|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 342 responses total. |
happyboy
|
|
response 17 of 342:
| 
Dec 27 19:00 UTC 2005 |
re10: bwa!!!
|
jadecat
|
|
response 18 of 342:
|
Dec 27 19:05 UTC 2005 |
re resp:16 Oh don't get me wrong, I liked it, and there were a few
sniffly bits. But if I want a good cry- either What Dreams May Come or
White Oleander hit me hard...
'Course, I'm also a big believer in 'frame of mind' at the time of
viewing having a huge impact. This may have impacted my viewing
interpretation.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 19 of 342:
|
Dec 27 21:04 UTC 2005 |
Oh, and on Sunday (and again on Monday, though with a different
audience) watched "Must Love Dogs" with Diane Lane and John Cusack. The
story is that recently divorced Sarah (Lane) is being forced back into
the dating pool by her family (widower father played bt Christopher
Plummer). Jake (Cusack) also recently divorced, is pushed back into
dating by his lawyer/friend.
Sarah's sister lists her on an internet personals site- and Sarah has a
few entertaining dates, meets Cusack and it goes well/okay/badly and the
story just kinda meanders from there. The title comes from a line in
Sarah's personal ad that states 'Must love dogs' as a dating
requirement. The main dog is Mother Theresa- who supposedly belongs to
Sarah's brother- yet spends a great deal of time at Sarah's home.
All three of the other people I watched this with (my hubby on Sunday
and my bro and SIL- who have three dogs) enjoyed it and thought it was a
lot of fun.
|
tod
|
|
response 20 of 342:
|
Dec 27 21:08 UTC 2005 |
*slaps dog on nose with paper*
|
jadecat
|
|
response 21 of 342:
|
Dec 27 21:21 UTC 2005 |
Brute!
|
richard
|
|
response 22 of 342:
|
Dec 27 22:30 UTC 2005 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 23 of 342:
|
Dec 27 22:33 UTC 2005 |
Having seen the new version, I re-watched the original King Kong
(1933), which was airing on TCM yesterday. It had been a good while
since I'd seen the original, and I was taken with several jarring
differences with the Jackson remake:
1. King Kong in the original is quite mean and vicious. He eats people
and spits them out indiscriminately, yanks a woman out of her high rise
apartment building, but then throws her to her death when he realizes
she's not Fay Wray. Kong is so mean that you have little sympathy for
his getting captured and later dying.
In Jackson's version, King Kong has a heart of gold, he only violently
kills dinosaurs and other monsters who are attacking him or his friend
(the girl), and only kills humans who are trying to kill him. King
Kong in this movie does not live to constantly fight, he is rather a
battle scarred being who only wants to sit on his cliff and watch the
sun rise, and to have his one special friend.
2. In the original King Kong, Anne Darrow (Fay Wray)is totally
unsypathetic to Kong, she is terrified of Kong. She does not talk to
Kong, and is complicit in his capture and gladly goes to the theater
back in NYC for Kong's exhibition. She is glad Kong died.
In Jackson's King Kong, Anne Darrow (Naomi Watts) bonds very tenderly
with Kong, learns to trust and love the big guy. She stays with him
cuddling next to him overnight and they watch the sun rise together on
the cliff. She is mortified when her shipmates attack him and try to
capture him, and screams at them to leave Kong alone. She refuses to
participate in Kong's exhibition, refuses to even go near the theater
where they are exploiting her friend, and they have to use a "fake"
Anne Darrow to be introduced on stage. They watch the sun rise on top
of the Empire State building, and when the planes come to attack Kong,
she throws herself in front of Kong in an attempt to get them to not
shoot at him. She cries crocodile tears when Kong dies. She has lost
her friend.
3. In the original King Kong, they make the egregious error of having
the Brontosaurauses attacking and EATING humans. EVERYONE knows that
Bronotosaurases were vegetarians AND pacifists. Of course they made
the film in 1933 so maybe they didn't know better.
In the remake, the Brontos eat trees and plants, and do NOT attack the
humans.
4. In the original, the Skull Island natives were a bunch of actors on
the lot wearing fake-ish indian getups. In the remake, the natives are
actual aborigines, as the movie was shot on location at an island near
New Zealand.
5. In the original, Kong walks around on two feet at times like a human
being. In Jackson's remake, Kong always walks on all fours, like a
gorilla should, and Kong is dirty and scarred like a gorilla living on
that hellish island should be. Kong also has to keep swatting the
flies away from his face.
Both versions are well worth seeing, those are just some of the
contrasts.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 24 of 342:
|
Dec 27 22:36 UTC 2005 |
Um, do you know what "crocodile tears" means?
|
richard
|
|
response 25 of 342:
|
Dec 27 22:43 UTC 2005 |
whatever it might mean to some, I was just using that term to imply BIG
tears, WEEPY tears. Tears of agony at losing a dear friend.
