novel. I thought the fact that Pi felt that his story was so compelling that it could convert or indoctrinate others to be an interesting aspect of his character and it framed the story and its themes well. The fact that the story did not attain that goal is beside the point to my mind. Overall, I found the work insightful, well written, and thought provoking.
Slightly related, I don't agree with the messages in vast majority of Ayn Rand's works either, but I still love reading most of them to analyze and appreciate their literary, social, philosophical, and historical merits (and they aren't half so well written; in fairness to Ms. Rand, that may be more an effect of translation to English, I cannot say).
Skyfall was really good, but I'm homesick for the UK now and I kind of want to cry.
Just saw it. Excellent movie and reminds me of the old bond with a bit of the new.
Just saw it; great action movie! See it!
...but:
the DB5 stood out like a sore thumb; a classic goofy Bond-car with all the gadgets in working order, being used totally unironically. It isn't that it was "unrealistic" so much as it was out of step with the level of realism established by the rest of the Craig Bonds. Not to mention that they already had a shout-out to the DB5 in Casino Royale.
Casino Royale, IMHO, did a much better job of capturing the essence of Bond while still putting their own spin on it. Skyfall's direct references to Connery-era Bond made it feel like Family Guy; "Hey! Remember Ms. Moneypenny? This person is Moneypenny...! GET IT?!".
I will admit that I chuckled when Bond flipped the gear shift knob open to reveal the red button and threatened to eject M if she didn't stop complaining about the DB5's poor ride.
I have a bit of a hard time calling it "New" bond, considering that the Daniel Craig bond is very much a return to the version of bond from the books - Cold, competent, light on gadgets, just a little bit of a psychopath.
Just because someone is trying to make you applaud doesn't mean that you should, must, or it is right to do so. The purpose of applause is to congratulate and show appreciation to a creator/performer for their excellent work. If the person who is to be the receiver of the applause can not see or hear it, then it is pointless.
In addition it is annoying to me personally. People applaud without thinking. The movie, their motor reflex, the social expectation, "the wave" causes them to applaud. In that sense, not only is the applause pointless, but disingenuous. That results in me being reminded that there are these other people who think and act on autopilot. I may very well have greatly enjoyed the movie, but rather than being able to mull over the end of it, I am taken out of the mindset and reminded I am in a room full of sheep.
When I applaud I applaud with intent. If I am clapping or cheering for you, it means something extra, even if I'm the only one who knows that.
There is also an exception to the rule. It is absolutely permissible to clap, boo, or yell at a sporting event on television or radio.
Last night, I attended a private screening of the Andrew Bird music doc, "Fever Year." There were only 12 of us in attendance, but we applauded afterward. I informed the director of this today (via Twitter), and she said I, quote, "Made her day." Boom.
Any argument that makes specific assumptions about the mindset of individuals in an entire crowd of people you know next to nothing about is probably bullshit.
Rise of the Guardians is a pretty great movie. The story was solid, Alec Baldwin as a violent Russian Santa Claus with an army of Yetis is pretty damn awesome, and I love, love, love the design of Toothiana. My only real gripe is that there is there is some completely unnecessary narration at the end that kind of kills the moment and that Isla Fischer is not too great at voice acting. She's not terrible, but Dreamworks should really work on casting less stars because they're stars and more people because they're just right for the role.
Comments
If you are selling things that come in crinkly packages, also kill yourself.
If you produce crinkly bags or sell products in them, I will kill you if I find you.
Recently Jeremy went to go watch a movie and was playing Theatrhythm in the theater before the movie started. This old lady asked him to turn off his 3DS or turn it down. He replied to her, "You really care about watching commercials before a movie that have nothing to do with movies?" The lady apparently gave him a mean look and said nothing.
I don't eat in movie theaters either, though. It's super aspensive and if you get a drink and have to pee during the movie, that's bad news.
It didn't ruin the movie for me, but it was annoying. Why would you bring someone to an English language film that is not being shown with subtitles if they don't understand English? Further, why do you do it at a popular movie time (Friday night) instead of choosing a less popular time and sitting far away from other people in the theater?
The movie was worth seeing in the theater and in 3D (not something I normally endorse), IMO.
