Ö÷²¥´óÐã

I think what we have here is the tail wagging the dog syndrome.

A film can only be bad if it is miss-cast, badly written and abandoned artistically by it's director during the making.

I think we shouldn't have to wait long for a release to come out on dvd - for crying out loud rental should be kept to a minimum. Because when we see a great movie - like The Prophet for example, we don't want to have to wait a year and a day to be able to enjoy it at home.

I never understand the idea of purposely missing out on a film over fear that it may not be agreeable to you. Many directors let us down from time to time but you just have to have a bit of faith.

If a director makes a bad movie it usually motivates them to do better next time - I hope!

This is a tricky question. I very rarely go and see a movie in the cinema today, I am a modern man that prefers to see it at home when I feel like it. God knows there's alot of crap being produced today, much of it still premiers in the cinema first and then we have to wait a long time before we can see it in the comfort of our own home.

Still, there is so much movies being made today it's hard to filter what's good and what's crap, if it has been shown in cinemas then we should be able to get a hint of it being a good production. Sadly Im not sure if we can trust that old golden rule any longer.

The Academy Award winning "Blindside" premiered here in Sweden on the online videorental thing called Voddler so things are changing and I think with our modern way of living and technology evolving into that we now can live our lives without leaving our homes (Internet Pizza Delivery, yeey) we need to update our way of thinking a bit. I hope that the big movie companies will start doing so in this century

I think that you pretty much answered your own question didn't you? You loved the Philip Ridley movie and it had a simultaneous release...it's still a good movie.
I sort of the see your point though. Due to the continuing trend of bigscreen then dvd or download, if a movie is released on dvd at the same time as being shown on the big screen it unfortunately may suggest to some that it is not necessarily any good.
There will always be a difficult transition period when trying something new like this. Also it depends on whether the big studios follow suit; this will make all the difference. If they were brave enough to simultaneously release their movies then everything would be fine.
I for one do not think that cinema ticket sales would reduce dramatically as there will always be people like myself who love and have to see a new movie on the bigscreen. As you say it would reduce the pirate movie business as well and that can only be a good thing. My question is would they count dvd and download sales when calculating the box office takings?

good-'platforming' new films mean they find an audience straight away without getting buried in video shops

bad-cinema chains will use this as an excuse not to show non-mainstream films and concentrate on scheduling multi screen pap

really looking forward to 'heartless'

also, do you think it will happen to vincenzo natali's 'splice'?

It has never bothered me if a film gets a DVD/cinema release.

Yes I would rather watch a film in the cinema but some of the films that go straight to DVD are really good (yes most of them are rubbish).
But I remember when I first started working in a video shop and noticed some of the films that went straight to DVD.
One of them being IVANS XTC and then a film called Session 9, both I had never heard off.
Cracking films btw and I found a lot of the straight to DVD films better than the blockbusters coming out against them, it's just studios pump so much money into the blockbusters (advertising) that they can't fail from what I have seen.

It's not the first time I have heard of this idea of a film coming out on DVD, download and cinema at the same time.
I think it happened in America with Steven Soderbergh's film Bubble which opened in selected theatres and HDNet simultaneously, and four days later on DVD. Industry heads were reportedly watching how the film performed, as its unusual release schedule could have implications for future feature films.

Admittedly, I am suspicious of the quality of a film that "premieres" on DVD / Blu-ray / download. It smacks of a prediction of negative audience reaction on the studio's part - akin to movies that aren't previewed to critics.

If we have to wait 6 months or a year for a film we saw in cinema, the intent to download "illegally" will rise, as the audience becomes impatient. I personally do not want to go to the cinema, it plays no indie films (very very rarely), there are people talking or moving about, it's expensive and I hate waiting for the adverts; Yes I know there are adverts on dvd's but you can sometimes skip or fast forward them.
So multiple release suits me.

Don't worry if your indie film is released over numerous formats it will reach more of an audience and the stigma of "bad movie" because of its release in multiple formats, will diminish over time when more films follow this path. On the other hand.........

