What DVD has managed to do is to increase general awareness of the shoddy pan and scan butchery that was par for the course with VHS. The rise in popularity of widescreen TVs clearly indicates that punters are realising that a 4:3 screen is a far from ideal yoke for watching movies (other than pre-50s “academy ratio” ones of course). DVD, in other words, has bred a desire for quality, whereas VHS often simply filled a need for quantity.

As for CGI…I’ve no inherent problem with it. If CGI effects were composed/created sensitively and unobtrusively then it would be simply another valuable film-making tool. The reality up to now, however, is that the emperor isn’t often wearing any clothes. In fairness, the peek period for horrendously slapdash and unconvincing CGI may be coming to an end. Perhaps.

Memories of the reintroduced Jabba (in the Star Wars: Special Edition) and the (Spielberg-sanctioned) brutal CGI rape of E.T. that came out a few years ago are hard to shake. Was there no one willing to raise a hand and say “Er…lads. This looks really, really shit�?

A lot of it just feels shiny, texture-less, volume-less. Having said that it depends entirely on context. The two Toy Storys are probably among my very favourite movies and they’re entirely computer generated. Horses for courses, though. A completely different thing.

Oh and I haven’t seen Amarcord for a long, long time, Ithaca. Actually I think I saw all the Fellini moves I’ve yet seen in the space of 6 months about 10 years ago. They’re on my list of things to get reacquainted with (particularly Casanova after my recent trip to Venice). Fargo is an absolute gem that gets better with every viewing. It and Miller’s Crossing show the Cohens at the very peak of their powers I think.

I am not against computer generated imagery in films - it worked very well in the later Star Wars films, The Lord of the Rings and Gladiator all of which I found very entertaining.

However if I have a favourite film it is probably Fellini’s Amarcord. I also loved his Roma, which was like a tonic to somebody breaking loose from the shackles of Irish Catholicism in the 1970’s - I remember a wonderful scene with an ecclesiastical fashion show… At that time the Irish Film Theatre in Earlsfort Terrace was one of the very few places one could see foreign language films which were regarded with deep suspicion by many.

In recent years I have been very impressed by Iranian films which are (as might be expected) the antithesis of noisy CGI blockbusters. They tend to be dreamy and lyrical and the actors are often untrained.

My favourite recent film id Almadovar’s Volver for which Penelope Cruz should have got the best actress award at the recent oscars. One of the best American films of the last 10 years in my view was Fargo.

It’s a bit like watching someone play a computer game for two hours whilst doing Brian Blessed impersonations.

Devo, That’s pretty much how I’d have described it…and I haven’t even seen it. Actually a friend mentioned the Brrrriannn Buhhhlessed flavour of the acting ham on offer. Didn’t surprise me in the least.

“300 bridges the much needed gap between an army recruitment video and Gay Porn”.

So there’s a gap between army recruitment videos and gay porn? I hadn’t realised.

Ithaca, I was wondering when someone would mention 300. I haven’t seen it and I’m not going to. That may seem close-minded of me but I’m almost certain that I’ll hate it. Why waste 8 Euro (or whatever it is) proving myself right when there are so many other films I want to see that remain unwatched?

I’ve occasionally been viewed as a cinema snob when I slag off the relentless drivel on offer at the local Omniplexes. The implication being, I think, that I must be one of those people who find “entertaining� movies too “lowbrow�. This, I hasten to add, is utter balls.

I love genuinely entertaining films, the likes of which Hollywood used to churn out with regularity. I can think of dozens of terrific films made in the 1950s (for example) that would have been solid “Omniplex� fare in their day. In spite of this they manage to make the vast majority of mainstream stuff we see today look the work of rank filmmaking amateurs. I mean this in an artistic sense, of course. On a purely technical level a lot of recent stuff is (I suppose) quite impressive, but who really cares about that?

Perhaps there’s a clue there. Perhaps the term “entertaining� has come (depressingly) to be synonymous with displays of spectacular technical virtuosity.