I've not seen the film yet. Did you read the book? I enjoyed the book, though I took some issue with its message.
I did read the book. I had no issues with its message because it is inherently open to interpretation. I took it more as an explanation/exploration of the mechanics of faith, not necessarily the case for faith (as the author stated he intended). Just because the author intends something does not mean his work lives up to or fulfills his/her intentions and, to my mind that is the case here.
There is a spoiler tag below; please take it seriously. If you have any interest in reading the book and/or seeing the film, DO NOT read the text as it includes direct quotes of a crucial, poignant moment toward the end of the book & film that will genuinely spoil your experience-far more so than the average "spoiler." Consider yourself told.
The effective thesis statement of the work appears below:
"I told you two stories that account for the 227 days in between" - yes you did "Neither explains the sinking of the Tsimtsum (ship)" - that's right "Neither makes a factual difference to you" -that's true "you can't prove which story is true, and which is not. You must take my word for it." - I guess so. "In both stories the ship sinks, my entire family dies, and I suffer" - yes, that's true "So tell me, since it makes no factual difference to you and you can't prove the question either way, which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals" - the story with animals "yes, the story with animals is the better story... and so it goes with God."
It is evident that it is an intellectually dishonest, but emotionally gratifying and perhaps psychologically necessary choice that Pi continues to put his faith in a "story."
While I would not make the same choice as the character and, as a reader, my tendency was to accept the more horrific story to be the more likely (though what that says about humanity, or my view of it at least, is tragic to say the least-I had trouble sleeping after I read the book and was up until 4:30 a.m. last night after seeing the movie). This, in many ways, echos my experience of realizing that I was an atheist. I would like to believe in an afterlife, supernatural occurrences, and compassionate godlike beings that will somehow make the experience of life better. However, I have seen no evidence of any of that. Additionally, the repercussions of long held, organized, and codified religious beliefs seem to be a hindrance at this stage of human societal development.
All that being said, it would be nice to be able to delude oneself-ignorance is bliss. However, just as I choose not to drive while intoxicated, I also choose not to think with intellectual blinders (as much as is possible).
Ultimately, the choice of blind faith or unrelenting reason is equally available in life as it is in interpreting the the novel and film.
Same spoiler warning as Kate's - don't click if you haven't read or seen The Life of Pi
In the case of the the stories within the novel, I would say that the more fantastical/miraculous story is more appealing, if only because animal on animal violence is far less appalling than human on human violence. In this, the author makes a poor comparison to the reality of various religious stories when compared to more rational explanations. He frames the argument to be more favorable to religion, but that does not mean. With the promise of an afterlife, one could argue that some religions present a more attractive story than rational evidence can provide. Contrastingly, one could argue that being uncertain of an afterlife imbues import and meaning to the experience of life.
Again, I am not offended or put off by the author or character's choice to believe in God, nor the-albeit flawed-argument made endorsing such belief. The author's assumption or intent mean nothing to me when reading a novel. I thought the fact that Pi felt that his story was so compelling that it could convert or indoctrinate others to be an interesting aspect of his character and it framed the story and its themes well. The fact that the story did not attain that goal is beside the point to my mind. Overall, I found the work insightful, well written, and thought provoking.
Slightly related, I don't agree with the messages in vast majority of Ayn Rand's works either, but I still love reading most of them to analyze and appreciate their literary, social, philosophical, and historical merits (and they aren't half so well written; in fairness to Ms. Rand, that may be more an effect of translation to English, I cannot say).
...but:
the DB5 stood out like a sore thumb; a classic goofy Bond-car with all the gadgets in working order, being used totally unironically. It isn't that it was "unrealistic" so much as it was out of step with the level of realism established by the rest of the Craig Bonds. Not to mention that they already had a shout-out to the DB5 in Casino Royale.
Casino Royale, IMHO, did a much better job of capturing the essence of Bond while still putting their own spin on it. Skyfall's direct references to Connery-era Bond made it feel like Family Guy; "Hey! Remember Ms. Moneypenny? This person is Moneypenny...! GET IT?!".
I will admit that I chuckled when Bond flipped the gear shift knob open to reveal the red button and threatened to eject M if she didn't stop complaining about the DB5's poor ride.
(I was playing the long game on this argument.)