|
Grex > Cinema > #25: Siskel & Ebert & Grex-- the Movie Review item |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 165 responses total. |
bruin
|
|
response 132 of 165:
| 
Mar 11 15:26 UTC 1999 |
RE #131 Don't feel bad about "There's Something About Mary" being lame and
boring -- I walked out of the theater in the middle of the movie.
|
md
|
|
response 133 of 165:
|
Mar 11 15:42 UTC 1999 |
Saw THE WEDDING SINGER (C) on cable last night. I recall some
reviewers saying they liked Barrymore and Sandler but weren't
crazy about the movie. I liked Barrymore (I suspect after seeing
her in Ever After I'd like her in just about anything), and one of
Sander's songs was a stitch, but that's all.
What is particularly annoying is that it's Sandler, not Barrymore,
who's now commanding $20 mil per movie because of The
Wedding Singer's box office success. Grrr.
|
md
|
|
response 134 of 165:
|
Mar 11 19:08 UTC 1999 |
Re "There's Something About Mary," I enjoyed it. I also enjoyed
"Beavis and Butthead Do America," so don't run out to rent "Mary"
on my say-so.
The movie's mass appeal was surprising. I think it had been out
for something like nine weeks before it hit #1 last year. That hardly
ever happens. It was the result of sheer word-of-mouth, enhanced
by a belated advertising blitz after the distributors caught on to what
was happening.
We rented it when it hit the video stores and liked it even better.
We even bought one of the Puffy-in-the-body-cast toys they were
selling at Blockbuster. Poor Puffy now brightens a shelf in our kitchen.
When we saw the video, we realized that an additional "something"
about Mary for us now is her snazzy Durango.
|
danr
|
|
response 135 of 165:
|
Mar 12 13:19 UTC 1999 |
I also thought "Mary" was kind of lame. A few scenes were funny, though.
|
senna
|
|
response 136 of 165:
|
Mar 12 17:05 UTC 1999 |
Honestly, Mary was a very stupid movie. I can enjoy stupid movies,
though. It doesn't reach the sublime wit that Kevin Smith movies do,
but it's good for a few laughs.
Sandler makes $20 million for a lot of reasons. Howard Stern actually
had a good point about it. He thinks that Sandler might be the *only*
person in Hollywood worth $20 million, because he can make an awful,
awful movie like The Waterboy and people will still come see it. They
always do. The Waterboy made the kind of money that usually makes
studios think "sequel." I hope they don't, but you get the idea.
|
md
|
|
response 137 of 165:
|
Mar 13 17:14 UTC 1999 |
The new Premiere magazine reviews Ever After in its video
section. It gets a "satisfying rental" rating. The reviewer
adds that "it will be a staple at teenage girls' slumber
parties well into the next century." Just when I thought
I couldn't feel worse about my taste in movies.
Speaking of which, we rented WHAT DREAMS MAY COME (C+).
I kind of liked it, although I can see why it got such
ghastly reviews. What I like about it is the way it looks.
What I hate about it is the Peter Straub-like way things
can "magically" change from one moment to the next. I have
nothing against magic or change in movies, but it has to
be to some purpose or effect. In this movie, all you're
seeing is the boring fantasies of the writing team. "Hey,
let's do this next!" "Cool!" Snore. The only thing
that redeems it are the alpine vistas, the Italianate
cityscapes, the Giverny flower beds, etc., which are quite
eye-popping. I bet it was awesome at the Star.
|
omni
|
|
response 138 of 165:
|
Mar 13 17:41 UTC 1999 |
I saw THE TRUMAN SHOW on PPV last night. I liked it, but
it left me wondering what I would do if I were in that position.
Carrey was unbelievably watchable as Truman; and I'm NOT a Jim Carrey
fan because I always thought he was too silly and too manic. However,
despite that Carrey did an excellent job, certainly an Oscar caliber
performance. The Academy should be ashamed it snubbed him.
I give it an A-.
|
otter
|
|
response 139 of 165:
|
Mar 13 23:53 UTC 1999 |
I'm still ticked at the Academy for ignoring _Tombstone_, especially Val
Kilmer's *incredible* performance. But that's what you get for releasing a
movie in the same year as _Schindler's List_. Oh, well.
|
gregb
|
|
response 140 of 165:
|
Mar 14 03:06 UTC 1999 |
Re. STI: As a theater movie, I was dissapointed. But it would'ov made
an very good two-hour episode.
Re. SAM: I never made it to the theater. The promos were enough to
keep me away. Just seemed too slap-stick for my taste.
One movie I reccomend is Antz. And if you think this is some cute kids
flick, forget it. It is cute, but definitely not for kids, IMO. Mo
only disapointment was how short it was; Only 83 min., less than Toy
Story.
|
gull
|
|
response 141 of 165:
|
Mar 14 03:24 UTC 1999 |
Re #140: I second that. Antz is basically an animated Woody Allen movie.
:)
|
senna
|
|
response 142 of 165:
|
Mar 14 07:57 UTC 1999 |
I just saw The Truman Show today on video. It was a very interesting film.
