response 14 of 146:

Sep 27 06:54 UTC 1998

  It rocked. I loved it, and I will save it to show to my nephews and 
children when I have them. I think every person should see Woodstock, just
to show them that 3 million or so people can gather in one place for 3 days
and have a great time. Schindler's List is another of those films, to show
them how 1 man can make a difference, and that they should strive to be that
one man or woman.

response 16 of 146:

Sep 27 12:30 UTC 1998

I saw 'The Fifth Element' on Friday.  It is one of the few movies that i can
watch more than once.  I really enjoyed it.

response 18 of 146:

Sep 27 16:05 UTC 1998

Letterman had a top 10 list about Things Learned From Woodstock. The only two
I can remember are "Not everyone looks good naked" and "If you have three days
to fill, you can probably find room for Sha Na Na".
 
I actually have not seen "Schindler's List". And I'm not sure if I want to.
 
Before you all start raiding my apartment, looking for armbands and Zyklon,
let me explain.
 
At the time "Schindler's List" came out, one of my film genres classes covered
"Evil". While, for the most part it covered works of fiction ("Boyz N The
Hood", "Apocalypse Now") we had an especially indepth examination of "Shoah".
 
"Shoah" is a documentary by Claude Lanzmann, in which he speaks to Holocaust
survivors (one of whom spared his own life by acting in complicity with the
Nazis), unrepentant former Nazis, and the people of the towns with
concentration camps, who knew what was going on, but chose not to do anything
about it.
 
When I was through with this unit, although I was heartened to know the human
spirit could survive such atrocities, it also profoundly saddened me to
realize that this same human spirit could do these things in the first place,
and I really didn't want to see anything more about the Holocaust for a while
after that.

And now, I think the film I would go back to is still "Shoah", rather than
"Schindler's List". I'm not saying that Spielberg, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes,
et al aren't capable of telling their story well. But when I watch a
recreation like this, no matter how painstakingly researched, no matter how
sincere everyone involved is, I still know fully well that this is a work of
art. It's a construction. 
 
No matter how well they tell someone else's story, it's still exactly that:
someone else's story. And that can't touch me nearly as much as someone, in
his own words, telling me what's in his heart.

(For example, a few of the interviews are in English, most are German, and
there's some more in other languages. When I had to read subtitles to
understand the interviews, I didn't feel the impact as strongly as I did for
the English and German scenes. Simply knowing there was another layer
distancing me and the people on the screen was enough to remove me.)

response 20 of 146:

Oct 2 02:15 UTC 1998

Agora 15 <-> Cinema 23

response 22 of 146:

Oct 6 21:08 UTC 1998

"What Dreams May Come" is an extraordinary movie.  Not all scenes worked. 
The philosophy is right out of a hemp haze.  But it takes so many risks it
is forgiven the lapses.  See it for the sets, the cinematography, the
computer generated art, and the opening scenes of Hell. 

response 24 of 146:

Oct 9 16:36 UTC 1998

Actually, I did mostly see What Dreams May Come for the backgrounds, and that
aspect I give an A+ to.

response 26 of 146:

Oct 11 20:45 UTC 1998

I saw Antz last night.  It's animated, and rated G, so I was expecting it to
be a childrens' movie.  It's not.  It's both very Woody Allen and very
Spielberg, with an excellent story and spectacular cinematography.

response 28 of 146:

Oct 12 15:27 UTC 1998

My understanding is that the difference is sometimes difficult to discern in
this movie.

response 30 of 146:

Oct 12 17:49 UTC 1998

        ***The Apostle***

We suffered through the whole thing waiting for the good parts, and finished
it convinced that the academy awards were a purely political nod to the right
wing, and perhaps even to the moderate forces who are tired of the industry's
glorification of sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, smoking, violence, car chases and
all the other good stuff.  If you're an evangelical sort, or an anthropolgist
studying evangelical movements, you might have a more interesting time with
this one.  as for me, even the human drama was buried under an unpleasant crud
pile of saccharin religiosity.  i give it a resounding "bleah"  (with
appropriate nods to charles schultz)

response 32 of 146:

Oct 12 18:23 UTC 1998

Re #30: Hm, I came away from "The Apostle" with a very different
impression. Although I didn't think it was all that great a film,
it didn't seem to me that it was endorsing the evangelism and
religiousity that it depicted, and more than "The Godfather"
endorsed organized crime. The main character, played by Robert
Duvall, was a pretty un-virtuous guy..

response 34 of 146:

Oct 12 18:59 UTC 1998

re 27:
        Yes, I can call it cinematography even though it was animated.  With
most animated films I couldn't, but with this one, I can.

response 36 of 146:

Oct 12 19:12 UTC 1998

Re #33: Hm... I'm curious what the good reasons are for being scum.