Rico

Agree on Last Exile. Great story.

Tokyo Drift really wasn't that bad. If you don't think about it as a Fast and the Furious franchise, it's actually pretty good. Plus, it was directed by the guy who did the excellent Better Luck Tomorrow.

Cowboy Bebop live action? Try watching Firefly.

I just want a live-action Tranzor-Z (Mazinger-Z).

Well, first of all, there are several looks that Harry goes with in the teaser. In one, it looks like he's not wearing a costume at all, while in another scene, he's wearing some sort of Splinter Cell getup. It's also important to note that he's not using his dad's glider, either; if you take a look at the scene where Harry slams into a brick wall, narrowly avoiding Peter, you'll notice that his glider looks like (and I kid you not) a freakin' snowboard with jets. I'll have to wait and see if that pans out in the movie.

Well, that's one possibility. I guess the failure of this disc would mean that other studios wouldn't have to step up...

I think they're hoping it succeeds. Think about this: All these interactive elements are a really good idea. (It really is.) Sounds like you can only experience the Choose-Your-Own-Adventure angle if you purchase the DVD. Downloading an xVid DVDRip would only give you the movie.

In short: It's an incentive to give your money to the movie studios. You want me to fork over $24.99 for your film? Make it worth my while. When DVD movies first came out (My first purchase: Dark City, before I had a player), EVERY movie had special features for a good price. Nowadays, twenty-five bucks will get you the movie, and maybe the trailer. They're trying to lure people away from the bootleg copies of movies. They're trying to raise the bar. And I say About Friggin' Time. As long as it doesn't cost fifty bucks.

Yeah, if you don't want it, don't buy it, blah blah blah...

Here's the thing: It's a shortcut, and there are a lot of MMORPGers out there who detest that kind of crap. It's like when I was playing Magic the gathering (nerd alert!), when the endless new expansion sets came out, it all came down to who had the most money. The more real-life money you have, the quicker you can get the shiny-yet-useful-new-thing™ which will invariably help you to do something faster than those who don't have the cash.

More likely than not, those people who purchase said horsey-clothes will be villified and mocked in the game world. Most people regard this kind of capitalist structure within a virtual world as cheap crap (at the least), or an invasion of the real world into their fantasy life, thereby ruining the experience of it for them (probably more like it).

Wow. A truly excellent and well-written review. The best I've read in a long time, actually. I was already interested in seeing this movie based initially on my respect for Buscemi's work, but also the appeal of Casey Affleck's portrayal of his character. I say this after only having seen its trailer. After reading this review, however, I'm going to make watching this film a priority.

People, he's not saying that he, Keanu-the-real-guy, would beat women, he's saying that some women don't see it as a big deal to get smacked around. I'm hard pressed to disagree with him.

This looks incredible. From the creepy music, to the eye-popping visuals, and then the great scare at the end. And what's up with those weird mannequin things?

Actually, that was a really good teaser. Michael Mann is great at what he does, and he's one of the few good directors who have a clean personal style.

His argument does have some valid points. The easiest example that comes to mind is the mudbog that is the "Star Wars" saga. First three movies: great. The special effects were eye-popping, yes, but there was a sense of soul about them; you really got the feeling that these were, in fact, real things out in space. This comes from the fact that people poured real sweat and effort and physical manipulation into making the ships and models and so forth. With the new movies, anyone - even a non Star Wars fan - will tell you that they have no soul, no spark of life in them. Think about it: when you make an effects shot with a real thing or model, you have to make absolutely sure it's right before you make a print or you're just wasting time, or worse, money. But with the ease of cgi (I refuse to capitalize that), I can set up a sequence, see how it looks in an animatic, then change my mind whenever I want, however I want; the computer guy can just move his mouse, rotate that thing there, resize that person here, and viola. It would make anyone a little more lazy. And lazy, when in the "art" context, leads to less creativity.

Well, using the animal kingdom to showcase the cruelty of the world is, I think, okay for childern to absorb. It's an innocuous (sp?) way to introduce real-world issues to children: they need allegorical information, so that later in life they can, with the help of their parents, make those connections with their own lives. My biggest problem with a G-rated movie has always been the Disney version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame. Seriously, an old, evil man dangling a baby by his foot over an open well? Showing same old man fantasizing about Esmerelda, alternating twixt lust and hatred? She was a green flame who happened to be naked, too! Does that merit a rating for General Audiences? Really?