|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 348 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 100 of 348:
| 
Jul 16 20:50 UTC 1999 |
Re #97: The 'vertical string' was probably a scratch on the film. It
probably was on the print when they got it, if my short experience working
at a theater was any guide. A lot of places don't clean their projector
every day like they should, and dust gets drawn into the film gate and
scratches the film as it goes past. THat's why the film often looks like
crap by the time second run theaters get it.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 101 of 348:
|
Jul 16 22:53 UTC 1999 |
man...cripples really piss me off.
|
mary
|
|
response 102 of 348:
|
Jul 18 12:10 UTC 1999 |
"Run Lola Run" is a German film that takes "What if..." and tells
a story three ways. It's fresh and clever and the soundtrack is
absolutely right. Unless you simply can't deal with subtitles
don't miss this one. It's at the Michigan through the 25th.
|
richard
|
|
response 103 of 348:
|
Jul 18 22:19 UTC 1999 |
EYES WIDE SHUT-- The last film of master filmmaker Stanley Kubrick, about
a wealthy New York doctor (Tom Cruise) whose adulterous fantasies lead him
to a brief experience with the sexual underworld. Nicole Kidman play's
Cruise's wife (and since she IS his wife in real life, you cant fault the
casting) This is about the search for intimacy in a world where it doesnt
seem to exsist. Its a really dense film which one needs to see more than
once (every scene is filled with imagery-- Kubrick filmed each scene
dozens if not hundreds of times over more than two years)
This is not a film many of you might enjoy, as it is dark, perverse and
kinky. I think it is a great film with one quite obvious flaw-- the
central character (Cruise) has a credibility issue-- if you are married to
Nicole Kidman why would you possibly cheat?
A worthy if intriguing end to Kubrick's career....(four stars) highly
recommended only if you feel comfortable with such provocative subject
matter.
|
senna
|
|
response 104 of 348:
|
Jul 19 00:59 UTC 1999 |
Actually, richard, one of the great parts of the film is deciding what it's
about, and I think you may have gotten it wrong. But that's the beauty of
the film. I, personally, found Cruise's ccharacter quite credible. His
motive is not sexual boredom when he plays with temptation. He's consumed
with jealousy. Or maybe it's *not* jealousy. :)
|
drewmike
|
|
response 105 of 348:
|
Jul 19 11:49 UTC 1999 |
I haven't seen it, so temper my opinions with that knowledge, but, yes,
Richard, I *can* fault the casting! Why would you want to watch a married
couple making out? It's like, okay, yeah, that's probably their "kids at
Grandma's" routine, but so what? Now a married couple fighting? Yes sir!
|
jep
|
|
response 106 of 348:
|
Jul 19 13:15 UTC 1999 |
I heard the exact point in #105 made, on an editorial on NPR's evening
news program, "All Things Considered". It is a silly viewpoint.
|
aaron
|
|
response 107 of 348:
|
Jul 19 16:59 UTC 1999 |
re #104: I think he has it wrong as well, but not because the film has any
great or deep meaning. I think, in many ways, its biggest weakness
is that it lacks a great or deep meaning. It is just a movie --
a pretty one, sure. But not particularly meaningful or memorable.
|
richard
|
|
response 108 of 348:
|
Jul 19 22:19 UTC 1999 |
well if I have it wrong, offer your opinion
|
aaron
|
|
response 109 of 348:
|
Jul 19 23:33 UTC 1999 |
I will share my opinion after more people have viewed the film. Do you
understand the concept of the "spoiler"?
|
senna
|
|
response 110 of 348:
|
Jul 20 02:18 UTC 1999 |
This is a film I would have enjoyed considerably less if I knew what was
going on before I saw it.
|
senna
|
|
response 111 of 348:
|
Jul 20 02:18 UTC 1999 |
If I had known, not if I knew. I can grammar patrol myself to death.
|
richard
|
|
response 112 of 348:
|
Jul 20 23:20 UTC 1999 |
you can talk about the themes of a movie without giving away plot
details-- senna said he didnt agree with my impression of what the
movie was about thematically, but didnt offer an alternate opinion.
|
hhsrat
|
|
response 113 of 348:
|
Jul 20 23:30 UTC 1999 |
A few questions for anyone who's been to the Quality 16:
1) How do the food prices compare to the other theaters in town?
2) Coke or Pepsi?
3) (most important) Are there cup holders on the seats?
|
bru
|
|
response 114 of 348:
|
Jul 21 02:43 UTC 1999 |
I have no interest in seeing the film.
|
md
|
|
response 115 of 348:
|
Jul 21 11:41 UTC 1999 |
If you mean Eyes Wide Shut, me neither.
