|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 292 responses total. |
senna
|
|
response 150 of 292:
| 
May 8 17:06 UTC 1999 |
You mean that horrible, horrible movie they showed at TOP two years ago?
|
aaron
|
|
response 151 of 292:
|
May 9 03:36 UTC 1999 |
re #130: Did it bother you that Billy Bob Thornton is yet again typecast
in the role of a mentally deficient character? Sling Blade, A
Simple Plan, Primary Colors... (Okay, it was cheap, and now I owe
James Carville an apology.)
I have to admit that I, also, found some of the characters'
choices to be painfully stupid, and I was not impressed by the
conclusion of the film, which is rife with plot holes. It didn't
bother me that the ending wasn't happy, but it did bother me that
the ending was silly.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 152 of 292:
|
May 9 03:40 UTC 1999 |
I rather liked the Mummy which we saw last night. Not a terribly original
plot, and the characters were archetypes rather than finely-drawn individuals,
but for what it is -- action adventure and plenty of it -- it's one fine
movie. Very enjoyable. Probably the "Zorro" of this summer. (For the record,
I like movies that have good guys/bad guys and pulp adventures.)
|
md
|
|
response 153 of 292:
|
May 9 14:35 UTC 1999 |
THE MATRIX (B) - The special effects are the best
I have ever seen, and I've seen 'em all. The
concept was a little too dorm-roomy for my taste.
(Remember those earnest conversations in your
sophomore year: "What if I'm just a brain in a
vat, man? And all this is, like, being fed into
my mind by a mad scientist or something?") I loved
the actress who played Trinity. How many faces can
survive such exreme close-ups?
|
shf
|
|
response 154 of 292:
|
May 9 15:13 UTC 1999 |
( how many extreme close-ups of such faces can anyone survive?)
|
md
|
|
response 155 of 292:
|
May 9 15:20 UTC 1999 |
I just looked her up. Carrie-Anne Moss.
Never heard of her. Turns out she was
the female lead on a short-lived TV crime
drama series in 1993 called -- are you
ready for this? -- "Matrix." Talk about
deja-vu.
|
richard
|
|
response 156 of 292:
|
May 9 22:03 UTC 1999 |
"MATRIX"-- I'll give it two and a half stars. I thought the special
effects were terrific, but that it didnt have much character development.
I thought the complexity of the plot played against the development of
much depth in the characters. It might make an interesting tv series
though, where the characters *could* be developed.
"NEVER BEEN KISSED"-- Former high school geek Drew Barrymore goes back to
school as an undercover reporter and has a chance to re-experience school
from a more mature and wordly perspective. Something Im sure we've all
wondered what it would be like-- I didnt think this was particularly
realistic though and thought the script was weak. (** two stars)
(Note about "The Apostle" in response to earlier message...that movie is a
character study so the story it tells is less important than how the
central character evolves and reacts to the situations and people around
him. In that respect its a lot like Martin Scorcese's "Taxi Driver".
They are both great films, but if you are looking strictly for a story
with a beginning and an ending and a plot, you wouldnt like them)
|
mooncat
|
|
response 157 of 292:
|
May 10 01:55 UTC 1999 |
Saw "The Mummy" and loved it. It was funny, and had lots of action.
The storyline wasn't original, but I'm not sure it was supposed to
be. I didn't find any glaring errors in Egyptian mythology, so that
was a plus. I found it to be a very enjoyable movie.
|
aaron
|
|
response 158 of 292:
|
May 10 03:45 UTC 1999 |
"The Mummy" is very much in the spirit of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" -- but
without the memorable central character. They do a pretty good job balancing
the "suspense/horror" and humor elements. If you like that type of movie,
it's an A-, with a recommendation to see it in the theater.
|
other
|
|
response 159 of 292:
|
May 10 06:21 UTC 1999 |
thought the apostle was well acted, but a terrible film. at least as
entertainment. i never evaluated it as art.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 160 of 292:
|
May 10 07:08 UTC 1999 |
re #156: I find something inherently redundant in criticizing
a Keanu Reeves movie because it doesn't have enough character
development.. ..dude!
|
anderyn
|
|
response 161 of 292:
|
May 10 19:25 UTC 1999 |
Well, I did find some nasty glitches in the Egyptian setting (BOOKS?! In
Egypt? Eeeep! No. No. No. Scrolls. Yes. Books with clasps and locks? Never.
And the fishnet draping on the "princess"? Sheah. Egypt might have gone
for transparent linen, topless fashions, but I have *never* seen fishnet
on anyone....
Those were the two that jumped up and bit me, but there were more. I still
liked "The Mummy" a LOT.
|
richard
|
|
response 162 of 292:
|
May 10 21:41 UTC 1999 |
#160...Keanu Reeves was much better in "My Own Private Idaho" where
he played River Phoenix's gay lover who dumps him and goes straight--
of course beingmethod actors, Keanu and River Phoenix decided to play
heroin addicts they had to *really* do heroin. Made for a great movie
but of course neither, particularly Pheonix, ever really kicked the
habit. great movie though.
|
aaron
|
|
response 163 of 292:
|
May 10 21:41 UTC 1999 |
That wasn't draping -- it was body paint. (That actress had her own, credited
body painter.)
|
anderyn
|
|
response 164 of 292:
|
May 11 00:34 UTC 1999 |
Yes, I figured that out after reading the book, but it still looked
dippy. Yeesh. Fish net is NOT Egyptian, and really neither is body paint.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 165 of 292:
|
May 11 02:49 UTC 1999 |
re #162- Reeves and Pheonix's character were male prostitutes, I
wouldn't really just boil it down to "Pheonix's gay lover" both
characters were bi as well.