3-D films will doubtfully be released simultaneously across multiple platforms because the cinema needs to re-coop money. 'Avavtar' and 'Alice in Wonderland' may have been hindered if released over a variety of formats and seen for what they are!

Stephen Soderbergh has tried the day and date model twice with marginal success however both Bubble and The Girlfriend Experience were worthy films of a traditional release. While I think this model is fantastic, Direct Cable was the only way I was able to see Antichrist last year, I do think Mark hits on a valid point. There is a stigma with direct to DVD releases that often suggests the film is lesser for not getting a theatrical release. I do think this notion is receding, it will be years before people will see the day and date model as the norm and will do away with the stigma that direct to DVD means a lesser made film.

I think your missing the point slightly if a cinema and DVD release happen at the same time its not down to the quality of the movie but the industry wanting to make more money out of us. For example after a movie is released and is widely panned by the critics its DVD release will suffer but if released at the same time its not so much the case.

I think in terms of horror movies the straight-to-video market has really taken off. Despite the sheer glut of garbage released by the likes of Lionsgate the meteoric rise of Asian and Euro-horror over the last decade has been pretty much solely because of DTV releases.

Even masterpieces like LET THE RIGHT ONE IN and MARTYRS are given (if any) the barest minimum of theatrical releases, so with American-made studio horror being at its lowest, most artistically bankrupt point since the mid-80's the DTV market for quality foreign horror films just keeps getting stronger.

As someone who really enjoys the cinema experience(though it has been ruined in recent years by so many people who want to munch, crunch, chat and text their way through movies...like stay at home!) However I digress.........This is indeed a toughie, there are films that in my opinion 'need' to be seen on the large screen initially,and there are others who fare just as well on DVD or download. I have been frustrated in the past at the length of time I have had to wait to purchase a film I really want to see again, and add to my collection but that's life right?. So I guess the perfect scenario for me would be to see a film I really like on the big screen, and then be able to use my cinema ticket as a receipt to purchase the DVD in the foyer on the way out. A pipe dream I know but works for me...........;-)

right..as a seasoned pirate (boo,hiss) Can I just say that release at the same time doesnt make the dvd FREE. Before Im flamed and then hauled before Mr Mandelson, I would like to add that I buy a legitimate copy of everything I download - but most do not. The beauty of this is that a turkey can be avoided with a free viewing via bittorrent. I saved £15 last week when I previewed From Hell (johnny depp) I couldnt even get to the end..and it didnt cost me a bean. Had I enjoyed the cockney warblings and John Merrick time travelling, I would have greased the palm of my local online retailer. Can I just add that 90% of everything I download is terrible, and not even worth the bandwidth.

oh, and to avoid the overlong adverts on dvd's just press STOP STOP Play quickly at the start. Failing this press stop 3 times then play. Works every time.

I'm not a big Philip Ridley fan, although I loved The Pitchfork Disney when I saw it on stage just over 2 years ago. Like Nicklas Ingels I rarely go to the cinema anymore, not because of the noise or people using their phone but because of the extortionate cost: why should I spend the best part of a day's pay travelling an hour each way and then paying to see one film when I can watch four a month on DVD via an unnamed web retailer [don't know if advertising contravenes house rules, so won't risk naming it].

Any method which allows me to see Heartless in the way I want - which is usually late at night on my own in my room - is worth it, even if I have to wait a little longer for certain films to come out or become available via the aforementioned (unnamed) website. I didn't see the Final Cut version of Blade Runner when it was theatrically released, and yet I now consider it the greatest film ever made through multiple DVD viewings.

I don't know whether day-and-date releases are the future or not, any more than I know how long the 3D gimmick will last. Besides, as you have said on several occassions Mark, there is nothing all that shameful about straight-to-video releases. Sometimes they will be awful, like all the Disney sequels and much of Troma, but as you mentioned in your review of Teeth (where you talked about video nasties) sometimes straight-to-video films have more interesting and daring ideas than mainstream films. There is something very special about 'finding' a film which had gone quickly to video and hence been underated or overlooked.

