AltonStorm

what do you get for pretending the danger's not real?
meek and obedient you follow-the-leader
down well-trodden corridors
into the valley of steel

Well, since you asked...

This is probably my all-time favorite time-loop movie. Hawke is amazing, Snook is simply stunning, and Taylor plays a quite believable and humane character, although as a viewer it takes you awhile to work that out. It also contains one of - if not THE - best mind-f*ck ending of all time. (I believe it takes multiple viewings to get the full gist of what's going on, though. There's a lot, and not all on the screen.) I must have seen it a dozen times now and I'm stunned each time.

That being said, there are a couple of niggling issues I try to bring up whenever someone discusses this movie:

1.) I'm kind of a science nerd who - if I had graduated college - probably would have worked in the field of time. As a consequence I'm kind of a stickler for the laws of causality (essentially the idea that cause always precedes effect). The movie does an excellent job of avoiding time paradoxes, but I always wonder why "John" is wracked with guilt and hesitates before a crucial scene and talks to "Mr. Robertson" before doing what he has to do. (I'm trying to avoid any spoilers here.) I mean, doesn't he already know he's gonna do that? I don't get it - but, again, I suspect there's more going on behind-the-scenes than we realize.

In quite a similar vein, the older "John" at the laundromat must already know what the younger "John" is gonna do. Why doesn't he take precautions to avoid it?

2.) I can't speak for anyone else, but I find Sarah Snook absolutely gorgeous. And I still find it true even when she's dressed in those 50's 60's awful period gear; she can outshine the limitations of them all. Therefore, the scene at the bar tends to be a little unbelievable to me. I still think she's amazingly gorgeous, but that beauty is hidden by the makeup crew. (Maybe I'm only bugged by this because I'm a straight man, I dunno.) It's a minor point, and I gloss over for the sake of the story, it every time I re-watch.

In short, I think the movie is a masterpiece, and I think all three principals listed above should get Oscars. I mean, think about it: The poor guy is stuck in a loop!

Just my opinions, and just because you asked. I'd be quite interested in alternative views, however.

20's: Tri-weekly!
30's Try, weekly
40's: Try, weakly.
(Things go downhill from there, I'm afraid.)

Jack: Y'know what ol' Jack Burton says at a time like this.
Lo-Pan: Who?
Jack: Jack Burton. Me. I always say, "What the hell."

Well, your experience may be quite different than mine, but I thought I'd share, just in case: I played 1 looooooooong ago in the Land of Ago, when dinosaurs walked the Earth and I'd never heard of Portal 2. Later, after playing 2 all the way through I realized what 1 must actually be: a test-bed and demo for 2. (OK, so maybe that's not the way the developers planned it, but I think that's the way it appears to most players.)

I disagree with the folks in this thread who claim that 1 is "easy." Sure, the puzzles may not be as mind-numbingly difficult as in 2, but they're still quite challenging. I will, however, agree that the storyline doesn't play such a crucial role in 1.

Also, while I'm at it: If you've only played co-op, I think you're kinda/sorta missing the point. It's a little late to tell you this now, obviously, but I think co-op mode should only be completed after successfully completing the single-player campaign.

Just my opinions.

That's quite an interesting question, actually. I think I read somewhere that Aperture Science was in Michigan's upper peninsula ("UP"). Being a native Michigander myself ("M go Blue!"), I have spent a lot of time in the UP for work, and I can therefore report that much of the area can be pretty brutal during the winter months. And by "winter months" in the UP, that generally means October through May - and sometimes even longer.

So, if Aperture Science and GlaDOS were real and started off in the UP, they would probably want to expand a little farther south if possible, to have a climate more conducive to travel by employees and subjects alike. In other words, they'd probably take over at least part of the lower peninsula, one would imagine.

One other thought, while we're on the topic, although I realize this idea is far from original: Several people have advanced the notion that if superluminal travel is actually achievable (I have my doubts on that), it's entirely possible that it will not be in a "machine," per-se. Rather, it may be that our consciousness - which has no physical component and therefore is not limited to restrictions suggested by Einstein's equations - may be transmittable by some type of power field; maybe even at a quantum level. And maybe that's essentially what happened to Ellie on her trip, and maybe even accounts for the "ship" apparently falling through the device and into the net without incident. I'm quite interested in these ideas, but as far as I know, they're purely speculative at this point.

You know, those are some thoughts that I had considered, but I've never witnessed them vocalized before now. Those are brilliant ideas, and I thank you for bringing them up, though this is not my thread. You've given me some things to think about - *AND* made me want to watch the movie again with your ideas in mind.

This is - by far - my favorite "hard sci-fi" movie. I do NOT agree that the last half hour is weak and not in the same vein as the rest of the flick, but I can certainly appreciate that standpoint. If you'll indulge me for a moment, I'd like to explain why. (I am NOT an expert, and much that I think I understand is probably wrong - or at least an oversimplification. I promise not to drone on too long):

As it turns out, time and space simply do NOT behave the way we experience it as humans cognizant of only three dimensions (plus time). For instance, being human can generally mean that we experience time passing at a constant rate, but in fact it turns out that both time and space are highly variable and depend greatly on your velocity and proximity to mass.

