|
Grex > Cinema > #68: Grex goes to the movies - The Summer Movies Review Item |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 323 responses total. |
jvmv
|
|
response 125 of 323:
| 
Jul 26 07:22 UTC 2004 |
As noted by kenn, Asimov must be turning over in
his grave. This travesty of a film mocks everything
that he stood for. Asimov, a devout pacifist, wanted
to create a series of robot stories that did not rely
on idiotic violence to advance the plot. His stories
rely on humans (and robots) using intelligence & reasoning
to solve problems.
He also wanted to create stories that contradicted the
all to clich d "Frankenstein" motif. This film does exactly
the opposite. It's quite obvious that the screenwriters
casually browsed the books, selected a few choice names,
& then proceeded to write a script that had the
intellectual depth of a episode of Barney the purple dinosaur.
...
|
ric
|
|
response 126 of 323:
|
Jul 26 13:40 UTC 2004 |
I personally don't give a rats a$$ if the movie is different from the book,
especially if it was never intended to be like the book.
I haven't seen "I, Robot" yet, but I want to, and I suspect I will enjoy it,
as I enjoyed Spiderman 2 and many other "hollywood" movies.
Yes, I even enjoyed "The Day After Tomorrow", because I went to see it as a
fan of "good" disaster movies. In such movies, the acting and plot holes are
irrelevant. As long as the disaster actually OCCURS, I'm good. (This is why
I didn't like Deep Impact or Armageddon)
|
edina
|
|
response 127 of 323:
|
Jul 26 14:31 UTC 2004 |
Heh. In the credits, it flat out says it's adapted from the book.
|
gregb
|
|
response 128 of 323:
|
Jul 26 15:47 UTC 2004 |
Re. 126: "the acting and plot holes are irrelevant." Your kidding,
right? Without these elements, what's the point? Oh, wait, you already
answered that question. Then you'd probably like "The Chronicles of
Riddick."
I went and caught this mind-numbing piece of celluloid at the dollar
show. Good thing, too. I'd hate to think I'd coud'ov wasted five or
more bucks on this. The movie stars Vin Diesel, which immediately tells
you this is going to be an over-the-top action flick with little
character development and as little plot.
Here's the story: The place, a agalaxy far, far away. The time, who
knows. It seems there's this evil empire going around blowing up
planets if the inhabitants don't bow down to their will. There's also
this guy (Vin) who's got a bounty on his head and has been hiding out
for some indeterminent length of time. When a group of bounty hunters
comes gunning for him, he returns ot his homeworld (after apparently
wasting the bounty hunters, of course) to find out who ratted him out
and find out who put the bounty out on him. Blah, blah, blah...
It's no surprise this didn't last in the theater. Nothing about Riddick
stands out. The costumes, S/F, music...all very typical. Something you
might see on the Sci-Fi Channel.
If you like seeing things get blown up, punched out and burned to a
crisp, without all that bothersome plot/character thing, then you'll
love this.
|
glenda
|
|
response 129 of 323:
|
Jul 26 16:31 UTC 2004 |
Re #127: The credits say that it's "suggested" by the books.
|
gull
|
|
response 130 of 323:
|
Jul 26 16:58 UTC 2004 |
As an action movie, "Chronicles of Riddick" was so-so. This isn't
because of plot problems -- action movies, from 'Indiana Jones' to
'Independence Day', never really have good plots. But the action scenes
in Riddick kind of sucked. Many of the fight scenes were shot in a
headache-inducing strobe-light style that just made it hard to tell what
was going on, and a lot of the spacecraft special effects shots were
unconvincing. Let me know when CGI reaches the point where it's more
convincing than old-fashioned scale models, and I'll start to pay
attention again.
|
ric
|
|
response 131 of 323:
|
Jul 26 17:31 UTC 2004 |
re 128 - The non-requirement of plot and acting only applies to Disaster
Movies. I don't think "The Chronicles of Riddick" is a disaster movie.
Although it may be a disaster.
I didn't go see it because I *HATED* "Pitch Black", which was this movies
predecessor.
Of course, I don't mean "no plot at all" - that would be porn. But I'm
willing to forgive the vast holes in the plot that were in "The Day After
Tomorrow"
|
edina
|
|
response 132 of 323:
|
Jul 26 20:06 UTC 2004 |
Suggested, adapted, either way I know it's not a literal rendering.
|
twenex
|
|
response 133 of 323:
|
Jul 26 21:39 UTC 2004 |
I'd prefer that people were honest about that, like they were in "Troy".
Stuff like 1953's WAR OF THE WORLDS was ridiculous.
|
tod
|
|
response 134 of 323:
|
Jul 26 21:49 UTC 2004 |
So the scene in Ten Commandments when Heston raises up the tablet and you can
see his spidel wristwatch wasn't VERBATIM?!?
|
twenex
|
|
response 135 of 323:
|
Jul 26 21:53 UTC 2004 |
Don't know, haven't seen it. Probably not!
|
tod
|
|
response 136 of 323:
|
Jul 26 21:58 UTC 2004 |
Yul Brynner as Ramses II!
