http://www.worldofkj.com/reviews/Galia/NewWorld.php



That just means movies you don't like, don't give coverage to at all, and movies you do you could probably submit. I don't see how a studio could be mad at you for trying to persuade more people to see a film. And I'm starting to be a big fan of not even seeing movies I think are going to be terrible as they don't deserve my money or the additional air time a review would give them anyways. That's why I don't have so many "bad graded" films. The ones that I didn't like where still movies I had thought had potential. I didn't bother going to see Big mommas House....if you catch my drift.

So, who else is going to see this today, and let us know what they thought, hmmmmmmm?


edit** Page 10!

In ways it reminded me of Master & Commander.

Whew, I relieved then. Now I am sure, I won't love it, heh.

Judging from your cheesy red signature, you probably will like it, actually.

I'm sure you won't love it because you are a craphead!

That cheesy red signature is from andaroo's favorite film of this decade, I think, so

No, because I'm a moron.

Oh yes, and Moulin Rouge! is the best film of the decade.

Me And You and Everyone We Know?

I can safely say my top 10 of 2005 is the best on this site.

Moulin Rouge was incredible BTW.

I love you despite your glaring character flaws.

Anyway, what is up with the RT tomatoemeter. I don't even *understand* the violent response. I mean, I understand Rex Reed's, but any time any critic is on the same side of the aisle as Rex Reed, one has to wonder.

Yea, the critic response baffles me.

Sort of like Geisha.

It seems like both are about 30 percentage points too low.

Critics were odd last year. Honestly, I think celebrity is becoming an issue. It's hip to slam, with flair, certain films.

We talking New World or Moulin Rouge right now?

Hell, both! Thought I can see where the confusion is coming from...

Dolce, I knew you had a review up (I paid for it )

I was just referring to how well-written your reviews are. But for anyone with a low level of reading comprehension (or those who fear thesauruses), I should write one.

Go for it. I highly doubt New Line is going to be mad at you for giving their film an A+, and New World needs all the help it can get.

Who else is going to see this today, hmmm? Can't wait to hear what people thought.

An interesting fact I found on imdb.

.

What's so specially about 65mm?

I was going to ask the same thing I'm so clueless about these aspects of filmmaking.

Why in the hell isn't this getting more awards buzz? The trailer looked quite boring, I'll admit, so I can (somewhat) excuse the low box office numbers, but critics are fucking stupid. This was, however, not a boring movie at all. It was visually exceptional and Q'Orianka Kilcher gave a great performance.

A-

More details! Yay Chris!

Where's loyal? He needs to hand over another club tee to Chris

It's all about the quality of the stock. Most of your Imax films are shot in 70mm. But 65mm/70mm is very expensive compared to 35mm. You'll often get 35mm prints blown-up for some Imax theatres.

The one thing I was pleasantly surprised about was that the movie didn't lose focus as it shifted into England. I thought it would, but those scenes were just as great at the ones in America. I'll post some more thoughts a little later after I eat.