|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 326 responses total. |
mooncat
|
|
response 100 of 326:
| 
May 15 18:08 UTC 2000 |
Hmph, I won't be seeing that movie...
|
anderyn
|
|
response 101 of 326:
|
May 15 20:27 UTC 2000 |
Welll, I was surprised. I don't usually do well with violence in movies,
but I wasn't squicked by this one. (Of course, I may not have SEEN all of the
violence that was there -- strange cinematography screws up my already patchy
vision, and I don't see things.) Even the tiger getting offed didn't bug me
as much as I had expected. It had flaws -- the costuming and the historical
accuracy were definitely off -- but it was a big movie. It worked on the level
that it was aiming for, I think.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 102 of 326:
|
May 15 21:00 UTC 2000 |
I don't really mind violence in movies, half the time I find it
amusing. But, this is violence against a kitty... I just don't want to
see something like that. <shrugs> Call me weird. (then again, look at
my login. <Grins> Now does it make sense that I wouldn't want to see
violence against cats? Actually... any animal...)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 103 of 326:
|
May 15 21:19 UTC 2000 |
Faked violence against animals is bad, but faked violence against humans
is okay?
|
senna
|
|
response 104 of 326:
|
May 16 06:49 UTC 2000 |
According to the religious pursuit of freedom of entertainment media, of
course it is.
Actually, even combat with *realistic* broadswords isn't that difficult to
pull off. Well, it is, but that's because it's a challenging art to learn.
Stage combat is quite fascinating, really.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 105 of 326:
|
May 16 12:49 UTC 2000 |
re #103- Yup, that pretty much sums it up. <grins> Hey, who said a
person's opinions always had to be logical and make sense? Actually...
I take part of that back, I hate seeing violence against children as
well. But adults? No biggie.
|
flem
|
|
response 106 of 326:
|
May 16 17:13 UTC 2000 |
I've never been impressed by stage combat. No matter how close you come to
not pulling your shots, it's always easy to see that they are pulled. And
there's really no way around it, if you're using "real" weapons. Give me SCA
style combat any day. It may not be convincing to see people get hit with
a rattan pole, but at least they're really getting hit.
|
void
|
|
response 107 of 326:
|
May 17 02:59 UTC 2000 |
"there i was, wearing five yards of carpet..." :)
|
swa
|
|
response 108 of 326:
|
May 24 03:51 UTC 2000 |
So I went to see "Titus". It came out last year, I think, but was
apparently released to a fairly limited audience at the time. We saw it
at this weird little artsy theatre, so I dont' know if it's playing
nationally or not.
I'd never read _Titus Andronicus_, but I'd read and seen several other
Shakespeare tragedies, so I thought I knew what to expect of this. Wrong.
It surprised me with how disturbing and bloody and brutal and well,
tragic, it was, even in comparison to others. Don't go see this when
you're feeling squeamish.
OTOH, it was quite well done, if a bit bizarre in some places. I
think the film would have been much improved if the director had cut out a
couple of little dream sequence/showing-the-inside-of-the-character's head
bits. I have no patience for artsy pretention in films, and these scenes
seemed to be full of sound and fury and not much else. There were only a
couple of them, though.
The director (whose name I can't remember at the moment for some reason)
chose to set the film in both ancient *and* modern times. Tony, who I saw
it with, found this anachronistic and irritating, so you may too. I
really didn't have a problem with it, since both ancient Rome and the
modern (actually earlier in this century) world got equal play, so I
wasn't left feeling like one was the "real" setting and one an
anachronism. They segued fairly fluidly between the two, and used
elements of both to tell the story. (Come to think of it, this is artsy
pretention, too, but it's the kind I like, so it's okay. ;)) Throughout,
the costumes, sets, etc., were quite well done, with a lot of attention to
detail. The photography itself was beautiful, too.
Anyway, the excellent cast (led by Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange, and
including lots of other people I'd never heard of, but who were really,
really good) more than made up for the film's weaker spots. Almost none
of the characters are really likeable or sympathetic in this story, but
the actors made even the most evil ones charismatic and compelling so
that the audience was fascinated and had to find out what happened to
them.
So yeah, I'd recommend this. Go see it on the big screen if at all
possible.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 109 of 326:
|
May 24 06:48 UTC 2000 |
Finally viewed the tape of _Wild Things_ (Mary Wilson has a long day and
went to sleep early so whats-her-name and I got to watch something other
than G rated....). An excellent flick (they sure didn't have tits
like that when I was in HS!), plot twist after plot twist.