|
drewmike
|
|
response 166 of 292:
|
May 11 03:07 UTC 1999 |
Um... other and I burned damn near a whole evening building a special effect
shot of the Michigan Stadium Jumbotron...
|
tpryan
|
|
response 167 of 292:
|
May 11 20:27 UTC 1999 |
The Led Zepplin crashing into it?
|
other
|
|
response 168 of 292:
|
May 12 03:06 UTC 1999 |
nope. 'fraid at the current rate that would take several evenings...
|
daxabe
|
|
response 169 of 292:
|
May 12 08:17 UTC 1999 |
help
a help
?
|
drewmike
|
|
response 170 of 292:
|
May 14 02:24 UTC 1999 |
re #167: now THERE's one for the blooper reel.
|
gregb
|
|
response 171 of 292:
|
May 16 22:02 UTC 1999 |
Video Review: A Bug's Life
This is what I call a feel-good type of flick...or should I say, Flik?
I throughly enjoyed this second outing from Pixar/Disney. I have to
admit, however, I was quite skeptical at first. The commercials I saw
led me to believe that ABL was just for kids, which is why I passed it
up while in the theaters. But when it came to video, I thought I'd
give it a go. After all, I really liked Toy Story, and I love watching
comp. animation pieces.
While the plot isn't new (how many are), it's the telling that makes it
interesting. Basically, it's your small-town-being-bullied-and-needs-
help kind of story. The main character, Flick (voice of Dave Foley),
an ant with big ideas, but little support, goes off to "The Big City"
in search of "warriors" to help him defend the colony against a gang of
grasshoppers, led by Hopper (voice of Keven Spacey). Flik's search
ends when he stumbles upon a group of performing bugs in a second-rate
flea circus, who he mistakes for warrior bugs. They, in turn, mistake
Flik for a talent scout. From there, things get quite interesting.
Like Toy Story, A Bug's Life is repleat with familiar voices, including
the return voice of John Ratzenberger, as the voice of P.T. Flea, the
money-obsessed flea circus owner. Another noteworthy voice was that of
Roddy McDowall, who played the ant, Mr. Soil. This was the last role
Roddy played before his death in October of '98. Additional prominent
voices included Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Princess Atta), Phillis Diller
(The Queen), David Hyde Pierce (Slim), Denis Leary (Francis), Johnathon
Harris (Manny), and Madeline Kahn (Gypsy).
Now for the animation. Notice I left this for last. And I'm sorry to
say it's not because I "saved the best for last." Don't get me wrong,
it was well done; on a par with Toy Story, I'd say. But that's where
the problem lies: It looked /too/ much like Toy Story. Whether this
was intentional, I don't know. I was expecting new techniques, more
details, greater detail. But it wasn't there. Most everything has a
plastic look about it; Too many shiny surfaces where rough textures
would'ov been more suitable. In Toy Story, this made sense, but when
dealing with organic objects, you want them to /look/ organic. At
least I do. I did like the way they rendered trees, grass, etc.
On a scale of 1-10, to me, this one's a strong 9.
|
gull
|
|
response 172 of 292:
|
May 17 00:51 UTC 1999 |
Interesting note: I haven't seen it, but I've heard the video version of 'A
Bug's Life' wasn't panned and scanned, or letterboxed. They changed the
computer rendering of the scenes to make them fit into TV's aspect ratio,
instead.
|
senna
|
|
response 173 of 292:
|
May 17 16:36 UTC 1999 |
I saw the Mummy yesterday. Rarely have I seen such an effective
combination of humor, special effects, and action to make a bubblegum
movie. It was very entertaining, particularly with Brendan Fraser's
one-liners backing up computer animated undead. This movie is cotton
candy, but it does what it does extremely well. It puts on a good show.
|
senna
|
|
response 174 of 292:
|
May 19 07:49 UTC 1999 |
Star Wars, Episode I. The Phantom Menace.
Ultimately, all film is subjective. This holds true from the pristine
towers, the Godfathers and Casablancas and Citizen Kanes, to the dredges
of Batman&Robin and Mortal Kombat Resurrection. It is always helpful to
remind oneself of this. It holds true again for this Star Wars movie.
If one walks into the theater expecting to see the dark drama of Empire
Strikes Back, the heady enthusiasm of Star Wars, and the active fun of
Return of the Jedi, one will be disappointed. It's rather difficult to
combine three movies into one.
However, this is not meant to be three movies in one. It is the opening
act of a six movie cycle. Such a giant undertaking deserves a grand
opening, and that is what it gets. This movie splendidly establishes an
opening to a story that will ultimately lead us through two generations
of Skywalkers. The foreshadowing in particular is superb, despite the
dangers of overstatement provided when we already know how things end
up.
However, on that level it's like many other pieces of film or
literature. What's so good about the Star Wars series? The effects, of
course. In this film, they are brilliant. Once again, the boys from
Lucasfilm have redefined moviemaking in their own image. The results
are spectacular. Full armies, products of computers, fighting against
each other without a second thought. An entire main character (Jar Jar
Binks, who isn't exactly a deep character) is created and executed with
perfection against the other main roles. Moviemaking will never be the
same.
This movie was a spectacular experience. Between the storylines and the
effects, it is definitely worth seeing several times. I have no
illusions about its standalone greatness, since on its own it would be
good but not great. It does not, however, stand alone. Watch it for
the visuals, or for the foreshadowing, or for the marvelous action
choreography, but be sure to watch. It will blow your mind.
|
