|
Grex > Cinema > #60: *<*<*<*<*< AT THE MOVIES >*>*>*>*>* |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
mary
|
|
*<*<*<*<*< AT THE MOVIES >*>*>*>*>*
| 
Dec 28 00:44 UTC 2003 |
"House of Sand and Fog" is an amazing film about three wounded people,
thrown together by circumstance, who enter a conflict unwilling to do
anything but prevail and, in doing so, atone for past mistakes. Ben
Kingsley is superb and I expect he'll be up for an Oscar for this
performance.
He deserves it. But so does Bill Murray. And Sean Penn.
|
| 306 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 1 of 306:
|
Dec 28 05:32 UTC 2003 |
It's a bad month for science fiction movies. We saw TIMELINE a
few weeks ago. Now, I like trashy dumb science fiction movies, and
I *really* love time travel stories, so I had hopes for TIMELINE.
But Leslie and I agreed that it was the biggest mess we'd seen
in a movie theater in some time, mostly due to the sloppy writing.
TIMELINE does win a few points for some entertaining cast people and
for the climactic medieval battle.
Friday my family saw PAYCHECK. I kept looking at my watch.
Even the car chase couldn't pick up my interest. Uma Thurman was
enjoyable to watch; maybe I should go see her star turn in KILL BILL.
Eventually the noise of all the explosions and whatnot ground me
down; it was a relief to leave the theater.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 306:
|
Dec 28 06:28 UTC 2003 |
Saw Winged Migration on DVD. The pictures of birds in flight and other
behaviors were amazing, although we learned in the notes about the
filming that the close-ups were mostly of trained (imprinted) birds
taken to many different exotic locales and filmed from the ultralights
or boats they were following. We didn't learn what happened afterward
to these imprinted birds. On the other hand, such imprinting to follow
ultralights is being used to build up the flocks of some endangered or
threatened bird species, although the breeding is usually done to avoid
imprinting to humans. No such precautions were taken with the birds in
WM - but then, they weren't playing with threatened or endangered species.
What is most noiceable is that the film is very choppy. Many different
species of mostly ducks and geese were shown, but with the exception of a
few mating and nesting behaviors, they were just birds in flight. There
was almost no complete life stories of any single species. I'd like to see
the opinion of birders on the film.
|
md
|
|
response 3 of 306:
|
Dec 28 14:52 UTC 2003 |
LotR 3. The effects completely took it over. The mumakil were
especially well rendered, as was Grond and its attendant trolls. Worth
seeing just for the Gondor battle scenes. As for the acting, story,
plot, etc., I realize LotR is sacred and everything, but why was I on
the verge of giggling half the time? Frodo's perpetually faux-anxious
facial expression? Gimli's embarrassing quips? The way the story
always seemed to join Aragorn exactly three days after he last shaved?
The dowdy matron horribly miscast as Eowyn? (Was anyone really able to
suspend disbelief at her transformation from simpering love-puppy and
snuggly maternal Hobbit-protector, to warrior princess roaring "DEATH!"
at her enemies as she charges into battle?) The grindingly tedious
build-up to the Faramir's almost-immolation, all for nothing?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 4 of 306:
|
Dec 28 16:42 UTC 2003 |
Don't forget Denethor's chewing, or scenery and other items..
I thought the film showed astounding technical precision but the
pacing just wasn't right. It was simultaneously uncomfortably
protracted and curiously terminated. I give Jackson credit for
getting through (almost) the whole story without floundering
badly but I do think he came close to losing it in the third act..
|
oval
|
|
response 5 of 306:
|
Dec 28 17:16 UTC 2003 |
Shaolin Soccer
you have to see it. you think "oh no, they're gonna go there .. " and then
they go there and keep on going as far as possible. it's so incredibly bad
it comes around full circle to being really fucking good.
a classic.
|
twenex
|
|
response 6 of 306:
|
Dec 28 17:52 UTC 2003 |
The Battle for Middle Earth is over. The Battle to Win the Religious Debate
is about to begin....
again. /sigh.
|
gull
|
|
response 7 of 306:
|
Dec 28 18:12 UTC 2003 |
I thoroughly enjoyed _Winged Migration_, but I view it more as an art
film than as a documentary. Don't watch this if you're hoping to learn
a lot about birds, but watch it if you want to see some amazing
cinematography of birds in flight.
