response 164 of 326:

Jun 4 02:43 UTC 2000

  Saying that it's "stylized" implies that at some point someone made a
  conscious decision to make it the way it was, rather than it winding
  up that way because of laziness, incompetence, or some unfortunate
  convergence of conflicting artistic priorities.

  Besides, I'm not sure that I agree whether the issue of whether something
  is done in the style of an action movie and whether or not its plot makes
  even a little sense as a work of narrative fiction are at all linked.
  Granted, it seems like a lot of modern filmmakers seem to think they are,
  and obviously those people spend a much greater portion of their time than
  I do thinking about action movie issues, but I would argue that the 
  existence of at least moderately plausible films which are still undeniably
  action movies is a powerful counterargument.

  I guess what it comes down to is that I don't believe that sometime during
  scriptwriting (or at any other point in the production) the writer sat down
  with the director and producer and said something like:  "OK, guys, here's
  the deal..  I can either write you an action movie, *OR* I can write you a
  movie where the story makes sense.  Which will it be?"

response 166 of 326:

Jun 4 03:51 UTC 2000

 There are certainly elements like that in M:I2.  For example the only
 explanation for the otherwise inexplicable birds fluttering around the
 bio-tech facility is that director John Woo has some gratuitous fixation
 involving fluttering birds (if you have the temerity to doubt me, punish
 yourself by watching his previous Hollywood movie, "Face Off", which will
 amply illustrate Woo's pigeon fetish..)

 I think, though, that MI:2's problems go much deeper than an expository
 scene or two left on the [literal or metaphorical] cutting-room floor.

 Essentially the supposedly super-comptetent characters just make puzzlingly
 dumb decisions, decisions which are so obviously stupid, even at the time,
 that the viewer is jolted out of the story.  They're like big drum crashes
 out of rhythm..  I can't conceive of any scenes or chapters that might've
 been left out that would explain why the characters choose to act as they do.
 At the same time, though, I probably *could* come up with reasons for them
 to engage in all of same motorcycle chases, rope stunts, and gun fights
 they get into.  Those reasons would be pretty contrived, but they'd at least
 keep things moving along..

 --

 I don't want to beat this to death.  Nor do I want to single out M:I2,
 the problems I'm describing are sadly not unique to this particular film.

 I just wonder:  do even action-movie audiences *really* care so little
 about plot?  Maybe they do -- certainly if there's one thing I'd count
 on the studios to get right it'd be to understand as much as possible
 about what brings people into movies, and a zillion dollars of action
 blockbuster earnings at the box office certainly suggests they know what
 they're doing.  But maybe, just maybe, there's room for both a vestigial
 plot *and* the usual complement of explosions, harrowing aerobatic stunts,
 and kung fu..

 (yeah, I know..  that *does* sound pretty farfetched..)

response 168 of 326:

Jun 4 04:56 UTC 2000

  I actually thought about following up #166 with a note clarifying that
  contrary to what one might guess from my recent writings in this item
  I often really enjoy the totally off-the-wall "plots" of Chinese action
  movies, perhaps because they rarely even pretend to make sense.  Maybe
  what I object to is when a movie tries to act like it should make sense
  and simply fails completely..

response 170 of 326:

Jun 4 12:03 UTC 2000

i like jackie chan movies...
do they show all the out t akes at the end of shanghi noon?

response 172 of 326:

Jun 4 15:21 UTC 2000

Was that "final" scene really a biotech facility?  I don't think so.  It
looked like some kind of old castle that they chose as a meeting place.  The
pigeons would not be exactly out of place there.

response 174 of 326:

Jun 4 23:20 UTC 2000

  re #172:  I'm not sure how many underground castles Australia has, but
  the number of them with DNA-analysis tools must be pretty low, wouldn't
  you think?  

response 176 of 326:

Jun 4 23:52 UTC 2000

No idea - it's top secret I imagine (=

response 178 of 326:

Jun 5 02:26 UTC 2000

  I'm going to have to concede your point -- it was not a biotech facility..
  My guess is that it was a movie set, and not a particularly thoroughly
  thought-out one..  

  Other things I'd like to know: what were all of those gas cylinders
  doing there?  Were they there just in case Tom Cruise or McGyver launched
  a commando raid on the place? 

  And what is the facility used for when it's not hosting negotiations with
  bio-weapon terrorists?  It seems like the personnel costs in security
  alone would make it a white elephant if you weren't storing some sort of
  bio-weapon or similarly crucial object there.  Certainly the corporation
  might've been better advised to use some of those security to protect their
  main facilities, which both the M:I team *and* the villains had simply
  waltzed into not 24 hours before..  But then it's probably pretty hard to
  staff a place with the sort of ask-no-questions security guards who will
  give up their lives to protect the property of a company that's getting
  ready to kill millions of their fellow countrymen, especially in today's
  hot job market..


  ;-p

response 180 of 326:

Jun 5 05:18 UTC 2000

I don't particularly like True Lies.  They put Arnold into a movie, added
pyrotechnics, and expected it to work.  It didn't, so they included Jamie Lee
Curtis and lingerie.  Apparently, deadlines prevented them from making it
good...

response 182 of 326:

Jun 5 15:25 UTC 2000

Mike, in MI:2 they mentioned that the castle in question was a storage
facility.

IFO also liked "True Lies" despite my aversion to Arnold.

response 184 of 326:

Jun 5 18:43 UTC 2000

We rented "Galaxy Quest" over the weekend.  I didn't like it much.  Tim 
Allen did a pretty good impression of William Shatner as a has-been 
actor touring conventions for his long-dead science fiction show.  The 
action of the movie was pretty cheesy, though.

response 186 of 326:

Jun 6 02:53 UTC 2000

Re #184: John, I suspect Galaxy Quest may be the kind of comedy that
benefits greatly from an audience.  I saw it in a theater and loved it.

response 188 of 326:

Jun 6 03:54 UTC 2000

  BTW, for those of us who are dim of wit, exactly when and what movie
is Grex sponsoring? I'm thinking about attending.