|
Grex > Cinema > #62: Grex goes to the movies-- the Spring Movie Review item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 278 responses total. |
richard
|
|
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
|
twenex
|
|
response 213 of 278:
|
Jun 8 10:32 UTC 2004 |
Richard - it's you who's confusing modern times with the dark ages. Nobility
married nobility then, no exceptions. If Arthur *was* the son of a common
woman, the only way he would have been able to gain the throne would have been
to hide his origins, otherwise he would have been excluded on the principle
of being a bastard. Mediaeval aristocracy marrying commoners is a fiction
which suits the romanticism of our age, which isn't at all like the brutal
times they lived in.
|
twenex
|
|
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.
|
pgreen
|
|
response 215 of 278:
|
Jun 8 11:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
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! :-)
|
twenex
|
|
response 217 of 278:
|
Jun 8 14:19 UTC 2004 |
"Why can't we all just, get along?"
|
pgreen
|
|
response 218 of 278:
|
Jun 8 14:48 UTC 2004 |
Point.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 219 of 278:
|
Jun 8 16:18 UTC 2004 |
It'd be pretty dull if this was the "everyone agrees about the movies"
item. I'm just presenting a contrasting view on "Shrek 2".
|
drew
|
|
response 220 of 278:
|
Jun 8 18:43 UTC 2004 |
Re #213:
What about that bit where Arthur pulls the sword out of the rock while
no one else could?
|
tod
|
|
response 221 of 278:
|
Jun 8 18:54 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 222 of 278:
|
Jun 8 19:08 UTC 2004 |
Yep - and the device of having Arthur pull the Sword out the Stone is probably
simply a mythical or fictional one to get around #213.
|
tod
|
|
response 223 of 278:
|
Jun 8 19:12 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 224 of 278:
|
Jun 8 19:31 UTC 2004 |
Richard: re212: Hmmm. Guess my suspension of disbelief is way lower than yours
about belly-dancers in England. In 500 or thereabouts. Nope. Sorry, I don't
think the Celts were really into belly-dancing in Middle Eastern costumes.
And Igraine was definitely a Queen. So nope. Again, I'm not buying it. And
I still hate the "rape" by Uther while in full plate. Dumb dumb dumb. I am
a full Sir Thomas Malory Le Mort d'Arthur canon-fiend (or, if pressed, I'd
go with Giraldus or the Welsh Triads, all of which have some pretty definitive
Arthurian material), but Borman just doesn't cut it. (Neither does Marion
Zimmer Bradley's uber-feminist Mists of Avalon, to be fair.) I admit that
the real (if there was a real true person who was Arthur) would have been
probably a Romano-British war leader, but I happen to go with the full
mythological Malory figure for my Arthur.
About the music in "Shrek 2" -- it didn't seem obtrusive during the movie,
to the point that I'm still not sure where most of the music on the soundtrack
album was actually used (I know where maybe 5 songs were in the movie,
"Accidentally in Love" at the beginning, "Funkytown" and the Tom Waits song,
and of course both fairy godmother numbers and "Livin' La Vida Loca"...). I
bought the album because I wanted to get the version of "La Vida" (I'm a
sucker for Puss and Donkey, what can I say? I want to get boots for my cat!)
but I like more than threequarters of it quite a bit. I particularly like the
Pete Yorn song, after the Fairy Godmother's version of "Holding Out..." and
the Counting Crows song. I was particularly shocked to find myself actually
semi-enjoying the Tom Waits song, since I don't like Tom Waits's voice at all,
and I don't do black depressive songs.
|
gull
|
|
response 225 of 278:
|
Jun 8 19:36 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:206: I liked it for the same reason you disliked it. It didn't
try to be chipper. It was sort of the "Emperor Strikes Back" of Harry
Potter movies.
I haven't read any of the books except the first one, but my friend who
has tells me the dark tone is consistent with the book. He also warns
me that the next one is even darker.
Re resp:208: I still found the computer-animated humans a little creepy
at first, but after the first few minutes of the film I didn't notice
anymore.