One of the unfortunate things about nature films in general is that, out
of necessity, there's always quite a bit of fakery going on.
|
willcome
|
|
response 8 of 306:
|
Dec 28 21:32 UTC 2003 |
Better conditioning thru fear!
|
katie
|
|
response 9 of 306:
|
Dec 28 22:38 UTC 2003 |
I saw "Something's Gotta Give" on Christmas Day. The stupidest movie
I've seen in a long time. Fie on all the reviewers who said it was
wonderful. Almost every scene was implausible. Also, all the articles
I read exclaimed that Diane Keaton looks amazing for her age (57).
She looked awful! They didn't even give her as much makeup as her
younger co-stars, and she had a very severe, strict wrinkled look.
Every 20 minutes or so, I had to whisper an apology to my friend, who
let me pick the movie.
|
md
|
|
response 10 of 306:
|
Dec 29 01:35 UTC 2003 |
Re #4, Denethor's scenery-chewing, you mean. I got an iPod for
Christmas and had just added a medley of tunes from "Girl Crazy" to it,
and was listening to it on the way to the movie. My wife thinks that
maybe "I Got Rhythm," "Embraceable You," "I'm Bidin' My Time" and "But
Not for Me" put me in a very inappropriate frame of mind for LotR. Can
that really happen?
We saw the new Peter Pan today. A fantastic movie in every sense.
Highly recommended for the whole family. Impressionable younger kids
might find the violence disturbing, and cynical teenagers might gag
over the emo parts, but it's still an excellent movie.
|
jep
|
|
response 11 of 306:
|
Dec 29 03:23 UTC 2003 |
Really? I was just thinking today that I have the original Disney
Peter Pan cartoon on videotape, and didn't think I'd be going to see
the latest movie. However, I'm always ready for movies to which I can
go with my son. We saw "Brother Bear" and the Looney Tunes movie, but
skipped "Elf", "Santa Clause 2" and "The Cat in the Hat". I thought I
was going to have to pass on the Peter Pan movie, too. I'm glad to
hear someone thinks it's good, because on that recommendation, we'll
go.
|
jep
|
|
response 12 of 306:
|
Dec 29 03:34 UTC 2003 |
We got "The Lion King" for Christmas, which just came out on DVD.
It's my 2nd favorite Disney movie, after "The Aristocats", and maybe
it's #1.
However, the new DVD has an altered version of the movie, and the
changes are no imrovement. The scene where Simba is getting his
pouncing lesson from his father, including the funny line where Mufasa
tells Zazu to turn around (so Simba can pounce on him) is replaced by
a new song, "Morning Report" with a matching scene. It was cut from
the original movie, justifiably so in my opinion. There are a few
other minor changes as well.
"The Lion King" is a really terrific Disney movie. I think it's still
the #1 selling Disney movie in theaters, and probably the #1 selling
videotape as well. (It came out in 1994 and might have been edged
by "Finding Nemo"; I don't recall for sure.) The DVD movie is still
wonderful, but I think I might rather watch the original videotape.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 13 of 306:
|
Dec 29 06:11 UTC 2003 |
re #10, re #4: yes, s/or/of/
"Denethor's chewing of scenery and other things.."
|
md
|
|
response 14 of 306:
|
Dec 29 12:37 UTC 2003 |
IMDb is carrying some criticism of Peter Pan by its users about what
they see as inappropriate sexual tension between Peter and Wendy. The
scenes in question struck me as the old-fashioned (circa 1950) type of
movie love, where one kiss by a pretty girl can send your spirits (can
send *you*, in Peter's case) soaring with happiness. There was that,
plus a little pop psychologizing about Peter's inability to feel deep
emotions, and about the healing power of Wendy's willingness to show
her affection for him.
I don't want to give the whole thing away, but I should at least point
out here that the actor who plays Peter is the only American in the
cast, and he is very conspicuously so. Okay, an American who refuses
to grow up, and who bullies a bunch of innocent Brits into taking up
arms and going on childish "adventures"? Ahem.
