Didn't really entice me.

MURDER! In Antarctica! Scary snow!!! ... Hot Fuzz II aka Frozen Furr

Anyone actually read this and know if it's actually worth a dime?

So, pretty much everyone expected right?

This is something that has bothered me for a while. At the very start it makes me ask a couple of questions. First, What does it mean to be cinematic? Is it the feeling of being swept away by a mixture of images, sounds and natural human empathy? The second question then is Should games be cinematic?

My answer to the second is no. I'm not sure that they need to be. I think that there are greater elements at play that can be used to elicit the response that we have to movies. In the same way that a poem, story, song or painting can move us in a deep and compelling way games can get us there. But not necessarily through dramatic cut scenes or a well crafted story arc. The reason that we're moved by so many different art forms is that on some level they strike us deep where we are as humans. Some experience or set beliefs in us have been touched, conjuring up an emotional response to something that is fictional and never happened. Films for example achieve this through a number of methods. The music, pacing, editing, acting, story and lighting all play a part in how we perceive what is happening and how we respond. Done correctly we cheer when the director wants us to cheer and cry when he wants us to cry.
These responses are not exclusive to films by any means, but film can get you there quicker because of the variety of angles that they can attack you from. Films also have the advantage over other art forms in that they're the popular. So when video games advance technologically into the 3D age, what better way for them to capture people's attention and tell the story then through small bit sized films, or cut scenes. Because, let's be honest, all cut scenes are just small, short animated clips strung together at appropriate times. These clips utilized what film had been developing for nearly a century and directors used these techniques (lighting, editing, music) to grab players attention and elicit responses.
As games developed further and technology progressed directors of games began to incorporate these same devices and techniques into the action of the game. As you played wide vistas and stirring music swelled and they were able to combine the unique factor in games, interaction, with the art of film. Using them together effectively separates the good games from the great. Example are Shadow of the Colossus, the Halo series, and in my opinion the God of War series.
But is this really games showing their true art form or is it just borrowing all of films great tricks and adding a little interaction as an added spice? What part of the interaction sets games apart? This is the real heart of the issue. What makes a game like Bioshock be considered a great piece of "game as art" when the same is said of the original Super Mario Brothers?
It's my opinion that games should come out of the shadow of films and find their own niche in the art world. Something that takes the interaction and uses that as the source of our emotional response. Some might counter with the point that games like GTA IV do by making your world a sandbox where you're able to do whatever you like. On one hand I'd agree with you, freedom of choice in what you interact with is a great leap in what seems like the right direction. However, does non-linear story telling and freedom set it apart that much when the main story is composed of many of the same old rigid inflexible cut scenes? You lose all freedom once you decide to follow the story. You must do X, Y, Z (literaly in some cases) to move on in the narrative.
For sandbox games to truely embrace their potential as an individual art form we will need to see a game that is completely flexible and adaptable to every decision you make. There are still so many invisiable walls in games that prevent you from ever really being "free" The best example of this would be the computer game in the book Ender's Game. A game that tapped into your psyche and as you progressed it adapted to how you were responding. It was different for everyone. OR on the flip side, gaming developers could be like every other art form and regidly dictate exactly what is going to happen and in some way involve the player interactually. There's the rub. How do you have a set number of factors that result in an emotional response and have the player some how interacting and be entertained by that game?

There's also the trouble of art being subjective and in the eye of the beholder. The summary? Games have piggy backed onto films and need to seperate themselves in a way that's unique to them and uses their advantage, interactivity. And yet retain the ability to elicit an emotional response from players. Good luck!

~Sauce_

PS. Fox Searchlight has added a lot of new screenings for this movie since /film ran their article about them. Some are still open, like in Boston. Might want to check back in and see if there's something near you still available. Go to the (500) Days of Summer website on fox searchlight. Right side, under find tickets.

Since I live in the NYC area, all tickets are gone. Sad Sauce_.

True, off the top of my head no, but I wouldn't call this some new revelation. When you trumped it up, I thought I'd see something a little more than split screen. That's been around the block and abused for decades now. Most of the uses are in action/heist movies (all that's coming to mind right now). But in all honesty this use of it didn't impress me. I get the why...It simplifies things and like you say, circumvents the need for a lot of set up. But I'm not sure it qualifies as "expertly crafted". A good device, yes, but does it achieve more than that in this one minute clip? I'm not so sure...

I'll admit that there's really no way to judge this properly by just seeing a minute of footage. I have no context for this scene. I absolutely get that it works in the film and I'll take your word for that. I'll also admit that this happens All the time in life especially when it comes to love. It's a pain in the ass.

But "Must see" seems like a stretch to me.

+1 points for the writers/directors trying this shot though. Much love there.

Wow...from the way you talked about that scene.....Shrug, Example A of Expectations not meeting Reality.

Count me in. That looks pretty great to me. Thriller that actually has some smarts and great acting? Fantastic cast by the way. Yep, I'm excited.

First text to my roommates, all big fans of Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead, after seeing Star Trek? "Star Trek, Starring Simon Pegg"

I loved him in ST, scene stealer extraordinaire.

That was painful...and I feel dirty. The depth is too much to wade through.

So....They're a bunch or Reaver's right? This is some...Same world, Firefly spin off / Alien's ripoff? right? Shrug.

Ben Foster though. I like Ben Foster.