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 342:
|
Dec 27 22:45 UTC 2005 |
Crocodile tears are fake ones.
|
richard
|
|
response 27 of 342:
|
Dec 27 22:52 UTC 2005 |
Okay so that was a bad analogy though. Her tears were real. She loved
Kong.
|
tod
|
|
response 28 of 342:
|
Dec 27 23:00 UTC 2005 |
Was she from Enumclaw?
|
gull
|
|
response 29 of 342:
|
Dec 28 20:41 UTC 2005 |
LOL!
|
marcvh
|
|
response 30 of 342:
|
Dec 28 20:54 UTC 2005 |
For the benefit of the geographically challenged, KONG is a Seattle TV
station (channel 16 OTA, channel 6 on most cable systems) run by the
same people who run the local NBC affiliate, KING (channel 5.) Their
call letters make words, get it? Ha ha! It's so clever!
KONG was created for the purpose of spectrum-squatting, mostly airing
old TV shows from the 70s and re-runs of locally produced garbage.
Today it has added more repeat sydnicated crap, encore airings of Conan
and local news and such. They don't air many movies.
|
twenex
|
|
response 31 of 342:
|
Dec 28 20:57 UTC 2005 |
KONG and KING? GOD and GOOD.
|
tod
|
|
response 32 of 342:
|
Dec 28 20:59 UTC 2005 |
Actually, the Enumclaw reference was referring to the "full service"
zoo/bathhouse.
|
gull
|
|
response 33 of 342:
|
Dec 28 21:00 UTC 2005 |
Which is much funnier.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 34 of 342:
|
Dec 28 21:07 UTC 2005 |
Fair enough, although I think it would require some yoga lessons first.
|
tod
|
|
response 35 of 342:
|
Dec 28 21:19 UTC 2005 |
OUCH
|
drew
|
|
response 36 of 342:
|
Dec 28 21:23 UTC 2005 |
I think Kroger has some on sale this week...
|
richard
|
|
response 37 of 342:
|
Jan 14 21:30 UTC 2006 |
"GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK"-- Finally saw this last night, George
Clooney's movie tribute to legendary CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow, and
its really good, not to mention quite relevant to today's times. The
movie is about Edward R. Murrow's CBS news show in the 1950's and the
time when he used his program to take on Sen. Joe McCarthy over his
communist witch-hunt hearings. This was the dark period in recent
ameriacn history where McCarthy and his conservative cohorts, claiming
a communist conspiracy in this country, sought to seek out and destroy
all communists in the u.s. and in the process ruined the lives of a lot
of people. Murrow called him on it and the two had a famous feud.
This is a movie everyone should see who has an interest in recent
american history, and who wants perspective about the things going on
in the world now. After all, the McCarthy-era paranoia has re-surfaced
dramatically after 9/11. Today you just replace the word "commun"ist
with the word "terror"ist, and you really have the same kind of
hysteria among certain parts of the political spectrum.
The movie is well directed by Clooney and has a great performance by
David Straithhairn as Edward R. Murrow, which deserves Oscar
consideration. The cinematography and sets are terrific, bringing
alive the smoke-filled newsrooms of CBS in the mid 1950's.
The movie ends with Ed Murrow's famous speech before an industry
gathering, where he said that the executives running television had
become
"fat, comfortable, and complacent" and he blasted television for "being
used to detract, delude, amuse and insulate us" as opposed to educating
us to be better citizens. Everything Murrow said is more true today
than it was when he spoke the words. (Good Night and Good Luck...five
stars)
|
scott
|
|
response 38 of 342:
|
Jan 14 22:43 UTC 2006 |
"League of Extraordinary Gentleman" (DVD from the local library)
Somewhat entertaining, somewhat cheesy. Notable in that everything about it
is completely implausible from any angle you can think of - political,
engineering, literary, logic, etc.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 39 of 342:
|
Jan 15 00:06 UTC 2006 |
I found it comical in that movie that Quatermain implied that "American
style" shooting was more-or-less "spray and pray". The truth however,
was that the American military waited quite a long time before adopting
automatic weapons. The justification was that automatic weapons "wasted
ammunition".
|
twenex
|
|
response 40 of 342:
|
Jan 15 01:30 UTC 2006 |
I don't think you'll find he was referring to the use of automatic weapons.
For one thing, they might well have not been out at the time the film was set,
if it was set in the time of H Rider Haggards Quartermain.
|
scott
|
|
response 41 of 342:
|
Jan 15 01:35 UTC 2006 |
All sorts of things - a giant submarine finding enough depth to navigate
Venetian canals? Blowing up a building to keep it from being knocked down?
Somehow it's more efficient to build a huge factory in the remotest part of
China? Having to trump up a world war in order to find customers for weapons?
And don't get me started on the characters themselves...
|