In summary then: Yes, I will be seeing Heartless, but only when it feels right. Power to the people, taking back cinema one laptop screen at a time :)

Simultaneous releasing will not only combat a chunk of piracy but will also finally make cinema-going a pleasant experience again. While the cinema audiences here are generally fairly favourable, I'm sick of going to the cinema worried that some inconsiderate person is going to ruin my enjoyment of the film by answering their phone or bringing a loud child etc.

On a sidenote, can DVD distributors please stop placing trailers for upcoming or contemporary releases on retail DVDs. Yes they're usually skippable but this doesn't make them any less annoying. Their presence on a rental DVD I completely understand and have no issue with but there is something very patronising and offensive about a product that I have purchased (so is now in effect, my property) being sullied by forced advertising.

I see no reason why the release format of a film should dictate its quality. Waking The Dead (Keith Gordon, 2000) never got a cinema release here. It's brilliant. Case solved.

And I can't wait to see Heartless.

Of course it can still be brilliant. The problem is that watching it a home means you lose that communal experience of watching and enjoying a film with a large group of people.
If Kick-Ass had a simultaneous dvd/cinema release I'd have missed out on the sheer enjoyment of people reacting to the images up on the BIG SCREEN.

Not a happy thought.

There is definitely a certain snobbery in film studies that suggests that the quality of a film is directly proportioned to where it is shown/not shown. Many people hark back to the studio era in which the studios controlled the production, distribution and also the theaters. Apparently this was the best way and films shown in this format were the best.

Then when multiplexes became popular in the mid to late 70s it wasn't quite the same because films had a mass release date and it became all about the opening weekend. Aparently it was a bad films that the entire country could see a film when it was released because films weren't allowed to grow and spread slowly over time.

Then VHS came along. And suddenly it was even worse because films weren't just being enjoyed in the cinema but at home as well. Somehow, because not 100% of the box office came from the cinema it made films seemed tarnished in a way.

Now, with DVD, download and digital distribution there is a line of thinking that because the film doesn't actually exist on anything physical anymore (film reel) then it is lesser cinema.

All these arguments are nonsense. I could pick 20 films from every decade from the 30s onwards (I don't particularly care for silent cinema. Sorry Mark) that are great. Regardless of how they were released or where, there are still great films being made all the time. I enjoy both seeing films in the cinema and at home. They are different experiences but can be just as good as each other.

If we can get past this snobbery that exists about straight to DVD releases then we can have total freedom to enjoy films how we want, whether on a giant screen in a darkened room with a group of strangers, or curled up on our own sofas with the lights adjusted however the hell we want them to be. People wont stop going to the cinema just because of simultaneous cinema/dvd release dates.

'Mum and Dad' got a theatrical release and DVD release on the same day and I think it's one of the UK best and most original Horror films in the last few years.

I love how the Uma Thurman movie 'Motherhood' which totally bombed at the box-office has applied this type of marketing though to hopefully boost gross on DVD sales

Is there any actual proof that piracy hurts the box office? The big example thus far has been the Wolverine leak and even in spite of the piracy and poor reviews that leaked out early as a result, the film still made well over twice it's budget worldwide.

Interesting observations. I did feel the twinge at the mention of DTV, but I'm also certain that if they continue practicing multiple platform releases that eventually the stigma will shake off. I hope this continues because, although I absolutely LOVE going to the cinema, unfortunately we don't get most of the smaller films out this way and that doesn't leave many opportunities to go see films at the cinema outside of the big, dumb, expensive studio movies (like the horrible Nightmare on Elm Street remake I just got back home from... I don't want to talk about it). It gets tiring having to wait 6 months to a year for the movies I actually want to see so yes, please, if it means earlier access by all means release them straight to DVD!

The only Philip Ridley film I've seen to date is The Reflecting Skin but I adored it and I'm sure Heartless will be a masterpiece in comparison to the vapid garbage I saw tonight. Looking forward to enjoying it in the comfort of my living room.

