<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Cinemalogue :: Entertainment Reviews, News and Interviews</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cinemalogue.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com</link>
	<description>I went into this movie expecting to hate it and, for the most part, I did.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:09:25 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Inglourious Basterds by Thomas Labat</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2009/09/25/inglourious-basterds/comment-page-1/#comment-58701</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Labat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:09:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=1158#comment-58701</guid>
		<description>(english is not my native language, so &quot;pardon my english&quot; !)

This is the most objective review I&#039;ve read about this film - and about this director. Tarantino is nothing much more than a fetichist (feet, movies...) with enough crafty camera moves to drag unsuspecting audiences in film theaters. Point is : he got absolutely nothing to say (his trademark long &amp; pointless dialogues maybe meaning more than intended), and sadly, after seven films he is not growing up. Indeed, &quot;Inglorious Basterds&quot; has nothing to do with antisemitism, nor with morale, philosophy, history or violence... Tarantino doesn&#039;t bother a single second. So why should we marvel at him having &quot;the courage to change history in a movie&quot;? Even &quot;Jackie Brown&quot; is only a façade, and while most people have considered it a &quot;mature&quot; movie, I think these people would be embarrassed if asked about the story&#039;s purpose. Thank you for this great review.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(english is not my native language, so &#8220;pardon my english&#8221; !)</p>
<p>This is the most objective review I&#8217;ve read about this film &#8211; and about this director. Tarantino is nothing much more than a fetichist (feet, movies&#8230;) with enough crafty camera moves to drag unsuspecting audiences in film theaters. Point is : he got absolutely nothing to say (his trademark long &amp; pointless dialogues maybe meaning more than intended), and sadly, after seven films he is not growing up. Indeed, &#8220;Inglorious Basterds&#8221; has nothing to do with antisemitism, nor with morale, philosophy, history or violence&#8230; Tarantino doesn&#8217;t bother a single second. So why should we marvel at him having &#8220;the courage to change history in a movie&#8221;? Even &#8220;Jackie Brown&#8221; is only a façade, and while most people have considered it a &#8220;mature&#8221; movie, I think these people would be embarrassed if asked about the story&#8217;s purpose. Thank you for this great review.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Alice in Wonderland by Keith</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2010/03/05/alice-in-wonderland/comment-page-1/#comment-58698</link>
		<dc:creator>Keith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:02:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=2560#comment-58698</guid>
		<description>Thought you should know that your reference to Snake Plissken has cemented you as my favorite critic. Great review</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thought you should know that your reference to Snake Plissken has cemented you as my favorite critic. Great review</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Alice in Wonderland by Gossett</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2010/03/05/alice-in-wonderland/comment-page-1/#comment-58696</link>
		<dc:creator>Gossett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 02:40:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=2560#comment-58696</guid>
		<description>Of all the reviews I have read, this is the one that said what I was thinking. I totally agree, the abnormal is glorified here in the hopes of creating more abnormality in the world. 

However, the end completely threw me when Alice joins the corporation. Although in one way it seemed a corny little womyn&#039;s libber ending, in another way, it seemed to stand the whole movie on its head. It did for me, anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of all the reviews I have read, this is the one that said what I was thinking. I totally agree, the abnormal is glorified here in the hopes of creating more abnormality in the world. </p>
<p>However, the end completely threw me when Alice joins the corporation. Although in one way it seemed a corny little womyn&#8217;s libber ending, in another way, it seemed to stand the whole movie on its head. It did for me, anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Alice in Wonderland by Max Einhorn</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2010/03/05/alice-in-wonderland/comment-page-1/#comment-58695</link>
		<dc:creator>Max Einhorn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:20:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=2560#comment-58695</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think I would go as far to say that Burton considers normal things evil. I think if you&#039;re talking about the worlds he creates and the story lines he takes on/reason he takes them on, I think this is just something he prefers and why his movies are more unique than that of most other directors. He&#039;s an auteur without question. 

Tim Burton has inspired a following but I think it&#039;s wrong for you to completely attack a generation that hasn&#039;t even come to its maturity and blame this director a faux crime. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Star Trek have done the same thing. 


Though The Jabberwocky did play a weird part in the film, it actually was part of Through The Looking Glass.  The film itself does follow Burton&#039;s themes, but in a more mature way- maturity and reclusiveness. He is growing as filmmaker, but more subtly than say Spielberg, but at least he is at all unlike Quentin Tarantino. 

