|
Grex > Arts > #131: Movies, Movies and more Movies |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
jared
|
|
Movies, Movies and more Movies
| 
Jun 22 16:38 UTC 1997 |
Are you a critic? Was the movie worth not being able to afford to eat
for the rest of the month, or was it so good you're going to forget
to eat the rest of the month.
Important questions and problems here in 1997 for us to take into account.
So what did you think of it? No spoilers please.
|
| 267 responses total. |
bjorn
|
|
response 1 of 267:
|
Jun 22 17:17 UTC 1997 |
Against the better judgement of my Meijer co-workers, I went to see Batcrap
& Faggot (read "Batman & Robin") at United Artists Theatre at Briarwood Mall
immediately after my shift ended. In all actuality, their pleas for me to
wait for it on video went unheeded, and probably for the better. Besides,
when I have the chance to see I friend I don't usually get to see because I
only know where he works, and don't feel like trying to reach him/her at home,
where would I go? Anyway, I guess I'd give this movie about a B+ . . . I
expected our new people to show up a little earlier, and it had the feel of
a 2 hour episode of Rocky & Bullwinkle.
|
scg
|
|
response 2 of 267:
|
Jun 22 17:26 UTC 1997 |
The first TOP movie is tonight. It's Toy Story.
|
mary
|
|
response 3 of 267:
|
Jun 22 19:28 UTC 1997 |
"Breaking the Waves" is an extraordinary film. It simply
blew me away and it should have gotten the Oscar for best
picture last year. *****
|
omni
|
|
response 4 of 267:
|
Jun 22 20:22 UTC 1997 |
I didn't see B&R but evil1 did, and she said it sucked and blew chunks.
She also told me that it was a 2 hour ad for Taco Bell.
another $7 saved ;)
|
jared
|
|
response 5 of 267:
|
Jun 22 22:00 UTC 1997 |
re #2
Is not, it's caddyshack
|
groady
|
|
response 6 of 267:
|
Jun 22 22:08 UTC 1997 |
We were just about to go see that movie...It sucked that bad huh? I don't
have much of a choice...I really hope it's not that bad, S If it's anything
like when I saw "The Pat Movie"...I'm going to have me a nice nap...
quit
|
senna
|
|
response 7 of 267:
|
Jun 22 22:34 UTC 1997 |
I don't recall seeing anything for Taco Bell in the B&R film. It was bad,
obviously, but it could have been a lot, lot worse. Still, its the worst of
the series of movies so far, featuring some of the worst casting I've ever
seen. George Clooney can't do Batman, Arnold can't do Freeze, and I don't
even know what Elle Mcpherson was doing in there. Somehow, the whole sensory
overload that the movie loads on you manages to keep you thinking that its
tolerable. See it at the Fox and wait for Spawn to come out.
|
scott
|
|
response 8 of 267:
|
Jun 22 23:12 UTC 1997 |
(Scott jumps on the bandwagon)
I'm glad to see that my trailer-formed opinion about that movie (Batman
& Robin) has proven correct. Arnold looked totally out of place, and so
did everybody else. Except maybe Umma, whose character looked
interesting enough to be a decent villain.
|
aaron
|
|
response 9 of 267:
|
Jun 22 23:42 UTC 1997 |
Poison Ivy was interesting enough to be a decent villain, but was given
a back seat to the boring Mr. Freeze. (He's big and has an ice gun. How...
fascinating.) I could have done without batboy and batgirl.
|
giry
|
|
response 10 of 267:
|
Jun 23 00:11 UTC 1997 |
This item is now linked to the cinema conference from agora.
|
scg
|
|
response 11 of 267:
|
Jun 23 05:04 UTC 1997 |
re 5:
Oops, I was looking at the wrong week. Caddy Shack was good.
|
omni
|
|
response 12 of 267:
|
Jun 23 05:23 UTC 1997 |
Caddyshack is a all time cult favorite. My favorite part was the yacht
scene.
|
senna
|
|
response 13 of 267:
|
Jun 23 06:34 UTC 1997 |
Once again, as with Batman Forever (though I actually thought it was decent)
I was left with the feeling, "Why?" What point did this movie have in
existing? What was the point behind the movie. I find that "to make money"
doens't really give it enough reason. A movie's not *supposed* to look like
its just there to make money.
