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.

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!!!

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

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.

response 202 of 278:

Jun 4 18:48 UTC 2004

Well, they are Sarmatians in the novelization. Yeah. (Though at least they
are still doing the Romano-Britain thing, I believe. I *may* go see it.)
I hate hate hate Excalibur. What fecking person would have Arthur's mother
doing a belly-dance?! And then the sex in full plate armor? Sheah. That lost
me right there. Stupid Borman. Stupid movie. Stupid stupid. The only good
parts were in the very middle when Arthur was fighting King Lot. (I am a fan
of King Arthur. I have about as many versions of it as could be imagined. I
get very testy when people mess with it.)

response 204 of 278:

Jun 6 04:59 UTC 2004

I see there's yet /another/ King Arthur movie coming out this Summer.

response 206 of 278:

Jun 7 18:36 UTC 2004

Went to see Harry Potter yesterday with some friends.  I wish I had a
glowing review like I did for the last two movies, but this one I was a
bit dissapointed.  Yes, there was plenty of action and drama, but this
was a much darker chapter.  Right from the get-go, there was nothing
happy about this film.  I understand that the book is very close to the
movie (or vice-versa) so I guess it's supposed to be that way.  But even
the ending didn't have that "feel good" quality that embodied the other
flicks.  However, I still reccomend it for viewing and I'll certainly be
adding it to my DVD collection when it comes out.

I've heard that this will  be the last Potter movie.  If that true, I'll
be sorry to see it go.  On the other hand, if the remaining novels are
as dark as Prisinor..., I won't mind it too much.

response 208 of 278:

Jun 7 19:07 UTC 2004

SHREK 2 held up well on a second viewing; lots more little details to 
pick up on now that I know the ending, plus a host of additional 
comic bits stuffed into every frame.  For one not-much-of-a-spoiler
example:  after picking up the "Medieval Meal" at the drive-through, 
Prince Charming is fidgeting with a cardboard crown like the ones 
Burger King used to give away to kids.
 
Puss in Boots and the Fairy Godmother are just amazing to watch, 
in terms of character detail.  The Fairy Godmother might be the 
most realistic animated human I've ever seen -- except, of course, 
that she flies around.  

The Bichon Frise (white puppy), on the other hand, is very crude in
its animation, much more so than any other character.  There has to 
be a reason for this, but I can't figure out what it is!

I think I'm going to see this another couple of times in first-run.
Last time I did that was with GHOSTBUSTERS 20 years ago.

response 210 of 278:

Jun 7 21:54 UTC 2004

  re #208:  My reaction to Shrek 2 was certainly not as enthusiastic
  as Ken's.  Having seen it over the weekend I can't imagine wanting
  to see it multiple times in the theater.  It wasn't horrible but
  even with decidedly modest expectations I found it didn't really
  live up to them.

  Most grating at all, at least to me, was the film's use of music.
  The original Shrek wasn't a subtle film either, but the person who
  picked the music seemed to know how to enhance a scene with the right
  musical choice (for example the scene which uses John Cale's cover
  of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah")  I couldn't find a single scene in
  Shrek 2 that benefitted from the accompanying music, and some of the
  musical choices were cringe-inducing -- the big "Livin' la Vida Loca"
  musical number at the end and the action scene inexplicably set to
  a decidedly inferior cover of the Buzzcock's classic "Ever Fallen in
  Love" both spring to mind.

  As for the jokes, I will admit that they piled in a *lot* of pop
  culture references, many of which I probably missed.  The ones I had
  time to notice, however, didn't seem particularly insightful or
  amusing to me, they just seemed to be there with no real point to
  them.  "Oh look, it's another 'Matrix' reference, or is it supposed to
  be a reference to Shrek 1's bullet-time gag?" or "Wow.  'Sir Justin'
  looks just like Justin Timberlake.  How hilarious.. <yawn>"

  But don't let me suck all the joy out of it for any of the rest of you.
  More than likely you'll have a good time; I seem to be in a distinct
  minority of people who didn't think it was particularly good.

response 212 of 278:

Jun 8 06:09 UTC 2004

re #202-- Twila, what was wrong with Arthur's mother being a bellydancer
in Excalibur.  The scene is a flashback, showing Arthur's mother when
Arthur was conceived, when she was young and desireable.  Why is it
necessary that Arthur's mother have come from high society?  If Arthur's
mother was a commoner, in these dark ages, and was good looking, she may
well have made money the ways in which good looking women made money in
those days.  Let us not confuse modern times with the dark ages.  I think
Boorman did not want to look at the probable past of Arthur's family with
rose colored glasses and it was commendable

Did you also disapprove of the incest between arthur and morgaine, that
produces mordred?  Other legends have Mordred the son of Lot.  I guess it was
a bit revisionist but I still liked it

response 214 of 278:

Jun 8 10:34 UTC 2004

For a realistic idea of how the well-born treated the low-born, see the prima
nocte scenes in Braveheart.

response 216 of 278:

Jun 8 14:18 UTC 2004

mcnally, who knows if Shrek 2 is a good film or not.  But it was certainly
enjoyable - at least for most people - and the fact that you didn't derive
must enjoyment from it won't wreck it for other people, believe me.
I mean, c'mon, giant cookie named "Mongo" - that's as good as it gets!  :-)