response 100 of 323:

Jul 11 16:54 UTC 2004

We went to the local multiplex yesterday to waste money on Anchorman, 
which was playing on 2 screens vs. 1 screen for Michael Mooron's 
F9/11 - and the parking lot was pretty much empty.

response 102 of 323:

Jul 11 17:04 UTC 2004

We apologize for insulting Anchorman.  (Happy now?)

response 104 of 323:

Jul 11 19:22 UTC 2004

No, worse.

response 108 of 323:

Jul 12 16:56 UTC 2004

  Saw "Spiderman 2" over the weekend and managed to stay entertained
  for a couple of hours (though only just barely in a few parts, I'd
  say the pacing could/should have been tightened a bit.)

  I thought they did a fantastic job with the Doctor Octopus special
  effects; Doc Ock was always one of my favorite Spiderman villains
  and they did an excellent job with both his motion and the sheer
  physical menace of his mechanical limbs.

  It's odd but the parts I liked best of the comic books are the parts
  I thought dragged the most in the movie -- Peter Parker's hapless
  struggle to master the everyday life of an intelligent outsider in
  a world he really doesn't fit into.  The real genius of the Spiderman
  comic books was that the focus of the story really wasn't Spiderman's
  struggle against the supervillains, it was Peter Parker's struggle
  against everyday life.  The fights with the supervillains were just
  added inconveniences heaped upon an already staggeringly overburdened
  young misfit who rarely got a break.  And if things weren't confusing
  enough for young Peter already, half of the time the villains turned
  out to be people he cared about from the everyday life he was trying
  to cope with -- you can see them setting up for that in this latest
  movie with the introduction of John Jameson (who, in the comics, turns
  into some sort of man/wolf beast after a moon mission goes wrong) and
  Dr. Curtis Connors (becomes "The Lizard" after an experiment in limb
  regeneration goes wrong -- notice a pattern here?) and, of course,
  with Harry Osborne, who eventually becomes the second Green Goblin
  (after his father's scientific experiments and subsequent supervillain
  career go wrong, naturally..)

response 110 of 323:

Jul 12 18:00 UTC 2004

  Well, in those days when a comic found a successful niche, it stuck to it.
  If you were a "tampered with things man was not meant to know / science
  experiment gone wrong" sort of comic-book reader you were probably a 
  Spiderman fan.  

response 116 of 323:

Jul 18 08:32 UTC 2004

     
     Spiderman2 is as annoying as the praises that some 
     people do it when you think this is just the review 
     of a child who only wants to see action and special 
     effects & the special effects transformed some directors 
     in Mandrakes.
     
     Don't get me wrong this is not a bad movie, but it's 
     not a good one either. As all the others (Hoolywool 
     production line stuff) it's forgotten QUICKLY.
     
     The story was boring and the message so expertly crafted 
     in the first movie was simply repeated (over and over) 
     in this one till it go boring but if you like these 
     kind of stuff, it will entertain you for about 2 hours.

     After watching it, immediately boot it to the trash can!

     ...

     

response 118 of 323:

Jul 19 16:19 UTC 2004

Spiderman 2 was good, but Elfman gave the horns and chorus the best part. 
The trombone chorus got their usual unsheathed dagger danger part.  Anyway,
it was a serviceable score, but I'm very envious of the best going to the
horns.  [Spiderman inside the subway train]

Victor is certainly right, though.  I guess the audience really wouldn't
want something too different from a character defined in a both a previous
movie and decades of comics.  At least the director spared us a repeat
introduction of how Parker received his preternatural powers.

Maybe Spiderman 3 will have some surprises!  Like does Parker blow a
sticky web when he sneezes snot or ejaculates?  Does he fear coitus
because of the fate of other male arachnids?

response 120 of 323:

Jul 19 16:25 UTC 2004

I caught "I Robot" over the weekend.  I've never read Asimov, so I can't
compare, but even the credits say, "Suggested by the book by Asimov", in what
I would imagine is a plea for everyone to just back off and let the movie
happen.  I think what impressed me is how much I like Will Smith.  He's a good
actor, but he really has what it takes to be a great action star.  

response 122 of 323:

Jul 19 17:18 UTC 2004

  re #121:  it had plenty of tentacles and arachnids.

response 124 of 323:

Jul 19 21:52 UTC 2004

Re. 120:  The book is nothing like the movie, which is understandable as
the book was an anthology of robot-related stories.