During B&R promotion, I noticed that, universally, everybody involved in
it--talk show hosts, cast members, director--refused to admit that there were
any problems with the film. Jay Leno managed to get stars of the film on
three striaght nights, and all the time he lied about how good hte movie was,
how it was the best in the trilogy. The first piece of evidence he gave to
back it up? "The colors are just magnificent" or something to that effect.
It's like entertainment industry collusion.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 14 of 267:
|
Jun 23 07:54 UTC 1997 |
Now that the mega-corporations that own the movie studios also own the
television networks don't expect to hear anything bad about a film on
any of the big publicity circuit shows..
|
mcnally
|
|
response 15 of 267:
|
Jun 23 08:07 UTC 1997 |
re #3: I have to strongly disagree with Mary's five-star
recommendation for "Breaking the Waves". I'll try to finish
watching it tomorrow night before I have to return it to the
video store but tonight I turned it off after an hour of
excruciatingly slowly-paced character development and plot
setup (and I'm only giving it the benefit of the doubt and
assuming that that hour was character development and plot
setup because I figure that something extraordinary must
happen before the end of the movie for Mary to give it such
a glowing review. There's simply no hint of that 50-some
minutes into the movie..)
Even if the plot starts moving and the second hour of the
movie totally fascinates me I'd still have to penalize the
movie for the *extremely* annoying camera work. For the life
of me I can't fathom why the director chose to have the movie
shot as if it was being filmed by a camcorder-holding man with
a bad case of palsy..
|
mary
|
|
response 16 of 267:
|
Jun 23 12:45 UTC 1997 |
I'd guess you won't like this film much, Mike, because
I was already fascinated by the characters and theme
within that first hour. (I think it runs close to
three hours in length.) But do watch the rest - the
ending is amazing. Or at least I thought so.
|
rogue
|
|
response 17 of 267:
|
Jun 24 20:21 UTC 1997 |
Mary often likes movies I don't like. The example that immediately comes to
mind is "Being Human". My friends and I thought "Being Human" was one of the
worst movies we had ever seen. It was boring beyond belief and it was long.
I respect Mary's posts but let's just say that I don't rush out to watch
movies that she recommends. :-)
|
coyote
|
|
response 18 of 267:
|
Jun 24 20:34 UTC 1997 |
Does anybody know why TOP doesn't show movies on weekends anymore?
Personally, it's fine with me to go during the week, cause I'm on break, but
what about other people?
|
krj
|
|
response 19 of 267:
|
Jun 24 20:38 UTC 1997 |
I think movies during weekends were presenting problems with
rowdy crowds, though I am not sure about that.
|
jared
|
|
response 20 of 267:
|
Jun 24 21:15 UTC 1997 |
I would think it has to do with the weekend crowds and their sheer size,
you get less people when the next night is a weekday.
|
remmers
|
|
response 21 of 267:
|
Jun 24 21:25 UTC 1997 |
Re #17: For the record, Maltin's Movie & Video Guide is in the
middle, giving "Being Human" 2.5 stars -- not great, but not bad
either. (I can't comment, not having seen the film.)
|
coyote
|
|
response 22 of 267:
|
Jun 24 22:47 UTC 1997 |
Re 19 & 20:
Yes, I suppose that makes sense. There isn't very much room there at
all... but it's still too bad that some people can't come if they have to work
the next day. :(
|
valerie
|
|
response 23 of 267:
|
Jun 25 03:24 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
jiffer
|
|
response 24 of 267:
|
Jun 25 03:30 UTC 1997 |
OH! So that is what that cloud of stuff was! I was walking to my car from
the Michigan Theatre and wondered if that was from possibly fryers or
something, now i know better! The Smokers!
|