A theatrical release has nothing to do with the quality of a film, there are plenty of bloody awful films you can watch on the big screen first.

Why is piracy popular? It's free, is the answer for some but it also means you can watch the film in a place of your choosing, at a time of your choosing and without morons eating nachos or phoning their mums.

Going to the cinema is an expensive way of watching a film in joyless corporate surroundings with a bunch of strangers. Cinemas care so little about their presentation of a film you might as well watch it in Tescos while throwing money at the screen.

I download because I like films but hate the modern cinema experience, so I download films illegally, I get to watch them at the same time as everyone else and if they are any good I buy them on DVD. I have a huge DVD collection, most downloaders do. Why do downloaders have huge DVD collections? because we don't go to the cinema.

Is there a way to stop piracy? No. Would releasing the DVD at the same time help? Definately.

Cinema's are too expensive, and the overall experience just too ghastly for words.
In our local Vue, for example, tickets are sold by the concessions stands. It's like buying the ticket is secondary to selling a foul-smelling hot dog.
Cinema's days will be over once high-def download services to be viewed on a decent large-screen TV with some sort of surround sound become a viable way to watch new movies - and the technology is already here (BT Vision, etc).
I am NOT going to pay almost £30 to take myself and two children to see a 90 minute film. No way!

I think you may be being a bit nostalgic for a different era. The cinematic environment has changed so much in recent years that your doubts express more a wish for an ideal that just isn't the case anymore.

Given how much blockbusters of a certain type dominate cinemas nowadays and how fast quieter, more wholesome films sink in that environment (often never to be seen again until they are perchance glimpsed in a pile of heavily discounted dvds in a shop) this surely can only be a good thing? Marketing can be more efficient and those who would be interested to seeing more non-mainstream films are less likely to miss them.

Cinemas stand for hackneyed ware and overpriced lukewarm popcorn. I hardly bother checking the local multiplexes anymore, since they only seem to show commercial fodder (Clash of the Titans, Avatar, etc.). I get the good stuff from the rental place which has a wide range of films available or from the shop. Despite living in a medium-sized European city with a large student population Moon was never shown in any of the cinemas here, nor Messrine, nor many of the other films you have crowned film of the week in the past.

Sometimes, a trailer will come on TV for a particular kind of film, that looks relatively interesting. And then it's revealed that you can buy it for £10 at Asda - and I automatically dismiss it as thinking it must be a sub-rate film since it (presumably) never got a cinema release.

Then again, I'm in my mid-30s, so possibly very old fashioned. And I love cinema, although I hardly ever go. :(

I live out in the wilds of north wales and you can almost guarantee that when a film I actually want to see , i.e not mindless holywood production line rubbish with a right wing agenda ,on which over $100 million has been waste, it will not be shown at my local multiplex (of course an actual choice/competition of several proper cinemas was lost long ago, most turned into wetherspons) so unless I make to long trek to a big city (such liverpool or manchestr , or a short break in london) I will have to wait ages for it to come out DVD (like the recent Jim Jarmush film) , and of course it will cost much more than the cheesey trash which they are almost giving away after it has been out more than a year,

Back in the good old days didn't palace Video release films simultaneously on video and at the cinema? I'm pretty certain The Evil Dead and Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence were released at the cinema and on video at the same time, and no-one in their right mind would consider those to be bad films (awaits the flak....). Different label but Argento's Tenebrae also had a near simultaneous release I believe. As someone who lives in the sticks I'm all for this practice, films like Heartless aren't going to trouble any of the screens within 70 miles of me and I'm not going to make a trip into the big scary city just for a film. On related note, I can't wait for the DVD release of Centurion as the distributors have thrown the thing down the toilet with a pathetic release pattern (even finding a multiplex with it showing is hard work). Shame on them.

Philip Ridley's lack of appreciation rivals Terence Davies. It is near enough criminal two auteurs of their ability are so underappreciated. Their new films should be treated like true events in cinema, opposed to the pitiful limited releases they get.

