I have to agree with most people that this isn't really that big of a deal. The movie is what it is, without the ending. I'm willing to bet there are plenty of critics whose reviews have been shaped quite a bit by how they felt about the final 15 minutes of a film.

The movie is what it is and the story should be worth retelling with or without the ending; it goes both ways there. There is definitely some inherent frustration there simply as a viewer, but that's the job, eh?

I agree with Prathik about the Matrix topping the Man v. Machine charts.

The problem I think we are seeing a lot more is that film makers are trying to explain WHY these machines are doing what they do and in doing so are applying human logic to a machine's "thought process." I think it was on the Chef Elf site (listing the reasons to hate the Star Wars films) where it was pointed out that doing things like giving robots personality, which is expressed through verbal communication completely removes anything scary about them. Understanding a machine's motives through a human lens dumbs it down. Of course, there isn't much way around this. It simply is what it is.

The Matrix kind of navigated around this by making most of the "true" inhabitants of the machine world silent killers. The sentinels don't communicate by sound, and most agents besides Smith really didn't talk very much. They just killed. Part of the reason the sequels don't compete with the original in terms of story telling is that half of the time it's like reading a book with way too much expository dialogue.

Then, after all that, yes, technology is just too familiar to us now. And while that seems like it would be a great opportunity (oh no, what if your iPhone facebook app CAME TO LIFE AND ATTACKED YOU!), it really is just goofy and at times seems preachy (Pulse).

The point he's making, which you are clarifying, is that using music existing music in a fan-made trailer for a non-existent movie is distracting enough that someone might forget what the fake movie was supposed to be about?

Mind boggling.

The CGI work on the ship has this haziness to it that you see on large, distant objects (think of a bridge on a summer day as you see it in the distance. I think it really helps make it look believable as it reflects the imperfections we see in the real world.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the "delusion" piece. I remember when I was younger and watching "behind the scenes" specials, directors would always say 'We tried to pull off this stunt, but it didn't look right so we had to cut it.' If they couldn't pull something off, they didn't do it. Now it seems that if they can't do it they try to do it on a computer and somehow they trick themselves into thinking that it looked good.

I forget which Harry Potter movie it was, but there's a scene where Harry's on top of this giant ogre in the bathroom and it looks completely like a cartoon. Similarly the "Burly Brawl" scene in Matrix Reloaded at times seems cartoon like and that's quite distracting.

On the complete opposite end of the spectrum you have CGI in Children of Men that is so well done I'd never have known that certain things weren't constructed sets if I hadn't seen the DVD on TV special on FX or something like that.

And now that people are talking about it I have to agree - the effects in Wolverine make up 85% of the reason I disliked the film. Particularly the scene in which he's "re-discovering" his newly adamantium coated claws in the old folks' bathroom. What did that cost? Six dollars?

Also, the CGI beer/quarters in the Das Boot scenes in Beerfest were pretty distracting.

It didn't ruin the movie per se (it was already awful), but I think Spawn had some of the worst computer generated imagery. Any scene that took place in Hell made me nauseous enough that I needed to look away from the screen. Nothing can take you out of the movie more than not looking at the screen.

Any preview for this movie gives me a nerd boner. But I'm having a hard time with Anton Yelchin. Could he try to say "Come with me if you want to live" in a less girlie voice please?

Also, someone should've reminded Christian Bale during his speech to Sam Worthington that The Dark Knight wrapped a long time ago - no need to growl.

To your first point, you're right. I misinterpreted what you had written. It was perfectly reasonable to assume that the blurring and lack of subtitles was an element of the film itself. I just assumed that it was part of some viral marketing strategy and later we'd see a "hacked" version of the interrogation tape that revealed the face. The fact that the video was removed from IMDB adds credence to that.

That's precisely my point about V for Vendetta. The short-sighted view is to say that it's about something recent simply because recent events weigh more heavily in our minds. However, thinking about it now after you've responded, that comparison was poorly attributed. The difference being that while V for Vendetta was written closer to the Thatcher era, the film was released in the Blair era and thus people said "this is about Tony Blair!" My overall point being that the setting and situation you attributed to the film from the original trailer was based only on what's been important in the news recently (recent as in the last 6-8 months) whereas its much more likely the the plot revolves around something much more typical - the paranoia, fear, and posturing in interaction with an alien race. Which might be a tad bit disappointing.

Yes. That was perfectly executed. I give it a 10.0