According to IMDb, Jack Valenti is saying that
the MPAA probably screwed up by giving the
South Park movie an R rather than an NC-17,
so if you've been putting off taking your
kids to see it you might want to hurry.
The two young men responsible for this
masterpiece were on the Dennis Miller show
last week, where Miller told them he thought
the movie was the most subversive thing he'd
seen in a long time. They admitted, only
half-jokingly, that their goal was to bring
down the MPAA.
|
mary
|
|
response 116 of 348:
|
Jul 21 12:10 UTC 1999 |
Regarding Quality 16 theater - I can't comment on the refreshments as I
didn't have any, but I like the theater. The lobby is twice maybe three
times the size of the Ann Arbor, the refreshment stand is also small (buts
looks efficient), and the auditorium I was in was fairly perfect, with
comfortable seats, rows wider than deeper, a big screen and great sound.
This was one one of the smallest rooms they have, no doubt (Lake Placid),
so maybe all spaces won't seem so pleasant.
Yes, there are cup holders and wide, soft, somewhat rockable seats. $4.75
for a Sunday matinee.
"Lake Placid" is camp fun. It was worth the 85 minutes just to
hear *Betty White* say, "If I were a man I'd tell you to suck my dick."
|
omni
|
|
response 117 of 348:
|
Jul 21 13:39 UTC 1999 |
But how is the popcorn? Oil, or Butter? The one nice thing about the Ann
Arbor was that they actually used real butter on the popcorn.
Me, I think I'd rather spend an extra $20 for a movie package on cable, and
be able to be comfortable, have real butter on my air popped corn, and of
course access to the fridge. You can't do that at a multiplex. The only thing
I can see that I'm losing is the chance to get herded like a cow, and possibly
get my pocket picked.
And the best thing about watching movies at home? You can sit there in your
underwear and no one will toss you out for doing so.
|
md
|
|
response 118 of 348:
|
Jul 21 14:24 UTC 1999 |
Recent purchase:
A spiffy new tape of WAR OF THE WORLDS (B) -- This was
the first science fiction movie to show aliens and their
machinery as truly alien. No men in rubber suits here. The
war machines, which the designers modeled after manta rays
and cobras, are sleek, strange objects, and the sound effects
curdled my blood the first time I heard them. The movie is
flawed with period cliches -- the cartoon Mexican, the piously
sappy minister, the wide-eyed screaming bimbo -- which you
have to think the director could've avoided. Some of the
dialog is stilted. The scene where the minister walks slowly
toward one of the Martian machines holding up his bible and
intoning the 23rd psalm, and is promptly fried by the machine's
heat weapon, brings me close to blasphemous giggles every
time I see it. And of course the writers throw H.G. Wells's novel
to the ground and dance on it (no great loss, in my opinion).
But none of his matters next to the astonishing battle scenes.
This movie is the paradigm for all the others that followed.
A must-see.
|
gull
|
|
response 119 of 348:
|
Jul 21 14:54 UTC 1999 |
Re #117: I don't know. Some movies are much better on the big screen. And
I *hate* panned & scanned films.
|
scott
|
|
response 120 of 348:
|
Jul 21 19:13 UTC 1999 |
Over the weekend I saw two movies:
South Park: Extremely funny, assuming you aren't easily offended.
The Red Violin: Cool, but a bit hokey and overly dramatic.
|
richard
|
|
response 121 of 348:
|
Jul 22 21:42 UTC 1999 |
I rented the DVD of Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining"-- it is
excellent of course, but unfortunately is the pan and scan version
(most DVD's are the widescreen versions naturally) Any videophile
would want the widescreen version, which makes me wonder what the
DVD folks were thinking. The "making of" documentary directed by
Kubrick's wife is excelleng though.
Also rented the DVD of "Pride of the Yankees" with Gary Cooper, and
discovered the DVD is the *colorized* version. Egads! Of course I
refused to watch that, as noone with any respect for the original vision
of a film director, would watch a butchered colorized version of their
film. Why, when a company is putting together an expensive digitalized
dvd version of a classic film, would they use a colorized print instead of
the original black and white? Sheesh.
|
jazz
|
|
response 122 of 348:
|
Jul 22 22:43 UTC 1999 |
I used to be violently against colorization until I saw an interview
with Ted Turner wherein Ted pointed out that colorization can be undone by
the viewer by simply turning down the "color" knob or slider on their TV.
|
mary
|
|
response 123 of 348:
|
Jul 23 00:39 UTC 1999 |
I enjoyed "Eyes Wide Shut".
|
tpryan
|
|
response 124 of 348:
|
Jul 23 03:28 UTC 1999 |
I would think that turning the color down on a colorized movie would
get you the B&W version of the colorized movie. There could be difference
in shadow and light, as the new color would not always translate to the
original grayscale.
|