How could you not see it?!?
|
twenex
|
|
response 137 of 323:
|
Jul 26 22:06 UTC 2004 |
An oversight!
|
mooncat
|
|
response 138 of 323:
|
Jul 26 22:09 UTC 2004 |
Okay, so the Beau and I went to see "Catwoman" on Saturday. I really
really liked it. Though we both agreed that if you don't like cats, or
at least appreciate them, you probably won't like this movie. I'm not
horribly sure what the 'point' of the movie was exactly, whether it was
Woman Power! or something like 'Be yourself' or what, but I still liked
it. I think Halle Berry did a fine job, as did Benjamin Bratt- and the
fact that they're both nice to look at doesn't hurt.
If you're the type who wants to analyze every single nuance to a movie,
every look, the lighting, etc., skip this- it's not Film, it's a fun
movie.
|
twenex
|
|
response 139 of 323:
|
Jul 26 22:11 UTC 2004 |
'Twas slated by the critics, but came in at 3 in the States this week, I
hear.
|
richard
|
|
response 140 of 323:
|
Jul 27 01:50 UTC 2004 |
#138...hmm, maybe I will see "Catwoman" after all. I was discouraged by the
scathing reviews the critics have given it. One critic gave it an "F" and
said Halle Berry does not put her catsuit on until 2/3rds of the way through
the movie.
Also why is Catwoman not Selena Kyle (the Batman storyline character) but an
entirely different character?
|
furs
|
|
response 141 of 323:
|
Jul 27 10:01 UTC 2004 |
re 138. I'm sure that people who don't necessarily like cats, but like
to see a hot woman in a skin tight outfit will draw a few people. ;)
|
mooncat
|
|
response 142 of 323:
|
Jul 27 12:24 UTC 2004 |
Richard- they explain that quite well in the movie. (the name thing) I
also think that a lot of critics won't apprciate the cat behavior
nuances (they're probably dog people)... Nuances that I had a lot of
fun spotting. (Things like the character- in the Catwoman guise- gets
agitated, crack goes the whip- reminiscent of when a cat gets agitated
and they whip their tails.)
Actually, they 'honor' a couple previous Catwomen (we spotted a photo
of Michelle Pfieffer as Catwoman as well as a Julie Newmar shot- though
if you're not paying attention they're easy to miss).
As for my liking it, the fact that a 'co-star' is an Egyptian Mau
doesn't hurt. Though never EVER should an Egpytian Mau be named
Midnight. <shivers>
Hmm, and Sharon Stone did a very nice job too.
re #141- Jeanne- very true, especially when there's a good deal of skin-
tight skin exposed too. ;)
|
twenex
|
|
response 143 of 323:
|
Jul 27 21:52 UTC 2004 |
Just saw "'KING' ARTHUR" (notice the single quotes around KING).
Not only does nothing happen, what doesn't happen involves a Cockney-speaking
Sarmatian (ancient East European, I think, who ironically was one of the only
characters who didn't ge ton my nerves) and a guy supposedly from the North
who speaks like Sam from LOTR. Obviously they were too taken with the accent
to wonder if it didn't come from completely tthe wrong area.
As if that weren't enough, if the plot of the film had anything less to do
with the Arthurian legends, they would have been taking orders from Starfleet
Command.
Take my advice and rent FIRST KNIGHT with Sean Con nery and Richard Gere,
instead.
|
katie
|
|
response 144 of 323:
|
Jul 27 22:20 UTC 2004 |
Didn't at all enjoy "Before Sunset." Bad acting; annoying characters.
|
mfp
|
|
response 145 of 323:
|
Jul 27 22:59 UTC 2004 |
Re. 143: ACtually, those were approrpiate accents for the time period.
|
grexmom
|
|
response 146 of 323:
|
Jul 28 00:00 UTC 2004 |
#145 appropriate
|
naftee
|
|
response 147 of 323:
|
Jul 28 01:29 UTC 2004 |
Yes mom
|
bru
|
|
response 148 of 323:
|
Jul 28 02:42 UTC 2004 |
Now I know twenex has no sense of reality. He lives in a fairytale world.
FIrst Knight? Are you serious? CanI think of any movie related to Aurthurian
legend that is farther from reality than First Knight? You think the english
built funky maze machines to test the knights? That they all wore shiney
plate armour? That the peasants rose up to topple the bad guy after he kills
Arthur?
|
twenex
|
|
response 149 of 323:
|
Jul 28 10:53 UTC 2004 |
Yes, I'm serious; and watch who you accuse of having no sense of reality.
Actually, I've decided that probably a lot of the reason I didn't enjoy
KING ARTHUR was 'cos I just wasn't in the right frame of mind - but they
could at least have got the accents right (especially if it was
British-made, which I've heard it was.)
"Can[ ]I think of any movie related to [Arthurian]
legend that is farther from reality than First Knight?
Legend and reality are not the same thing, even if legend sometimes
originates in reality. This I know, and you apparently don't, so I refer
you back to my first sentence.
|