Peter Weir did a wonderful job adding dynamics to pull the audience (real and
otherwise) into the movie. A nice added touch was to put entirely fictitious
credits at the beginning. Carrey does an excellent job, and the fact that
I forgot to expect him to revert to his normal overblown style reflects how
encapturing it really was. To me, the best element of the movie is Weir's
seamless translation of the fictional audience's inability to read what Truman
is thinking despite seeing every second of his life on tv to the real
audience, which experiences the same phenomenon. You see everything he does,
but you can't be sure what he's actually doing.
|
md
|
|
response 143 of 165:
|
Mar 14 16:13 UTC 1999 |
The current Premiere magazine has an interesting table
on pages 86 & 87. Alex Lewin selected what he considers
the 100 most noteworthy films (the cover says "hottest
movies") of 1998, and read reviews of them by 15
well-known critics. He assigned a point score to each
review: 0 = a must to avoid; 1 = not recommended; 2 =
recommended; 3 = highly recommended; 4 = most highly
recommended. He added the point scores for each movie
and sorted by total score.
The critics' top 20 movies of 1998 using Lewin's method
are ("T" indicates a tie with the preceding movie):
1. Shakespeare in Love
2. Saving Private Ryan
3. Out of Sight
4. Happiness
5. Gods and Monsters
6. The Truman Show
7. Affliction
8. The General
T. A Simple Plan
10. A Bug's Life
T. Love and Death on Long Island
12. Bulworth
T. There's Something about Mary
14. Fireworks
T. Live Flesh
16. The Eel
T. The Thin Red Line
18. The Butcher Boy
T. Central Station
20. The Celebration
There is plenty of disagreement among the critics that
the averages can't show. The Truman Show, which
everyone else loved, got a 1 ("not recommended") from
Richard Schickel in Time magazine. Patch Adams, which
literally every other critic said to avoid, got a 2
from Leonard Maltin. There's Something about Mary was
the most controversial, with five 4s, five 3s, three 2s
and two 1s. The highest rated movie to get a 0 ("a
must to avoid") from a critic is The Butcher Boy, which
I've never heard of. The lowest rated movie to get a 4
("most highly recommended") from a critic is Very Bad
Things, which most critics said to avoid but which
Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman evidently loved.
If you want to know how a particular movie ranked with
the critics but you don't want to buy the magazine, ask
here and I'll look it up for you.
|
aruba
|
|
response 144 of 165:
|
Mar 14 17:41 UTC 1999 |
How did Pleasantville do?
|
md
|
|
response 145 of 165:
|
Mar 14 18:08 UTC 1999 |
Tied for 35th with Antz, below The Mask of Zorro and above
High Art.
|
scg
|
|
response 146 of 165:
|
Mar 14 18:16 UTC 1999 |
I saw three of those top 20. Antz and Pleasantville were two of my favorite
movies last year.
|
gjharb
|
|
response 147 of 165:
|
Mar 15 03:59 UTC 1999 |
Have been very pleased with the last couple of movies I've seen. The Truman
Show, Pleasantville, Elizabeth, Rushmore, and Shakespeare in Love. Can't
remember when I've had such a rash of movies I thought were well worth
watching.
|
remmers
|
|
response 148 of 165:
|
Mar 15 17:23 UTC 1999 |
I've seen only 5 of the top 20. I just ain't the moviegoer I used to
be. In the excellent-movies-ignored-by-the-academy category, I agree
with the high ranking of "Out of Sight".
How did "Henry Fool" do?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 149 of 165:
|
Mar 15 17:45 UTC 1999 |
I don't even recall ever hearing about "Out of Sight" before the
previous responses. What's it about? (That's *not* the one about
the man whose eyesight was restored by surgery, right?)
|
md
|
|
response 150 of 165:
|
Mar 16 03:06 UTC 1999 |
Out of Sight was the one with George Clooney and Jennifer
Lopez. I think it was based on an Elmore Leonard book.
Henry Fool ranked 64th. We rented it the other night,
didn't like it much. I had the feeling I was watching an
allegory of some kind, but allegory of what I couldn't say.
Parker Posey was good, as always.
|
remmers
|
|
response 151 of 165:
|
Mar 16 13:16 UTC 1999 |
Right, "Out of Sight" was based on an Elmore Leonard and directed by
Stephen Soderberg (sp?). The latter part of the movie is set in Detroit
and captures the look & feel of locales such as the RenCen and bleak
inner city residential areas quite well.
A lot of people hated "Henry Fool", but it was one of my favorites of
1998. Maybe I'll try to explain why after seeing it another time.
|
jazz
|
|
response 152 of 165:
|
Mar 16 13:49 UTC 1999 |
Remmers: I enjoyed Henry Fool as well; perhaps my estimation is
coloured by my experience with previous films by Hal Hartley, however, as I
immensely enjoyed AMATEUR.
|
scg
|
|
response 153 of 165:
|
Mar 16 19:32 UTC 1999 |
My brother and I saw Analyze This, in which Billy Crystal plays a psychiatrist
who is treating a mob boss played by Robert DeNiro. It was hilarious.
|
senna
|
|
response 154 of 165:
|
Mar 17 06:08 UTC 1999 |
I was at that viewing with my friend Dave, who's on spring break. We
concur. It's a terrific movie.
|
remmers
|
|
response 155 of 165:
|
Mar 17 11:21 UTC 1999 |
Re resp:152 - I also had become a Hal Hartley fan by the time I saw
"Henry Fool", although I didn't care that much for "Amateur". My
favorite Hartleys are "The Unbelievable Truth" and "Trust".
|
maeve
|
|
response 156 of 165:
|
Mar 18 18:24 UTC 1999 |
Danny is still attempting to make a Hal Hartley fan out of me..we'll
see how it goes.
All his characters make me too uncomfortable for me to really enjoy any
of the films..
|