|
Grex > Cinema > #62: Grex goes to the movies-- the Spring Movie Review item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 278 responses total. |
krokus
|
|
response 176 of 278:
| 
May 30 03:30 UTC 2004 |
I enjoyed the movie, yes it was preposterous, but so many movies are.
(This is an exceptionally high ratio in the disaster movies.) But it
an entertaining movie, with incredible effects. I stayed to watch the
credits for something, and was amazed at the number of effects houses
that were working on this. (ILM and Digital Domain, just to name the
two big ones.)
I saw this at Showcase lastnight, and would like to know who the
Richard Cranium was that decided to throw a concession tray in the
theater. It hit someone in the back of the head, then a girl's foot.
(I did see someone jump up towards the general direction it came from,
so if it was the parent of a tray-throwing kid, I get the general
impression that the kids got what was due.)
|
twenex
|
|
response 177 of 278:
|
May 30 12:33 UTC 2004 |
Heh. I didn't know "Richard Cranium" had made it across the Atlantic. Of
coursxe, it's always possible that it came Eastwards, not Westwards.
|
otter
|
|
response 178 of 278:
|
May 30 13:30 UTC 2004 |
Re: James Bond
007 is not a person, it's a job.
The "00"s are positions within MI-5, each with its own cover name and
set of duties. When one dies or retires, another assumes that job. This
makes it logical for us to see a Bond mature for a while, then become a
different (usually younger) person entirely.
It's much the same with the "alpha" positions, (ie: M and Q) except
that those don't use names, presumably because they have no public
contact and don't need one.
|
twenex
|
|
response 179 of 278:
|
May 30 14:10 UTC 2004 |
"007" is not a person, but "James Bond" is. Whilst it's logical to look for
a replacement for "007", or even "otter" or "twenex" should that become
necessary or desirable, it *isn't* logical to look for a clone of Bond or of
Jeffrey Rollin or of Spock to succeed Spock. Unless, of course, we perfect
cloning *and* human cloning is legalized.
|
bru
|
|
response 180 of 278:
|
May 30 16:03 UTC 2004 |
But the name "James Bond" can be a code name. He is a 00 agent. 00 agents
have a license to kill. Perhaps teh name goes with the job as well. All 007
agents are thus referd to as JAmes Bond. When they retire, they go back to
their real names, and another 007 takes over the job and the name of 007,
James Bond.
|
twenex
|
|
response 181 of 278:
|
May 30 16:07 UTC 2004 |
Why have two code names? Why not just accept that James Bond is one
(fictional) person portrayed by several different actors?
|
realugly
|
|
response 182 of 278:
|
May 30 16:27 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jiffer
|
|
response 183 of 278:
|
May 30 17:51 UTC 2004 |
Because you haven't seen Casino Royale. There are many "007"s
|
drew
|
|
response 184 of 278:
|
May 30 20:10 UTC 2004 |
Six are going to a heavenly spot / and one is going to a place where it's
terribly hot
|
otter
|
|
response 185 of 278:
|
May 31 16:30 UTC 2004 |
resp:180 Precisely, bru. When you (whoever you are) assume the 007
position, you also assume the name James Bond. Makes perfect sense.
resp:184 Why not? Because that brings actors into it, which sort of
spoils the suspension of disbelief for me. ymmv.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 186 of 278:
|
May 31 18:21 UTC 2004 |
Oh my God, They killed 005! You bastards!
|
drew
|
|
response 187 of 278:
|
May 31 19:41 UTC 2004 |
In support of the assumed name theory: Last night I saw _Tomorrow Never Dies_;
in it, 007 uses the name "James Bond" *as* his cover name. The newspaper mugul
has a background check run on the Bond name, and gets back "Banker, squeaky
clean". (From which the henchman concludes "government agent" on the theory
of "too good to be true".)
|
scott
|
|
response 188 of 278:
|
May 31 20:29 UTC 2004 |
Banker?? Whatever happened to "Universal Exports"?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 189 of 278:
|
Jun 1 15:50 UTC 2004 |
I was definitely LMAO watching Shrek 2. It's not just for kids. In fact,
perhaps it's not even *for* kids! :-)
|
gull
|
|
response 190 of 278:
|
Jun 1 19:48 UTC 2004 |
I plan on seeing "Day After Tomorrow". It's a big summer disaster movie. I
don't go to those because I want scientific accuracy or a thought-provoking
plot. I go because I want to see lots of stuff getting destroyed. ;>
|
mary
|
|
response 191 of 278:
|
Jun 1 23:17 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, I like to see the world being destroyed as well as the next
guy, but "Day After..." was a one-trick pony. The characters were
boringly underdeveloped, the science was insultingly stupid, but the
biggest flaw of all is the lack of humor. I mean, dead serious.
Big mistake. BIG MISTAKE.
Skip this one. Rent "Men is Black".
|
klg
|
|
response 192 of 278:
|
Jun 2 00:26 UTC 2004 |
Where??
|
anderyn
|
|
response 193 of 278:
|
Jun 2 13:25 UTC 2004 |
We enjoyed "Shrek 2". It was full of parody, sight gags, and well -- I fell
in love with "Puss in Boots". Antonio Banderas really must have been a cat
in a previous life! It is definitely a movie to go to if you just want to have
a good time.
|
gregb
|
|
response 194 of 278:
|
Jun 2 18:19 UTC 2004 |
I saw Starsky & Hutch at the dollar theater and I loved it. I was a fan
of the series and it was a real kick to see these guys again, even if it
wasn't the original actors. They did a good job, especially Stiller
(Starsky). And while I'm not a Snoop Dog fan, I did like him in the
role of Huggy Bear ("Nobody touches the Bear!"). And of course I loved
seeing that red and white Torino again. And lots of (to me) great 70's
tunes.
One noticeable difference was how they protrayed the basic character of
S&H: In the series, Hutch was the neat, orderly, semi-rule-follower
kinda guy and Starsky the do-what-it-takes-to-get-the-job-done, sloppy
(except for his car) kinda guy. Just the opposite in the movie, which
was rather strange.
Unlike the series, they didn't try to play the movie for being totally
serious. This was just a fun flick to watch.
|
krj
|
|
response 195 of 278:
|
Jun 3 16:50 UTC 2004 |
Agreed with Twila on SHREK 2; Puss in Boots steals the movie.
Can there be a spinoff? :)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 196 of 278:
|
Jun 3 17:34 UTC 2004 |
Yeah - Puss in Boots in Mexico ;-)
In other news, just on principle, not *another* "legend of King Arthur" remake
/ variant!!!
|
salad
|
|
response 197 of 278:
|
Jun 3 21:10 UTC 2004 |
:-0
|
richard
|
|
response 198 of 278:
|
Jun 4 01:49 UTC 2004 |
I saw the posters for that king arthur remake. It looks like a feminist
version where arthur and lancelot are wimps and lady guenevire is the warrior
I'll still take Excalibur, which I have on DVD somewhere
|
twenex
|
|
response 199 of 278:
|
Jun 4 13:20 UTC 2004 |
Re: #198. king arthur ... looks like a feminist
version where arthur and lancelot are wimps and lady guenevire is the warrior
Snicker.
|
bru
|
|
response 200 of 278:
|
Jun 4 13:58 UTC 2004 |
That is because I have heard they are both supposed to be Sarmatians, not
Celtic. Sarmatians from Iran are supposed to have had warrior women as well
as men.
|