disappointing. scorsese tries to channel hitchcock, but the end result is closer to m night shyamalan. the performances are solid and there's plenty of great looking shots, but it's not enough to overcome a "meh" script.

2 1/2 stars. scorsese at his worst is still above average. and while i wouldn't recommend shutter island, i also wouldn't say it should be completely avoided.

damn. i thought this could have been cool.

Disappointing to hear...still plan on seeing it though.

Wasn't very excited about it from the beginning, but hey, whatever. Not like I'm paying money to see anything in theaters in the first place.

i go to the movies quite a bit. i usually like to go once a week, but there are always rough patches when i only go once or twice a month.

but i'm in no way a part of the "stealing movies is wrong" crowd. i support stealing music, movies, and almost everything else for that matter. i just really enjoy seeing films on the big screen while shoveling gummy worms and raisinettes down my throat. at this point in my life i much prefer going to the movies over going to a show, and usually prefer it over going to a bar.

I bought an HDTV, Bluray player, and pay for Netflix monthly, so I don't pirate movies either (usually).

Finally saw this tonight and while I thought the premise was pretty unoriginal and predictable, the end result was still satisfying. I enjoyed it but probably would not go out of my way to watch it again.

That's Sony convincing you that you need that stuff.

Right. Film and iPhone gadgets and games are in the same ballpark. That's a reach. Sorry man, but unless one's job requires constant attention to his email, the obsession with mobile technology is frivolous. When you're being asked by a consumer electronics company if you're embarrassed by your phone, something's wrong with the culture.

whats wrong with standard definition? having a nice flat HDTV is completely frivolous, is the regular dvd player not good enough for you? it serves its purpose, also frivolous. NETFLIX! so you pay per month to rent movies that you don't even need to go out to get, sounds frivolous to me.

Arguing that one type of consumerism is superior to another is kind of ludicrous. As gonz pointed out, HDTV, blu-ray, etc. are pretty frivolous. You're enhancing your movie watching experience, people with smartphones are enhancing their communication with others. You may not agree that it's an improvement, but similarly there are plenty of people out there who would argue that the technology advances of the past 20 plus years have diminished the quality of most movies.

Each technology advancement has its positives and negatives. You are right in that culturally, we seem to have a tendency to mis/ overuse the technology available to us. I just think you're targeting people with smart phones unfairly when there's a larger problem at hand.

Also, all advertising is essentially based on the idea thatyou need a product. Let's not pretend that smart phones invented the "keeping up with the joneses" mentality. Advertising agencies have spent many years trying to make you embarrassed for not owning the cool new thing.

I'd disagree. As there are essentially two elements that a production team can control, the visual quality of the film dramatically affects the experience that one has. I've seen "La regle du jeu" on a big screen and I've seen it on a tiny television. Huge difference in the experience. It's the same as if you were to listen to a low quality mp3 on an ipod and a 180 gram vinyl through a hi-fi stereo. The quality of the transmission is an essential facet of the art experience.



One of these is art, and one is not. This distinction is very important.



You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who claims that the Bluray transfer of "The Seven Samurai" diminishes the quality of the experience when compared to VHS. Who cares if people argue that movie production sucks now? 90% of Hollywood productions suck and have always sucked. We're talking about the enhancement of the consumption of art through technology.



Phones have an extremely fast turnover rate. People will pay up the ass for new models and expanded data plans because of the sense that it enriches their life. That's the problem here: it's not owning a phone with internet, it's the idea that a person should feel embarrassed or incomplete because he or she has "outdated" technology that is, in the most essential ways, every bit as functional as the current tech.



So we agree on this, but just because phones aren't the only consumer good that attempts to exploit (or generate) our insecurities doesn't mean that they shouldn't be discussed as a problem. I would argue that sneaker companies and handbags are as bad if not worse.

ricky's wrong, everyone else is right. you can either be pro-consumerism or anti-consumerism. pretending that the crap you buy is better than the crap other people buy is stupid.

p.s. thanks for ruining my thread, dipshits.