I thought with the queen there was a moment of brilliance, when she mentioned that her husband was going to leave her.  If only it had lasted longer, there could have been an exploration of the queen&#039;s obsession with loyalty and how she would rather see others dead than having their allegiance with others. It also could have been milked more when she loses to Alice in the end and her subjects refuse to assist her. I also thought the prosthetic wearing subjects concept could have been explained a little better, but I think this is part of some sort of grand queen storyline  that was probably interrupted on the cutting room floor or in early drafts of the script. 

I admired the cinematography and art direction that contributed to the world, but I agree that the non-3D humans seem very out of place at certain times.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think I would go as far to say that Burton considers normal things evil. I think if you&#8217;re talking about the worlds he creates and the story lines he takes on/reason he takes them on, I think this is just something he prefers and why his movies are more unique than that of most other directors. He&#8217;s an auteur without question. </p>
<p>Tim Burton has inspired a following but I think it&#8217;s wrong for you to completely attack a generation that hasn&#8217;t even come to its maturity and blame this director a faux crime. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Star Trek have done the same thing. </p>
<p>Though The Jabberwocky did play a weird part in the film, it actually was part of Through The Looking Glass.  The film itself does follow Burton&#8217;s themes, but in a more mature way- maturity and reclusiveness. He is growing as filmmaker, but more subtly than say Spielberg, but at least he is at all unlike Quentin Tarantino. </p>
<p>I thought with the queen there was a moment of brilliance, when she mentioned that her husband was going to leave her.  If only it had lasted longer, there could have been an exploration of the queen&#8217;s obsession with loyalty and how she would rather see others dead than having their allegiance with others. It also could have been milked more when she loses to Alice in the end and her subjects refuse to assist her. I also thought the prosthetic wearing subjects concept could have been explained a little better, but I think this is part of some sort of grand queen storyline  that was probably interrupted on the cutting room floor or in early drafts of the script. </p>
<p>I admired the cinematography and art direction that contributed to the world, but I agree that the non-3D humans seem very out of place at certain times.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Where the Wild Things Are by zadzi</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2009/10/16/where-the-wild-things-are/comment-page-1/#comment-58694</link>
		<dc:creator>zadzi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:56:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=1275#comment-58694</guid>
		<description>I agree with the review 100%. And I am glad to see I am not the only one who was not impressed.
I don&#039;t like this arrogance that simply because one doesn&#039;t like the movie then one doesn&#039;t &#039;get it&#039;. I &#039;got it&#039; and wasn&#039;t impressed, period. 
I thought it was bloated and self-important. I felt it took way too much for granted as far as plot (lack thereof) and coherence. And yes, it did look like it cost $8000 to make. 
You know what, I don&#039;t care how much money the movie took to make. But I do care that it&#039;s being put out as some kind of genius work, when all I see is a disjointed film with very whiny monsters that aren&#039;t even any fun to watch most of the time. 

...And that last scene was probably the final nail in the coffin for me. 