I was lucky enough to see Heartless last year at the ICA. One of the most unique films I've seen in a while. My perception is that having seen the film, the distributors were unsure how to market the film whether as a horror, drama, or arthouse film. Like Ridley's work 'Heartless' sits outside a straightforward classification.

Managed to speak to the guy as well, really lovely and humble chap.

Was CENTURION's distribution that bad? When it came out, Cineworld were showing it at 25 locations (I saw it in Milton Keynes), the Empire chain had 5, Odeon 10, and Vue had 21. Admittedly that's not a fraction of the release pattern for a Transformers or an Iron Man, but compare with something that only does a week in Panton Street or the ICA.

I'd almost always opt for a cinema screening - I did three yesterday - but I'm not sure how well the numbers stack up regarding whether it's worth the distributors releasing them day/date. So far the ones they've trialled this with have been niche titles, and until one studio breaks ranks and experiments with a more mass-market film such as an Aniston romcom or a Sandler comedy - sacrifice a mid-range title where they could fairly precisely gauge what it would have taken as a cinema-only release - we'll never know for sure.

As for HEARTLESS - well, I saw it at Frightfest last year and was underwhelmed despite the hype and the positive vibe at the Empire. And that's with fairly moderate expectations, as I thought The Passion Of Darkly Noon was a load of overheated tripe.

Like many previous posts above, I welcome simultaneous Cinema/DVD release dates. Living in the 'Back of Beyond' I cannot always get into town to see the majority of new releases. And in any case my nearest multiplex, not giving them a name check for the reason that they rarely shows anything other than the latest 'big' (usually meaning expensive, effect-laden, script-light rubbish) movies, is about as welcoming as an isolation ward for swine-flu. If as many people as all the posters here (myself included) detest popcorn munching punters, why don't the cinema's offer at least one showing a day where all snacks, drinks etc are banned. (I'd be first in line for tickets!)

However, having said all that, there is something in collective viewing experiences. I know it's some time ago, but when it was first released I saw 'The Full Monty' in a packed cinema in Sheffield and believe me by the end credits every part of my being was aching from so much laughter. Something I would have missed out on had I waited for a DVD release.

Will simultaneous release stop piracy? I doubt it. As someone who doesn't download illegally (yes, there are some of us still left) I think that some people will always want something for nothing. (You know the type, that park in 'Blue Badge' zones because they don't want to pay for parking.)

The main concern for me is whether I can afford to go to the cinema more than once in a blue moon. So it usually means that I save my hard earned until there's something on I think will be best viewed on the big screen. (We can't all afford the latest flatscreen HD, surround sound television equipment) Otherwise it's wait until they're two for a fiver on a well known internet site.

Now for my lie down!

I certainly felt Centurion's distribution was bad. Apart from a handful of local single screen cinemas where I live (which mainly show blockbusters and kid's films) the only multiplex is a Vue, and it wasn't on there. If you're near to a major city then no problem, but if you're unable to travel to a large city for the single week it's on then you miss it. The Descent 2 had better distribution and that was just a weak clone! There was little advertising, I got the impression that they just threw it away. I'm not surprised it limped to no.12 in the UK charts.

It's a very taxing question. In some ways you could argue the film industry would be boosted by this, however it would definitely cause a decline in cinemas. This may be no bad thing.

At current, we have two or three multiplex cinemas in every town, and like air travel, they can run with very few customers. This pulls consumers away from independent cinema houses, who can't offer as much 'choice' (oh no! I can't watch Avatar with cardboard glasses). Maybe the less dedicated film fans, who pop out to watch a blockbuster twice a year, would just purchase a DVD and watch their chosen film at home. Whereas I would think that film addictees would more likely continue going to their indie film houses. If this resulted in fewer large, evil and poor quality cinemas, then maybe more people would occasionally go to their local independent cinema.
Or maybe not...

Old fashioned or not, I would always love the experience of going to watch a film at the cinema.