The movie was executive produced by Mohamed Al-Fayed and dedicated to
the memory of his son Dodi. Personally, I think that's real blood up
there on the screen. Kids will see one thing, their parents might see
another. The best kind of kids' movie.
|
janc
|
|
response 15 of 306:
|
Dec 29 14:50 UTC 2003 |
Haven't seen the new Pan. But a certain amount of sexual tension
wouldn't be out of place. In the book Tinkerbell is described as coming
home drunk from fairy orgies. Tinkerbell also attempts to murder Wendy
to keep from losing Peter to her. Peter himself not only cannot feel
deep emotions, he cannot remember things from day to day. He's a fairly
dangerous playmate, as he'll lead you into a dangerous situation and
then forget you ever existed. The movie "Hook" picked up on a couple of
these themes, to the general bafflement of people familiar with the
sanitized Mary Martin / Disney version of Peter Pan.
|
gull
|
|
response 16 of 306:
|
Dec 29 14:52 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:12: I hear that song was included after it proved popular in the
live musical. I hate it when movies are changed in between their
theatrical release and their video release. Disney does this a lot,
usually for political correctness reasons.
|
janc
|
|
response 17 of 306:
|
Dec 29 15:16 UTC 2003 |
Recent rentals include "I Take the Castle" and "Pirates of the Caribbean".
The were alike only in being movies that were basically a bit weak but
were largely redeemed by a few terrific performances each. "I Take the
Castle" is an almost too sweet coming of age story, as the daughters of
a flat broke writer living in a broke down castle try to figure out
love. The story is full of quirky eccentricity, but bascially the same
old multiply interlocking romantic triangles kind of plot. Still, the
performances are mostly terrific, the characters are likable and love is
supposed to be the same old story generation after generation.
Pirates had big story problems. It failed to get me interested in most
of the characters problems (why should I care if Jack Sparrow regains
command of the Black Pearl? Why should I care if the curse is broken?
Why should I want to watch immortals who cannot be hurt fighting each
other?). It dragged out and got a bit repetitive. Jack is caught again
and escapes again. Another sword fight. We go around and around a few
too many times. And the happy ending is so contrived and unconvincing
that I figured aliens must have beamed a new brain into Captain
Norrington's head to cause him to change his mind about everything and
everybody. However, though the story arc is a horrible mess, scene by
scene it works, with many fun characters, and inventive incidents and
terrific performances. So it's worth seeing, but best approached with
low expectations.
|
janc
|
|
response 18 of 306:
|
Dec 30 03:50 UTC 2003 |
Rented "Rabbit Proof Fence". I liked this a lot. It's set in Australia,
where, from 1905 to 1970, it was the policy of the government to remove
half-caste aborigine children from their families and raise them in government
schools where they could learn to be domestic servants. It follows the true
story of three children who escape from the school and walk 1500 miles across
Australia to return home. It's amazingly well done. I strongly recommend
renting the DVD so you can see the little "making of" documentary that is on
the disk. I'm not sure I didn't like the that even better than the movie -
it focuses on the challenge of casting the film - finding three aborigine
child actresses who can carry the entire film when no aborigine child
actresses exist proves a challenge.
|
willcome
|
|
response 19 of 306:
|
Dec 30 07:56 UTC 2003 |
janc is a SEX CRIMINAL!
Type: HOMOSEXUAL
|
aruba
|
|
response 20 of 306:
|
Dec 30 17:05 UTC 2003 |
I saw The Last Samurai the day after Christmas. It was very bloody, which
isn't really what I'm into. The teenage boys I went with liked the blood a
lot.
It bothered me that we never really explained what the fighting was about.
Apparently it was because the Samurai were protecting their way of life,
much the same way the American Confederacy was. I didn't see why we
couldn't find a comprmise and merge Samurai ideals with modern technology.
|
twenex
|
|
response 21 of 306:
|
Dec 30 17:11 UTC 2003 |
Because then it wouldn't have been anywhere near historically accurate?
|
tod
|
|
response 22 of 306:
|
Dec 30 17:54 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 23 of 306:
|
Dec 30 17:55 UTC 2003 |
Well, it's not terribly historically accurate anyway, I gather. But my
point is: yes there was a rebellion of Samurai in 1877, but it was a power
struggle between two sides who were looking out for their own interests.
It wasn't about morality, it was about power.
Why should I care? Why should anyone care, 126 years later? And in
particular, why should we be rooting for one side over the other? In
other words, why make a movie about it?
I'd like to be rooting for the idea that reasonable people can work out
their differences without resorting to killing each other.
|
aruba
|
|
response 24 of 306:
|
Dec 30 17:56 UTC 2003 |
Todd slipped in - I was responding to twenex in #21.
|