response 217 of 348:

Aug 16 15:34 UTC 1999

        I was impressed by the staging and the amount of time the movie spent
in developing it's characters;  I really could empathize with both of the
protagonists.

response 219 of 348:

Aug 16 18:52 UTC 1999

Recent rentals:

ELIZABETH (B+) -- I'm a sucker for any historic
drama.  This one is better than most, thanks mainly
to the acting of Cate Blanchett, who seems to have
perfected her 'tude by watching Glenda Jackson in 
the old "Elizabeth R" TV series.  French cinebabe
Fanny Ardant is hot in a brief appearance as Mary 
of Guise.  The over-all atmosphere and the final 
scenes of this movie are cribbed straight from 
Godfather I, however.  I almost expected to see
Fat Clemenza show up and plug Norfolk in his bed.

SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (A) -- I'm a sucker for any 
historic drama.  This isn't awfully historic, but
it does deal with some real people, and is filled
with English Lit. major in-jokes.  (My favorite one 
is John Webster portrayed as a boy whose favorite 
parts of the plays are the violent death scenes.)  
There's a too-sweet love story in there, too, plus 
Gwyneth Paltrow, if you like her.

response 221 of 348:

Aug 16 20:30 UTC 1999

        "The Bowler" was a *great* caracter though.

response 223 of 348:

Aug 16 22:44 UTC 1999

I *really* liked "Sixth Sense".  ****
I agree with Aaron that knowing almost nothing about it 
would be a good thing here.

response 225 of 348:

Aug 17 04:08 UTC 1999

        
        See it.  Even if you know where the road's going, the ride's well
worth it.

response 227 of 348:

Aug 19 03:38 UTC 1999

I watched Godzilla because it was renting for 99 cents.  Having arrived
with very low expectations, I didn't find them entirely met.  Special
effects were fine.  Liked the way that they failed to anthromorphize
Godzilla - he is treated as a big fierce animal, not a sapient being.
Interestingly, because he is treated that way, he becomes somewhat
sympathetic and you can feel sad for him when he is killed.  I think
it's a bit of 90's think - it's kind of sad to kill the last of a
species (barring sequels) even if it's not exactly a species you want
visiting your backyard.  The hero and heroine were a pair of dewy-eyed
Brady-bunch escapees, but that's consistant with the human characters in
all the original films, and makes a nice contrast to the monster.  And
they had fun pitting New York City against Godzilla.  The final duel
between Godzilla and a yellow cab driven by a foreigner was fun from
that point of view.  Chrysler Building, subways, fish markets, Madison
Square Gardens, Holland Tunnel, and the Brooklyn bridge all figure
promently into the movie.  Interesting that they left out the Empire
State Building, the World Trade Center (except for a reference to the
bombings) and the Statue of Liberty.  Anyway, it wasn't great, but it
was enjoyable for me.

response 229 of 348:

Aug 20 01:36 UTC 1999

        Oh my God!  They killed Godzilla.  Those bastards!

response 231 of 348:

Aug 21 13:48 UTC 1999

Where the heck did you find _Fail Safe_? I've wanted Kenn to see it for years
and can never find it!

response 233 of 348:

Aug 21 22:50 UTC 1999

The Thomas Crown Affair - C+ - It is cute, which might make up for the fact
that the plot is not credible, but it is *entirely* predictable. The only
think I did not predict was how lame the ending was going to be. They do
an amazing job with some of the sets, however, such as the museum sets (no
part of the film was shot inside a real museum).

response 235 of 348:

Aug 23 03:09 UTC 1999

Universal Soldier: The Return (B-) is a sequel to the original. The
computer running the unisols (reanimated dead supersoldier) goes FUBAR,
moves into a human body, and directs the unisols to wreak havok in the
military base in which they are situated. It's Jean Claude van Damme's job
to stop them. The storyline doesn't go smoothly (Damme's sweethart seemed
to be stuck into the story, and there wasn't a good transition from the
original), although there was a bit of humor in there (people getting
bashed in some funny ways), and the sound (Heavy rock music for all the
fight scenes) and graphics were pretty good. Basically, if you have a DVD,
50" projection screen, and a really good sound system, you won't care for
one minute that the story's bad. Though this movie has one scene which
made half the theatre yuck out, you can take your teenagers with you
(exept for the fact that there's around five minutes of off-and-on (mostly
on) frontal nudity (strip club), so that's a great time for the teen to
get a refill on popcorn). Anyway, unless you go to a theatre with really
good DTS Surround sound, wait for the DVD.

response 237 of 348:

Aug 23 13:08 UTC 1999

We saw "The Blair Witch Project" at the new theater on Jackson Rd.
on Saturday.  I was not impressed at all; it seemed to me like 2 hours 
of a home movie, with very little plot and not much of interest from the 
characters.  My wife liked it pretty well; she called it "post-modern".

Interestingly, we read an article in the AA News on Saturday, saying 
that people over 35 don't like it as much as those under 35.  I'm over 
that age, and she's under.

We weren't too impressed by the new theater, either.  Andrea didn't like 
the smaller theater; she said she just prefers larger ones.  I thought 
it was okay.  Smaller theaters ought to mean a smaller chance of 
someone behind you using his popcorn to compete with the audio level of 
the movie.  (Though perhaps less likely, we were treated to this 
experience on Saturday.)  

I liked one thing: at 8:00 pm on a Saturday, there were *no lines* at 
the concession stand, and the line for getting a ticket moved very 
quickly.

Neither of us liked the tiny parking lot.

response 239 of 348:

Aug 23 17:28 UTC 1999

However, a larger theatre will have a larger clientele.... therefore, the
proportions for filled-seats-to-empty-seats and
jackass-filled-seats-to-normalpeople-filled-seats will be the same. Ergo, you
have the same chance of someone screwing around with the popcorn behind you.

response 241 of 348:

Aug 24 04:17 UTC 1999

  In any case it hasn't been my experience that theater patronage is
  generally proportional to theater size..