A good film is a good film, whether you see it on the big screen or in the comfort of your own home. I think releasing a new movie on all formats is a good idea but the studios, who are hell bent on making maximized profit margins, will lose a lot of money on that movies opening night. The majority of the people waiting on line to get into that movie on opening night would rather relax and watch it on their own televisions. Clearly the studios would not be able to charge as much as a movie ticket for a movie bought online, so the studios would lose a lot of money. The real issue is what will happen to the good ol' dating scenario of taking that girl you met to a movie, I highly doubt on a first date the would be suitor could convince a women to watch a flick at his place. Also gone would be days when you slyly put your arm around the girl in the darkness of the theater...What would the world come to?

I'm from Denmark (btw please tell simon that danish people do not speak like cavemen "mik ok fremtiden, grrr") And overhere if a film did poorly in the cinema in its original country, it comes out on video(DVD). And YES. If a movie comes out straight to video/DVD I do think less of it.I just gets this feeling that it's ordinary, that's it like a "tv-movie". Cinema realeases feel bigger wheather(am I spelling that wrong?) you actually watch them in a cinema or not. But they shouldn't should they? I mean, popularity isn't synonomyous with quality. There are just so many DVD's outthere that it feels like DVD is cheap and need easy to throw away,while the cinema is not only a medium to watch the movie but a piedestal to put the movie on. It's a display case where a DVD is a plastic bag.

I don't necessarily think that if a movie is straight-to-DVD or a TV movie that it will intrinsically have less impact. It may have a much lower budget and have a more TV feel, but this may be to the film's benefit. I think that 'Threads' is the most shocking and disturbing film that I have ever seen, and yet it was made for Ö÷²¥´óÐã TV in the 1980s. It is presented in the form of a documentary, which along with the gritty, low-budget, realistic feel makes it somehow more suited for TV; I can't imagine seeing it in a cinema. I think the fact that it was meant to be seen on television works in its favour; the writer and director worked out their medium and made the most powerful film possible for that medium, without thinking about what it would be like at the cinema.

If it is released on DVD first, and hasn't had a slew of great reviews to accompany it, I'll assume that it sucks. However, as you say, I do think that there is a move towards this type of release model.

I prefer to see films in the cinema and then, if I especially enjoyed them, buy them on DVD some time later. My DVD collection is mostly comprised of favourites that were on sale for £3-7. I guess you could say I like to test-drive before I buy the hard copy.

It's hedging your bets i guess. A cinema release i presume, must must indicate that either a) a lot of money was spent on it or b) it's going to make a lot of money. There is a danger that most people will probably watch these things on their 50" flat screens as they are too lazy to go to the cinema; but it could also widen the audience (in release) and effectively give people the "choice". Most films suit cinema and it is, and always will be, the best format for any movie. But, like waterworld on DVD, hollywood is a money making machine and it is prepared to gamble whatever the cost. They will go the cheapest distribution route possible...

What the simultaneous release is good for is people who aren't lucky enough to live near a cinema with a diverse playlist (or in my case in Bristol, two cinemas, a brilliant arthouse and a swanky multiplex). I do think this kind of release will help with piracy, and I imagine if a big film did it, places like Blockbuster and HMV would love it.

The rub for me though is that for me films are not the same as a solo experience, there is something about watching them with a large group of people, which the cinema is perfect for. So even though it'd undoubtedly be cheaper in the long run, I still spend ridiculous money in the cinema, and if a film does got direct to DVD, I feel a bit sad that I didn't get to see it a the flicks.

Steven Soderbergh's Bubble was the first film, I think, to experiment with this idea of simultaneous release. When it first came out it was criticised by people within in the industry for ruining the movie-going experience. But now its becoming widespread. So clearly Soderbergh knew what he was doing.

Todd Solondz new film is being released in this way. Which by your own admission is a great film. I actually much prefer to watch films by myself at home. Seeing something in a dark room with strangers doesn't actually appeal to me anywhere near as much as it does for most other fans of cinema. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this. The simultaneous release is definitely a good idea.

