|
Grex > Cinema > #62: Grex goes to the movies-- the Spring Movie Review item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 278 responses total. |
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.
|
glenda
|
|
response 237 of 278:
|
Jun 10 21:34 UTC 2004 |
Some of the extra time is so that the kids can actually spend some time at
real schools. I just read an article about the actor that plays Malfoy. He
said that he is putting college off for a year to finish filming #4. There
was a gap between 3 & 4 so that one of them could catch up on school work.
It has to be hard working around school and labor issues with kids of this
age on projects this big.
|
tod
|
|
response 238 of 278:
|
Jun 11 17:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 239 of 278:
|
Jun 13 04:38 UTC 2004 |
Saw Shrek2. Okay, Love Potion No. IX. I got it.
Also saw Harry Potter. I wanna ride on the Magic Bus.
Saw "Saved" earlier tonight. A bit of commentary on "Christian Life".
|
remmers
|
|
response 240 of 278:
|
Jun 13 14:40 UTC 2004 |
I would like to report that "The Day After Tomorrow" is the best
movie I ever saw in Sedalia, Missouri.
|
gull
|
|
response 241 of 278:
|
Jun 13 16:01 UTC 2004 |
I'm guessing it's also the ONLY movie you've ever seen in Sedalia,
Missouri?
|
richard
|
|
response 242 of 278:
|
Jun 15 04:33 UTC 2004 |
Saw "Harry Potter and Prisoner of Azkiban"-- my feeling is that the movie is
too rushed, and certain details are sacrificed as a result. I know the studio
didn't want a three hour+ movie, but the books are so detailed that you can't
do them justice without enough time. It was still a good movie but I wanted
it to be more than it was.
I shudder to think that they might try to bring "Goblet of Fire" in at 2 hrs.
and 25 mins or less
|
mcnally
|
|
response 243 of 278:
|
Jun 15 05:43 UTC 2004 |
I also saw "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" this weekend
and agree with Richard's criticism. Even at 2 1/2 hours it was rushed
to the point where substantial story cuts had to be made, eliminating
crucial exposition and obfuscating character motivations.
Discussing the movie afterwards with Cathy it was clear to both of us
that the problem is only going to get worse as the series progresses.
If you look at the books next to each other on the shelf each book is
noticably thicker than the volume that precedes it and the last couple
of books have taken a huge leap over the first three. This can't help
but be a problem for filmmakers trying to continue the series.
I thought that the new look for the series was interesting. A much,
much larger portion of this movie takes place outside Hogwarts' castle,
much of it in the outdoors. The protagonists wear "muggle" clothes
throughout all but a small part of the movie. The lesser characters
have largely slipped away into the margins; they get very little screen
time and do almost nothing to further the story. And of course the new
Dumbledore sucks, but what are you going to do when your original actor
dies?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 244 of 278:
|
Jun 15 15:01 UTC 2004 |
Took the boys to see Garfield. Not great. Good clean family fun, I guess.
This screen version of eats, but he doesn't, can't, ... well, you'll just have
to see the film to understand what I'm hinting at. :-)
|
twenex
|
|
response 245 of 278:
|
Jun 15 15:15 UTC 2004 |
Didn't even know there was a Garfield film. Thanks for the warning.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 246 of 278:
|
Jun 15 16:24 UTC 2004 |
They should have gotten Gandalf to stand in for Dumbledore.
|
remmers
|
|
response 247 of 278:
|
Jun 15 17:19 UTC 2004 |
Re #241: No, I've actually seen two movies in Sedalia, Missouri.
"Day After Tomorrow" recently, and "Forces of Nature" a few years
ago. Didn't think either was particularly good, but "Day After
Tomorrow" was marginally better.
|
tod
|
|
response 248 of 278:
|
Jun 15 17:24 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|