*I* deserve milk and cake for watching this movie from start to finish.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with the review 100%. And I am glad to see I am not the only one who was not impressed.<br />
I don&#8217;t like this arrogance that simply because one doesn&#8217;t like the movie then one doesn&#8217;t &#8216;get it&#8217;. I &#8216;got it&#8217; and wasn&#8217;t impressed, period.<br />
I thought it was bloated and self-important. I felt it took way too much for granted as far as plot (lack thereof) and coherence. And yes, it did look like it cost $8000 to make.<br />
You know what, I don&#8217;t care how much money the movie took to make. But I do care that it&#8217;s being put out as some kind of genius work, when all I see is a disjointed film with very whiny monsters that aren&#8217;t even any fun to watch most of the time. </p>
<p>&#8230;And that last scene was probably the final nail in the coffin for me. </p>
<p>*I* deserve milk and cake for watching this movie from start to finish.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 2012 by Melodian</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2009/11/13/2012/comment-page-1/#comment-58693</link>
		<dc:creator>Melodian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:28:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=1548#comment-58693</guid>
		<description>Much like one of the movie&#039;s crashing buildings, &quot;2012&quot; goes from standing proudly upright yet trembling slightly with plausibility, then begins to rumble and gradually tilt over into incredibility (in the sense not of &quot;cool and awesome&quot; but as in &quot;lacking in credibility&quot;), before picking up speed and disintegrating into ludicrous. With casualties in the billions as the planet implodes, are we really expected to give a crap about two cute yet annoying children? Or that neutrinos (supposedly the source of this catastrophe) can&#039;t actually cause these effects, so the plot suggests the particles &quot;mutate&quot; into something else that microwave-cooks the earth&#039;s interior but has no apparent effect whatsoever on surface-dwellers? Or that whatever vehicle John Cusack is in (on land, air or sea) somehow just barely manages to avoid the destruction all around him? Or that once we reach the ark-ships in the Himalayas, the movie devolves into a rehash of &quot;The Poseidon Adventure&quot;? Or that in the end, the earthquakes, tidal waves and mass destruction simply ... stop ... and the survivors sail peacefully into the sunset towards a habitable destination? Please. I know any film of this nature requires one to suspend disbelief, but for one that purports to derive its scariness from the proposition that these events are based on science and could actually happen, I found myself reaching for the fast-forward button all too often. Despite the over-the-top special effects, this film left me with the feeling that I had just wasted two and a half hours of my life.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Much like one of the movie&#8217;s crashing buildings, &#8220;2012&#8243; goes from standing proudly upright yet trembling slightly with plausibility, then begins to rumble and gradually tilt over into incredibility (in the sense not of &#8220;cool and awesome&#8221; but as in &#8220;lacking in credibility&#8221;), before picking up speed and disintegrating into ludicrous. With casualties in the billions as the planet implodes, are we really expected to give a crap about two cute yet annoying children? Or that neutrinos (supposedly the source of this catastrophe) can&#8217;t actually cause these effects, so the plot suggests the particles &#8220;mutate&#8221; into something else that microwave-cooks the earth&#8217;s interior but has no apparent effect whatsoever on surface-dwellers? Or that whatever vehicle John Cusack is in (on land, air or sea) somehow just barely manages to avoid the destruction all around him? Or that once we reach the ark-ships in the Himalayas, the movie devolves into a rehash of &#8220;The Poseidon Adventure&#8221;? Or that in the end, the earthquakes, tidal waves and mass destruction simply &#8230; stop &#8230; and the survivors sail peacefully into the sunset towards a habitable destination? Please. I know any film of this nature requires one to suspend disbelief, but for one that purports to derive its scariness from the proposition that these events are based on science and could actually happen, I found myself reaching for the fast-forward button all too often. Despite the over-the-top special effects, this film left me with the feeling that I had just wasted two and a half hours of my life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 2012 by Corey</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2009/11/13/2012/comment-page-1/#comment-58692</link>