I'm all for simultaneous releases. I think most cinemas are badly managed, unclean organisations that charge more and more every year for what is effectively a diminishing service. Why got to the cinema anymore when technology allows such easy and comfortable enjoyment of a film at home? We know from Kermode's complaints that fewer and fewer showings are privy to a projectionist for the entire running time. Most Cinemas are unregulated and so any johnny come lately can wander in with his best mate and start chatting away or playing on his phone and generally cause no end of disruption.
With DVD/Blu ray all of these problems disappear. Dvd's are getting cheaper and cheaper as will Blu ray's in time. Plus you can always get a few quid for them on Amazon or Play if you get really fed up with them. It may not be a complete return on your money but hey; does your cinema ticket have any re-sale value whatsoever?

Having said that; I do believe the best way to enjoy a film is at the cinema. Always has and always will be. It's just a shame that most cinemas are not run well enough to allow films to be enjoyed to their full potential.

to be honest i think a multi platform release means the film is not that good

but there's a bigger issue, and its the experience of seeing film in the cinema. Its completely different, not only is the screen bigger and the sound better and there's also the whole shared experience you have with a group of strangers. But more important than that, going to the cinema means the film has your undivided attention, you are more focused in following the story, the acting, the visuals etc. You are far more involved. Its a richer experience

Seeing at home means you're able to pause it, rewind it, even finnish it watching it a few days later. You might have friends or neighbours calling in while you're watching the film, completely altering the experience. For me its a diluted experience.

steven sodenberg released a film in multiple formats simultaneously, claiming that this was how films were going to be released in the future. not only did it get bad reviews but it also did not make that much money

i for the life of me don't know how my friends watch downloaded movies that are currently showing the cinema, especially films that they have been really looking forward to for so long.

Now in fairness, a trip to the cinema can be a really testing experience, but I feel you can minimise the ordeal by either going really early in the morning during the weekend, or go a few weeks into its run.

But recently Ive come to acccept the fact there will always be a sizeable percentage of people, possibly the majority, that go to the cinema purely as form of social activity rather than any overriding wish to see a particular film. And it is probably these people that are keeping cinemas still going. They like going to the cinema, they like buying their popcorn, they like spending a couple of hours in the dark with a group of friends, and if the film is actually pretty good then that's almost a bonus. If it weren't for them I probably wouldn't have any cinema to go to at all.

Reading back over most of the comments posted it seems there is an almost uniform dislike of cinema chains at the moment. This is quite disheartening but I can understand where a lot of people are coming from, especially if you are from a small town/city and only have one Vue/Cineworld/Odeon multiplex in town.

I feel very privileged to live in Cambridge where we have the Arts Picturehouse, with is a brilliantly run, tidy and polite place with a decent selection of films from all genres and countries (plus we have the Cambridge Film Festival, which is fantastic).

However, perhaps because I have this very good cinema locally, I can still enjoy the experience of my local Vue when I want to watch something slightly trashier. I have a good friend who I go to Vue with a lot and purposefully seek out the worst films so we can have a giggle at their expense and rubbish them after. I also had a great experience going to see Saw 5 a couple years back on a date at a late night showing. The audience was full of young couples, groups of teenagers and generally rowdy people having fun, throwing popcorn around and laughing at the film. I didn't mind because the film was awful but the experience was enjoyable in a very childish way. It was how I imagine drive in cinemas were like for teenagers in the 1950s. However if people had been acting rowdy when I went to see Moon, then I definitely would have been mightily peeved. But that's what I use my arts cinema for.

So I can understand the frustration that a lot of people have when it comes to cinemas nowadays. My recommendation to you guys is to move to a city with a excellent arts cinema. Then you can absorb all the quality films you want and still be able to cut loose with some mindless fun at the local multiplex. Or, failing that, encourage multiplatform releases. Which I really strongly support.

I don't think releasing movies on DVDs at the same time as their cinema release is going to beat piracy. If anything it's going to increase it even more.
It's going to be even easier for people to download good copies (straight from the original DVDs) of the films they won't be bother to go and watch at the cinema.

