Comment On Nora Ephron Dies Aged 71

Ed Cunningham, an ESPN sports analyst, tapped the crowdfunding service Kickstarter to finish what has been a nearly six-year labor of love.    

“Aurangzeb” weaves Bollywood tropes — twins separated as babies, parent-child reunions, crosses and double-crosses — with contemporary outrage at the rules of the game.    

What do you consider a must see movie simply because of what they achieve or do on a technical level(music, camera work, sound, cgi, effects, cinematography, etc.)? Regardless of how good you think the movie actually is in terms of acting or writing or story. For example, Enter the Void is a movie many would consider bad or boring and not that great. However, I think it's a must see purely because of what they achieve with the camera work and cinematography. Also, Avatar. Many like it, but there are also many who don't think it's that great and has a bland story and average acting, but I also consider it a must see because of its groundbreaking effects. So what movies do you think are must sees from a technical standpoint? submitted by AyThroughZee [link] [6 comments]

There are many actors that I just see their face and immediately don't like them. The main one I can think of is Cliff Curtis: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0193295/?ref_=tt_cl_t5 submitted by MrGCar [link] [30 comments]

Vulcans and their comrades came out to power the sci-fi sequel Star Trek Into Darkness into the number one spot at the North American box office, however grosses were substantially below industry expectations across the board. The Paramount franchise film had an extended release and grossed $70.6M over the Friday-to-Sunday period with a total of $84.1M since its start on Wednesday night in IMAX locations making for a debut that was smaller than its 2009 predecessor's.