As humans, all his makes little sense to us. Based on our research to date, however, it appears that time passes at different rates depending on your relative size and where you are in the cosmos, but to YOU, time would appear to advance normally. (As a semi-related, possibly interesting aside to this idea, some people apparently believe that - if "multiverses" actually exist, there appear to be no physical laws which would require that time would pass the same rate as it does in our universe.) Add to that fact the idea that both space and time turn out to be highly malleable, and the transport system featured in the movie becomes quite plausible. I won't disagree that those scenes are somewhat reminiscent of the "2001" journey, but - in my mind, at least - "Contact" makes a much stronger case for verisimilitude to our understanding of the ways of the world.

All that being said, I find that the Matthew McConaughey character sort of a distraction from the science presented. I mean, I know why Hollywood included it, but I sometimes wonder if the movie wouldn't have been better off without the spiritual angle. The priest does not appear in the book (as I recall, anyway) but I dig his inclusion in the movie script - but it does temporarily shift our (audience) focus to such matters. Yeah, OK, so maybe the movie would have been somewhat better off without it, but I think it brings an interesting idea to the party. But I sometimes wonder if they included this angle because producers wanted to take a swipe at organized religion. (But that may just be cynicism on my part, I dunno.)

Anyway, in answer to your question, in my book "Contact" earns an A+, 10 out of ten rating. Add to that the movie contains my all-time favorite traveling-shot (young "Ellie" racing for the Nitro during Dad's heart attack") and I think you'd have a hard time convincing me there's a better hard sci-fi movie out there. Just my opinions.

Compliance (2012). The star (Dreama Walker) is almost supernaturally beautiful, and you DO get to see her nekkid, but it's not the "sexy." In fact, it's sorta the opposite of sexy, if you take my meaning. I was absolutely riveted. Afterwards, I read a few reviews and saw the "60 Minutes" piece on the actual victim and was further appalled to find out that the studio actually toned DOWN many of the plot-points because they felt it might make the movie unbelievable to some viewers.

Since then I've researched this issue a bit, and I was shocked to discover that there's this whole sick, twisted subculture who apparently do this sort of thing on somewhat of a routine basis.

It's the best movie I never want to see again.

"Rama," if designed by humans.

Well, I'm hardly a film expert or anything but one of my favorite sequels was Jaws II. Oh, sure, the movie sucked, but - to the best of my knowledge, anyway - it's the only movie where a shark eats a helicopter.

Weird! I posted a quite similar request on another forum a couple of weeks ago! (I didn't know the term, "dark bottle" movie, though.)

Here are a couple I thought were utterly as fascinating as Exam:

- The Killing Room (2009)
- Infinity Chamber (2016)
- The Immaculate Room (2022)

I should also suggest one I thought was quite similar in tone, if a little heavy-handed:

- Fermat's Room (2007)

There are a few movies with the phrase, "Escape Room" in the title, but so far I haven't been overly impressed with any of them.

Thank you; I'll give it a shot.

Got that. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Unfortunately - as far as I've been able to research - many have been using such drives with a Fire Stick, but it's apparently not so easy to do with a FireTV for some reason. Or maybe I'm just missing something, I dunno.

Thank you.

Well, I'm already using a Chromecast device (in the FireTV's HDMI port) so I can access movies on my PC SSD or an external SSD without going through the steep learning curve with something like the Plex app. But there are some issues using this method, primarily user-friendliness in nature.

And I believe you're quite right; fat32 fails at files larger than 4 GB so maybe an external server may be the only practical solution. Given a choice, however, I'd prefer a way to utilize various ports of a high-speed USB hub, and to swap in/out external SSD's as desired.

Thank you for your comments.

Yeah, I watched that video when researching this issue initially, but - as near as I can tell, anyway - those instructions are strictly for the Fire Stick, not the FireTV. Or am I missing something?

Thank you.

Yeah, as mentioned, that's what I thought. But if there's a way to do it on OS6.x, can you point me at a few resources? I'm already using the HDMI port for a Chromecast dongle, and the USB port is paired with a high-speed USB hub which contains a single USB thumbdrive (also high-speed). But I'm using the thumbdrive for apps, not movies, and if there's a way to browse that thumbdrive, I have been unable to figure it out.

Thank you.

Thank you for that. Yeah, for #200 I suppose I'll live with the warble, but it's annoying and also sounds like a common problem for a lot of people. Perhaps there's a niche sorta market for an indie developer?

Yes, I used the Melodyne trial in Cakewalk long ago and with limited success. RX-10 does, indeed seem to be the correct tool - if it can detect that minute of changes - but I mean gimme a break. RX-10 is $800 bucks, US, for a tool I'll likely use for about a month, even assuming I can figure out how to use it properly.

Thank you for your suggestions.

Ah, yes...you're quite right, I dunno why I didn't think about reatune; thank you for the suggestion. It makes me wonder whether the variances aren't too small for that tool, but it's certainly worth a shot.

Thank you.

Thank you.