Be sure to view all the credits to get the final plot twists.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 110 of 326:
|
May 24 12:02 UTC 2000 |
I have to second that -- Wild Things was fun.
|
remmers
|
|
response 111 of 326:
|
May 24 12:42 UTC 2000 |
Re resp:108 - "Titus" played recently at the Michigan Theater
in Ann Arbor; I saw it there. It was directed by Julie Taymor.
I think this was her first movie, although she's done a lot of
theater work, including the stage version of Disney's "The
Lion King".
I was very impressed with the production, although it's not,
as you say, for the squeamish. It had a certain power; I
found it reminiscent in some ways of 1980's slasher films.
|
otaking
|
|
response 112 of 326:
|
May 25 17:25 UTC 2000 |
I finally saw _The_Sixth_Sense_ last night on DVD. It was an excellent movie.
The kid (whose name I forget) deserves an oscar. I loved a lot of the subtlety
in the movie. Too bad I saw the movie already knowing the twist at the end.
Still, it was an excellent film. Too bad they didn't keep some of the deleted
scenes in the movie.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 113 of 326:
|
May 25 17:29 UTC 2000 |
Did you see the director's first film?
|
otaking
|
|
response 114 of 326:
|
May 25 18:29 UTC 2000 |
No, what is it?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 115 of 326:
|
May 25 18:33 UTC 2000 |
It's on the DVD. He made it when he was around 14. I can't remember the
name -- it's very short, but worth checking out if you've already rented
the DVD.
|
otaking
|
|
response 116 of 326:
|
May 25 19:39 UTC 2000 |
Thanks Joe. I'll check it out. I haven't finished looking at all the bonus
stuff yet.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 117 of 326:
|
May 26 16:24 UTC 2000 |
I wasn't particularly impressed by Sixth Sense. I thought it was rather
slow up until The Twist, which made it somewhat more interesting in
retrospect, but it was a long haul for the payoff. I suppose if I had
known The Twist to start with, it might have made the movie more
interesting, but then the whole exercise would be largely pointless.
I've never been much of a fan of "and then he was hit by a truck"
endings.
|
otaking
|
|
response 118 of 326:
|
May 26 16:52 UTC 2000 |
I thought Jacob's Ladder was very compelling for the same reason as The Sixth
Sense. The Sixth Sense was far more sedate than the former film.
|
md
|
|
response 119 of 326:
|
May 27 03:34 UTC 2000 |
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 (B+) -- Looking at this movie,
you know that someone spent a huge amount of money to
entertain you. M:I 2 carries the car chase/explosion/
acrobatic fistfight genre to its ultimate extreme.
It's all beautifully done. The plot and the characters
never try to be other than their totally preposterous
selves. It tries very hard to maintain its PG13 rating
by only implying the goriest things, letting them
happen offscreen. Definitely worth seeing if you need
some harmless escapist fun.
MYSTERY, ALASKA (B) -- The box promised "the Rocky of
Hockey," and that's just what the movie is. Simpleminded
and shamelessly manipulative, but fairly enjoyable.
|
goose
|
|
response 120 of 326:
|
May 27 03:43 UTC 2000 |
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II (A-) -- Action, action, action. See also #119 above.
|
hhsrat
|
|
response 121 of 326:
|
May 27 19:40 UTC 2000 |
Saw bits and pieces of Armageddon last night. I didn't pay too much
attention to the movie, and I didn't see the whole thing (I was on the
Event Operations crew for Student Council Movie night, had more
important things to do, like find a working projector). Therefore, I
won't comment on it, although if the number of people we had in
attendance is any indication, it's a terrible movie.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 122 of 326:
|
May 27 20:46 UTC 2000 |
Saw "Shanghai Noon" last night and I highly recommend it. It was very
funny, in addition to Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson it has Lucy Liu in it
(and she's just wonderful). Fun actions, amusing characters and is all
around fun. :)
|
ric
|
|
response 123 of 326:
|
May 28 01:17 UTC 2000 |
Saw "Missing Impossible 2" today. Good flick. I think I enjoyed the first
one more because the plot was a little more twisted but this one was still
pretty good.
|
krj
|
|
response 124 of 326:
|
May 28 04:58 UTC 2000 |
Leslie and I saw DINOSAUR last weekend. I liked it a lot, but I'm willing
to accept the Disneyesque BAMBI/LION KING plot conventions.
Visually, the computer-generated characters are very impressive.
I like movies which show me things I haven't seen before, and DINOSAUR
is a home run in that category.
|