		<dc:creator>Corey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:08:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=1548#comment-58692</guid>
		<description>I agree completely! Some of the stuff that he threw in the movie is horrible. Like when Cusack gets the limo to his ex&#039;s. After they are all in the limo, it seems as though Cusack purposefully knocks his ex&#039;s boyfriends very nice car into the hole, and then says, &quot;Sorry&quot;. I&#039;m sure they would be joking at a time like this.. It&#039;s as if Emmerich tried to only impress on the visual end of the movie. He must have just said, &quot;Screw the plot. MORE DESTRUCTION&quot;. I couldn&#039;t even get through the movie, so kudos to whoever was able to.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree completely! Some of the stuff that he threw in the movie is horrible. Like when Cusack gets the limo to his ex&#8217;s. After they are all in the limo, it seems as though Cusack purposefully knocks his ex&#8217;s boyfriends very nice car into the hole, and then says, &#8220;Sorry&#8221;. I&#8217;m sure they would be joking at a time like this.. It&#8217;s as if Emmerich tried to only impress on the visual end of the movie. He must have just said, &#8220;Screw the plot. MORE DESTRUCTION&#8221;. I couldn&#8217;t even get through the movie, so kudos to whoever was able to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HURT LOCKER Producer&#8217;s Oscars Invitation Revoked by Rubin Safaya</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2010/03/02/hurt-locker-producers-oscars-invitation-revoked/comment-page-1/#comment-58691</link>
		<dc:creator>Rubin Safaya</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:42:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=2561#comment-58691</guid>
		<description>AMPAS didn&#039;t take away his nomination entirely.  He just cannot receive the award at the ceremony.  If &lt;em&gt;The Hurt Locker&lt;/em&gt; wins, he will receive the award at a later date and still be eligible for induction into the Academy.  I think that&#039;s utter nonsense, given the fact that Diana Ossana was one of the only Academy Award winners (2005 Best Adapted Screenplay for &lt;em&gt;Brokeback Mountain&lt;/em&gt;) to not be inducted automatically.  She did nothing at all to merit being passed over.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AMPAS didn&#8217;t take away his nomination entirely.  He just cannot receive the award at the ceremony.  If <em>The Hurt Locker</em> wins, he will receive the award at a later date and still be eligible for induction into the Academy.  I think that&#8217;s utter nonsense, given the fact that Diana Ossana was one of the only Academy Award winners (2005 Best Adapted Screenplay for <em>Brokeback Mountain</em>) to not be inducted automatically.  She did nothing at all to merit being passed over.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HURT LOCKER Producer&#8217;s Oscars Invitation Revoked by Max Einhorn</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2010/03/02/hurt-locker-producers-oscars-invitation-revoked/comment-page-1/#comment-58690</link>
		<dc:creator>Max Einhorn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:30:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=2561#comment-58690</guid>
		<description>Doesn&#039;t surprise me at all and I think it&#039;s the appropriate action. I&#039;ve been following this story. I&#039;m just happy that the film itself wasn&#039;t yanked from the ballot, but of course, that would be a pretty extreme option. What I&#039;m curious to know is if Chartier is still invited into the Academy when the film wins Best Picture. I&#039;m going to assume that since he isn&#039;t invited to accept this award that this is in fact the case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doesn&#8217;t surprise me at all and I think it&#8217;s the appropriate action. I&#8217;ve been following this story. I&#8217;m just happy that the film itself wasn&#8217;t yanked from the ballot, but of course, that would be a pretty extreme option. What I&#8217;m curious to know is if Chartier is still invited into the Academy when the film wins Best Picture. I&#8217;m going to assume that since he isn&#8217;t invited to accept this award that this is in fact the case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Shutter Island by Rubin Safaya</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2010/02/19/shutter-island/comment-page-1/#comment-58689</link>
		<dc:creator>Rubin Safaya</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=2446#comment-58689</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Douglas:&lt;/strong&gt; Teddy was a Federal Agent (I never said he wasn&#039;t), and he also served in WWII.  But what the clues lead up to *spoiler alert* is that all of Teddy&#039;s hallucinations are a byproduct of his depression and guilt over shooting his wife.  He is now a patient at Shutter Island&#039;s psychiatric hospital.