That's ridiculous. So wanting a $10k Hyundai because it has a 10-year warranty would be no different than wanting a $120k Mercedes-Benz because it's shinier? There's a difference between function and adornment. Wanting a new cell phone because of its value as cultural capital is completely different than wanting good running sneakers because you don't want to ruin your knees. That doesn't make sense? Anyone?

Film has survived over 100 years without Blu-Ray, or HDTV, or any of the other major advances of the past few years. As a guy with a Blu-Ray, HDTV, and a pretty badass sound system, I agree that it totally changes the experience. However, I would still argue that those changes are frivolous. You cited a movie made in 1939 (!!!!!) as an example. Surely that movie would not have been enjoyed for the past 71 years if having an HDTV was all that important to enjoying it. Point being, these things surely enhance the experience, but in the end, they're by no means necessary.

And you know who else is just as skilled as phone companies, handbag companies, and sneaker companies at exploiting insecurities? Electronics manufacturers. You NEED a 3D LED TV, because it ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE. And your neighbor already got one, so don't be left behind.

Same game, different product.

It's all about the person. The same schmuck who's going to buy a phone as a status symbol will buy an HDTV as one if that's where his/ her interest lies. Similarly, the same person who buys an HDTV to make their movies more palatable will buy a fancy phone because it has a productive purpose. And let's face it, even if you're buying your sweet TV with the best of intentions, you're still buying some shit somebody sold you.

We will never convince Ricky and he will never stop arguing.

I don't know if I liked the movie or this thread less.

Let me try to clarify my position here.

My problem with consumerism has been, from the beginning, an issue with consumer items as cultural capital. Am I anti-refrigerator? No. Am I anti-washing machine? No. What I am against is the replacement of one's empty soul with the latest model phone, an item that is shoved down your throat ad nauseum in every form of media.

And Brian, when you start selling molds of your reproductive organs, I will certainly become consumeristic and crazed. I will buy every permutation of your scrotum sac, every bend and twist of your small Irish penis, and further, trample middle-aged women at Best Buy for the right to claim them as my own.

I'm going to watch it today.


Hot Tub Time Machine last night was actually a movie that made me laugh, all the way through until the sappy ending. I liked it a lot...

i actually saw it last night with heightened senses and still thought it was boring. some good moments but no thanks.

We live in the age of consumerism. Whole generations buy, think, wear, and feel the way they do, to various extents. All this simply because they saw it on TV, heard it on the radio, a friend told them, or it's just simply the cool thing to do at the given moment. Society is molded, mass manipulation to the extents that people are afraid to really talk about, or might take offense to. Though we are all equally guilty of it at moments in our lives.

But people don't want to feel that helplessness of being told such things though, we like to think as ourselves as pure individuals.


People don't have to get the art for it to be sold as entertainment. Some of the best of any such category is trended, and made even more popular than it would have been.

You think people really get the great arts? Regarding "art" as a separate category from shiny new things is frivolous in and of itself. Anything can be made shiny to appeal to masses.


Everything is shoved down your throat, the arts and truly great works, that people don't understand can be sold as easily as any I-phone.

Anything and everything is a shiny new toy.


Even advancements, but then you can also argue that the "experience" takes away from the quality of the move itself, when it focuses on catering towards such a thing.

What was a better movie Star Wars, or Avatar?


I'd say the story of Star Wars is superior, despite the lack of experience felt with the lack of advanced movie technology.

Honestly I thought Avatar kind of sucked, and was a shitty story sold on being that thing you have to go experience for yourself...


This argument could go endlessly in any which direction.


what's better classical music live, or the newest best cleanest recording of it?



I'm sure some of yesterdays great composers would scoff at such advancements made, and look at it as in the same manner as an I Phone.

The argument itself is frivolous, when everything is umbrella-ed under consumerism.

Is this the plot to Shutter Island?