Hi Dr Mark,

I personally think that a cinema is the only place to really experience the full effect of any film.

The big screen, the quality sound - shame about the other people present though.

I would welcome simultaneous film release across all formats. Most of my film watching is done via download since I both live out in the sticks and have two young children, so going to the pictures is a right old upheaval and needs a fair bit of organising plus the babysitter cost etc. In fact, the trips to the flicks are usually to see movies with the kids.
I would welcome the chance to watch the films YOU have just reviewed without all the palaver (for me) of going to a picture house.

the simple answer is, yes, you're just being old fashioned. to me, this is only an issue in the sense that, with cinema prices being what they are, if it's out on download and dvd there really isn't much justification for the casual viewer to see it at the cinema when it will cost about the same or less in other non-bluray formats.

I think it's a great idea, because we get a chance to see movies on the day of it's cinematic release on dvd, for the simple reason, that none of the multiplexes around my area (Yorkshire), and I suppose in other areas up and down the country, do not have Heartless on their Coming Soon listing, so this is the only way we get to see the movie.

Isn't this about publicity? The amount of publicity behind a film generally denotes it's importance in the forest of regular releases.

I'm not talking about blockbuster hype, but the general critical aura created by any standard movie when it comes out, that enables us to select films we might want to see and not waste time on those we don't.

"Straight to DVD" isn't associated with a high investment in publicity and therefore seems less important - an afterthought. "Here's the film - you make your own mind up". Certainly the gap between cinema release and DVD/video release in the past has underlined this. I've often heard about a film on general cinema release and thought "I must see that". But by the time it's out on DVD, I can't remember which were the "must see" films from a few months ago and which were the duds.

I know some movie enthusiasts might see this as a crass way to evaluate movies, but I think this is probably how it works for the average movie-going public, unless you're part of a particular fan-base.

Multiplexes have ruined the movie going experience with the shamelessly exploitative way they now run their businesses.

How about this for a future scenario - simultaneous release on all mediums, with the publicity machine working for the film as a whole, whatever the medium. Then hopefully this takes the wind out of the sails of the multiplexes and we can go back to watching films that benefit from big-screen viewing in smaller, independent cinemas where the experience is more about the film than fleecing the punters for every penny you can get.

There is definitely a market for it. Personally I love going to the movies. Only 140 baht here in Thailand (less than 3 quid). Thailand seems to be a land of dvd piracy. But the cinemas are good here, although it is only blockbuster fare. Also no extra charge for 3-D they just collect all glasses handed out. But I don't like 3-D it gives me a slight headache which takes forever to dissipate. You can book seats for no charge as long as you collect the tickets 30 mins before the showing.

Even with the great value ticket price and clean comfortable theaters, my wife and my friends all prefer to buy films on DVD. Personally I don't get it. It's a great time out for minimum cost.

Right now I want to see Robin Hood but they all want to get it on DVD. BTW a crappy camera copy will cost 50 - 100 baht. Buy a few disks to get a passable copy and you could have seen it in a nice theatre!

So I go on my own a lot these days, I used to feel like Billy no-mates, but I'm getting old now and feel less likely to be bothered by the lack of others company.

I will become a hermit I fear.

I agree with your comment about direct to dvd, download etc there is a stigma that surrounds films which fall into this category. I used to avoid direct to dvd/video realase as alot of them were utter rubbish. Until I watched Trick 'R' Treat and I was shocked by how good it was (It's up there in my top ten films) and wondered why didn't it get a cinema realase. So now I'm a bit more opened minded about direct to dvd films, of course there are still going to be rubbish films out there but amongst them there are some real treasures

I think my heart will always hanker towards seeing a film in a cinema. For me I go and see the films that I think will be good in a cinema and then see the more average flicks at home. So I guess I am already pre-judging the film, so to answer the good Drs question, yes I hear that a film is going straight to dvd then I do get a twinge. I assume that the studio knows they have a less successful film on their hands and try and make some of their money back by going to DVD where the profit margin is greater.