|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 144 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 16 of 144:
| 
Apr 7 19:00 UTC 2004 |
Steve Martin's "Roxanne," a resetting of Cyrano de Bergerac in a small
New England town, with Steve Martin as the guy with the big nose and
Daryl Hannah as the object of his interest. The restaging of the
balcony scene is laugh-until-it-hurts funny.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 17 of 144:
|
Apr 7 19:17 UTC 2004 |
I thought "Roxanne" was set in the west, probably among the Sierra Nevada,
possily in the Cascades.
|
tod
|
|
response 18 of 144:
|
Apr 7 19:30 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
edina
|
|
response 19 of 144:
|
Apr 7 19:33 UTC 2004 |
I'd agree with both of those films.
|
slynne
|
|
response 20 of 144:
|
Apr 7 21:09 UTC 2004 |
Oh yeah. I loved Roxanne. I dont think I have seen Jungle Fever.
|
fitz
|
|
response 21 of 144:
|
Apr 8 09:22 UTC 2004 |
Roxanne was filmed in Nelson, B.C. It's principly a ski-resort town.
|
aruba
|
|
response 22 of 144:
|
Apr 8 17:42 UTC 2004 |
I liked Roxanne a lot too. We used "Ermore sessions by sleeving" as our
Trivia name at one point.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 23 of 144:
|
Apr 8 20:17 UTC 2004 |
I don't know if it is truly underappreciated or anything, but I really think
that "The Princess Bride" is a little gem.
|
twenex
|
|
response 24 of 144:
|
Apr 8 20:25 UTC 2004 |
I think it is underappreciated, and it's also a little gem.
|
slynne
|
|
response 25 of 144:
|
Apr 8 20:54 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, it is a great movie.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 26 of 144:
|
Apr 8 21:17 UTC 2004 |
The book was much better, I thought. But it might be
one of those cases where you prefer whichever you
encountered first..
|
slynne
|
|
response 27 of 144:
|
Apr 9 01:18 UTC 2004 |
I prefer the book but I also think that the movie is an especially good
adaptation of the book.
|
polygon
|
|
response 28 of 144:
|
Apr 9 04:55 UTC 2004 |
RICH KIDS. Probably due to the really awful title, it was a commercial
flop, but a really nice little movie. Similar to, but much better than,
Kramer vs. Kramer.
|
slynne
|
|
response 29 of 144:
|
Apr 9 17:36 UTC 2004 |
I have never heard of that one. I'll have to look into it. Thanks,
Larry :)
|
starship
|
|
response 30 of 144:
|
Apr 10 15:09 UTC 2004 |
1. How I won the war.
I mean, its got John Lennon as the main character. What more do you need???
|
mcnally
|
|
response 31 of 144:
|
Apr 10 16:40 UTC 2004 |
Which reminds me..
It's not one I'd call a great movie, but it's certainly "underappreciated";
in fact, in many cases it's downright reviled..
I'm talking, of course, about the bizarre but entertainingly campy movie
"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" starring those world famous
musicians [wait.. what do you mean the Beatles won't do another movie?
oh well, I guess we can use..] the Bee Gees.
|
richard
|
|
response 32 of 144:
|
Apr 11 07:21 UTC 2004 |
WINGS OF DESIRE-- This is a film from back in 1987 by Wim Wenders that
didn't do big box office and a lot of people may not have heard of. It is
the story of an angel (bruno ganz) who falls in love with a beautiful
trapeze artist who he is watching over from heaven. The angel starts to
slowly realize that he wants to be human, that he wants to be mortal. The
movie also stars Peter Falk (one of my favorite actors) as himself believe
it or not. The actor Peter Falk is working on a movie in Berlin and comes
into contact with this angel. Wenders is one of my favorite directors.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 33 of 144:
|
Apr 11 08:31 UTC 2004 |
But watch out for the American remake, starring Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan.
I believe it was called "City of Angels" or something like that..
|
starship
|
|
response 34 of 144:
|
Apr 11 18:55 UTC 2004 |
ur right mcnally. But, the name of the movie wasnt sgt. peppers lonely hearts
club band. It was "Yellow Submarine" Sgt. peppers lonely hearts club band was
the name of the band that was captured byt he "blue meanies", (which are
taking over pepper land) the beatles come to save sgt. peppers lonely hearts
club band and in the end defeat the blue meanies. But yeah, mcnally, it was
a great movie
|
starship
|
|
response 35 of 144:
|
Apr 11 18:59 UTC 2004 |
and btw, the bee gees are nothing compaird to the beatles. how dare u ;)
|
scott
|
|
response 36 of 144:
|
Apr 11 20:30 UTC 2004 |
mcnally and starship are talking about two completely different movies.
|
otter
|
|
response 37 of 144:
|
Apr 11 20:54 UTC 2004 |
Tombstone.
Beautiful cinematography. Engaging storytelling. Outstanding cast,
including Val Kilmer at his very finest.
Essentially ignored at awards time, due in large part to being released
the same year as Schindler's List.
Seriously under-appreciated. Go forth and buy it. Now.
|
twenex
|
|
response 38 of 144:
|
Apr 11 22:54 UTC 2004 |
I second that.
|
krokus
|
|
response 39 of 144:
|
Apr 12 00:13 UTC 2004 |
I'll be your huckleberry.
|
richard
|
|
response 40 of 144:
|
Apr 12 06:24 UTC 2004 |
If you want a really good movie that starred a band, try renting...
HEAD-- starring the Monkees. During the time that the Monkees were making
a really bad tv show, they made a great psychedelic feature film. The
movie's hard to describe. The title "Head" seems to come from a segment
where the Monkees get lost in the hair of actor Victure Matuer. The movie
starts and ends with the Monkees jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge and
killing themselves. Frank Zappa and his pet cow show up to offer
critiques of the Monkees. The movie is pretty bizarre, but it works.
From what I read, the movie was such a departure from the tv show, that
the studio didn't promote it, many fans didn't know about it, and it went
away to become a cult classic. To this day you'll still find Monkees fans
who are shocked to hear the Monkees actually made a theatrical full length
feature film. But they did.
|