Everything that we need to know about that is actually conveyed in the very first scene with the surreal backdrop and Teddy vomiting on an imaginary boat.  The vomiting is the first indication of the moment he began experiencing withdrawal symptoms from his treatment.  Also, as I pointed out, there are other details, such as the fact that his coat is a couple inches too large... a suggestion that the facility physicians gave it to him as part of the role play.

Laeddis was his hallucination.  Laeddis keeps talking about atom bombs, World War II, and tells Teddy, &quot;You did this to me.&quot;  These are all clues that Laeddis isn&#039;t a separate person and Teddy really has had a psychotic break.

Regarding the ending, Teddy isn&#039;t actually relapsing back into his psychosis and it&#039;s evident that he has been a patient there for at least two years.  Listen carefully to the dialogue at the &lt;em&gt;very&lt;/em&gt; end.  He is, in fact, faking his relapse to force the insane asylum to lobotomize him.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Douglas:</strong> Teddy was a Federal Agent (I never said he wasn&#8217;t), and he also served in WWII.  But what the clues lead up to *spoiler alert* is that all of Teddy&#8217;s hallucinations are a byproduct of his depression and guilt over shooting his wife.  He is now a patient at Shutter Island&#8217;s psychiatric hospital.</p>
<p>Everything that we need to know about that is actually conveyed in the very first scene with the surreal backdrop and Teddy vomiting on an imaginary boat.  The vomiting is the first indication of the moment he began experiencing withdrawal symptoms from his treatment.  Also, as I pointed out, there are other details, such as the fact that his coat is a couple inches too large&#8230; a suggestion that the facility physicians gave it to him as part of the role play.</p>
<p>Laeddis was his hallucination.  Laeddis keeps talking about atom bombs, World War II, and tells Teddy, &#8220;You did this to me.&#8221;  These are all clues that Laeddis isn&#8217;t a separate person and Teddy really has had a psychotic break.</p>
<p>Regarding the ending, Teddy isn&#8217;t actually relapsing back into his psychosis and it&#8217;s evident that he has been a patient there for at least two years.  Listen carefully to the dialogue at the <em>very</em> end.  He is, in fact, faking his relapse to force the insane asylum to lobotomize him.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Shutter Island by douglas</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2010/02/19/shutter-island/comment-page-1/#comment-58688</link>
		<dc:creator>douglas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:53:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=2446#comment-58688</guid>
		<description>I enjoyed your review but am concerned many people are missing the true ending to this movie; that Teddy is in fact exactly who he says he is, a Federal agent.  If you watch closely, there are multiple clues to this sprinkled throughout the film.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I enjoyed your review but am concerned many people are missing the true ending to this movie; that Teddy is in fact exactly who he says he is, a Federal agent.  If you watch closely, there are multiple clues to this sprinkled throughout the film.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Percy Jackson &amp; The Olympians: The Lightning Thief by tommyorlando</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2010/02/12/percy-jackson-the-lightning-thief/comment-page-1/#comment-58687</link>
		<dc:creator>tommyorlando</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:01:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=2400#comment-58687</guid>
		<description>This movie was nothing like a Harry Potter film and was more like bits of a Chronicles of Narnia film.  Add to this the feeling of being thrust into a Pepsi commercial with every other ha-ha joke...this movie disappoints in a big way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This movie was nothing like a Harry Potter film and was more like bits of a Chronicles of Narnia film.  Add to this the feeling of being thrust into a Pepsi commercial with every other ha-ha joke&#8230;this movie disappoints in a big way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Shutter Island by tommyorlando</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2010/02/19/shutter-island/comment-page-1/#comment-58686</link>
		<dc:creator>tommyorlando</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 04:56:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=2446#comment-58686</guid>
		<description>Wow, best review I&#039;ve read so far.  Anyone who leverages a visual of legendary drummer BUDDY RICH in the review of a Scorcese film deserves at the very least polite golf applause let alone being read. Bravo!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, best review I&#8217;ve read so far.  Anyone who leverages a visual of legendary drummer BUDDY RICH in the review of a Scorcese film deserves at the very least polite golf applause let alone being read. Bravo!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 2012 by Koatz</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2009/11/13/2012/comment-page-1/#comment-58684</link>
		<dc:creator>Koatz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:19:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=1548#comment-58684</guid>
		<description>Definitely a one-timer. I&#039;ll never watch it again, if I can help it, and I&#039;ll be on the lookout for films by Emmerich in the future, to avoid seeing them.  

The movie simply lacked substance. It was a predictable hodgepodge of explosions, close-calls, destruction, and chaos.  The people that I wanted to live, died (the Russian Billionaire, for example), and the people that should have died (Anheuser), survived to the bitter end.

The special effects... yes, they were unbelievably spectacular, which in my eyes makes them less interesting.  Special effects within reason are fine, but when a person who has never flown a multi-engine plane is able to fly it between two collapsing buildings, that&#039;s too much for me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Definitely a one-timer. I&#8217;ll never watch it again, if I can help it, and I&#8217;ll be on the lookout for films by Emmerich in the future, to avoid seeing them.  </p>
<p>The movie simply lacked substance. It was a predictable hodgepodge of explosions, close-calls, destruction, and chaos.  The people that I wanted to live, died (the Russian Billionaire, for example), and the people that should have died (Anheuser), survived to the bitter end.</p>
<p>The special effects&#8230; yes, they were unbelievably spectacular, which in my eyes makes them less interesting.  Special effects within reason are fine, but when a person who has never flown a multi-engine plane is able to fly it between two collapsing buildings, that&#8217;s too much for me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Avatar by Garry</title>
		<link>http://www.cinemalogue.com/2009/12/18/avatar/comment-page-1/#comment-58683</link>
		<dc:creator>Garry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:19:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cinemalogue.com/?p=2000#comment-58683</guid>
		<description>Beautiful film: the message, God ( Universe) is light and energy and is all around and there are different astral layers of consciousness. Human evolution is evolution of consciousness. This is why in the film we were as humans referred to as &quot; children&quot; meaning we have not reached higher levels of astral planes. Our societies today are based on Pythagor, Aristotles logic, Descartes cartesianism and have excluded all other forms of esoteric sciense and thinking/BEING and in this sense, core materialisme and dry logic/ maths will kill the human being. I am of no church , I just see here Spinoza&#039;s pantheism, everything is Universe/God, even in the eyes of my cat looking at me....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Beautiful film: the message, God ( Universe) is light and energy and is all around and there are different astral layers of consciousness. Human evolution is evolution of consciousness. This is why in the film we were as humans referred to as &#8221; children&#8221; meaning we have not reached higher levels of astral planes. Our societies today are based on Pythagor, Aristotles logic, Descartes cartesianism and have excluded all other forms of esoteric sciense and thinking/BEING and in this sense, core materialisme and dry logic/ maths will kill the human being. I am of no church , I just see here Spinoza&#8217;s pantheism, everything is Universe/God, even in the eyes of my cat looking at me&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