Re resp:224: Careful. Tom Waits is an acquired taste, and if you manage
to acquire it you may find yourself hooked. ;> I first encountered his
music on the _12 Monkeys_ soundtrack. ("Earth Died Screaming", another
cheerful party song.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 226 of 278:
|
Jun 8 21:01 UTC 2004 |
re #224:
> I particularly like the Pete Yorn song..
Ouch.. The Buzzcocks' original of "Ever Fallen in Love" is a pop music
masterpiece -- a bouncy, high energy two-minute gem that was an almost
perfect blend of punk and power pop. Yorn's cover version, used on
the soundtrack, might well be the best track in the movie, and it's
also better (in my opinion) than anything on his breakthrough album
"musicforthemorningafter" but it's just so.. lacking.. compared to
the original.. I'm really trying NOT to be a pop culture snob but it's
distressing (in a small way) to think that there are people whose only
experience with the song will cause them to remember it as "the Pete Yorn
song from Shrek 2" Even if you enjoy Yorn's version of the song, however,
it's not a very good choice for the scene it accompanies in the movie
(which [mild spoiler] is a chase scene in the potion works.) There are
plenty of movies which feature music I don't like which nevertheless
manage to use their music more effectively than I thought "Shrek 2" did
and which didn't leave me with a feeling of jarring disconnect between
what was happening on-screen and in the story with what I was hearing in
the music..
> I was particularly shocked to find myself actually semi-enjoying the
> Tom Waits song, since I don't like Tom Waits's voice at all, and I don't
> do black depressive songs.
If you don't do bleak, downbeat songs I doubt that you're in any danger of
winding up a Tom Waits fan, as warned in #225, but even singing his own
songs I find Waits' voice works very well for some songs, not well for others.
If you develop an interest in hearing more of Waits' work I recommend the
album "Rain Dogs" as the best starting place.
|
scott
|
|
response 227 of 278:
|
Jun 8 23:11 UTC 2004 |
I just saw "Shrek 2", and while I agree the songs were slightly excessive,
overally it was a very funny movie.
|
gull
|
|
response 228 of 278:
|
Jun 9 15:13 UTC 2004 |
Agreed that his voice works well for some songs and not others. I'm
sure there's disagreement about which ones, too. For example, I like
his version of "Downtown Train" a lot better than Rod Stewart's, but I'm
sure there are many people who feel otherwise.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 229 of 278:
|
Jun 9 16:42 UTC 2004 |
Now there's another depressing thought, though you're undoubtedly right.
I have a visceral dislike of Rod Stewart which no doubt colors my
opinion on this issue..
|
gregb
|
|
response 230 of 278:
|
Jun 9 17:28 UTC 2004 |
Re. 225: I didn't "dislike" it. I was just dissapointed that it didn't
match the spirit of the first two. I'm glad that ther'll be another
film and I'll certainly be there opening weekend to see it.
|
glenda
|
|
response 231 of 278:
|
Jun 9 20:05 UTC 2004 |
Film 4 is due out in 2005, film 5 is scheduled to be out in 2007. That will
take it out to the current book.
|
pgreen
|
|
response 232 of 278:
|
Jun 9 20:06 UTC 2004 |
Hi, Glenda!
|
gregb
|
|
response 233 of 278:
|
Jun 10 17:01 UTC 2004 |
Re. 231: Any idea why not 2006?
|
anderyn
|
|
response 234 of 278:
|
Jun 10 18:31 UTC 2004 |
Probably due to special effects?
|
gregb
|
|
response 235 of 278:
|
Jun 10 18:55 UTC 2004 |
Doubtful, considering how many FX were in the last two films.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 236 of 278:
|
Jun 10 19:10 UTC 2004 |
My guess would be to avoid a 3-year gap between film 5 and film 6
(assuming there ever is a film 6.) The spacing between the books
has been growing greater and greater and the films take at least
a year of work to produce *after* the book has been finished.
Keeping the series relatively evenly spaced-out is probably somewhat
important to the producers.
|