|
Grex > Cinema > #62: Grex goes to the movies-- the Spring Movie Review item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 278 responses total. |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 249 of 278:
|
Jun 15 18:09 UTC 2004 |
They've got to be concerned in Redondo Beach - they are onlly 59 feet above
MSL.
|
tod
|
|
response 250 of 278:
|
Jun 15 18:10 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 251 of 278:
|
Jun 17 19:44 UTC 2004 |
Mike in resp:242 :: in press stories around the time of the first
Harry Potter movie, director/series producer Chris Columbus was saying
that the fourth book would have to be split into two films.
But I have not heard anything to indicate that this realization
is affecting the current filming of Potter #4.
|
twenex
|
|
response 252 of 278:
|
Jun 17 19:46 UTC 2004 |
Are the King and Queen of Spain financing the next one?
|
gull
|
|
response 253 of 278:
|
Jun 18 17:03 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:250: I thought it was pretty funny when the reporter got smacked
by the billboard.
|
richard
|
|
response 254 of 278:
|
Jun 19 02:40 UTC 2004 |
THE TERMINAL-- New Steven Spielberg/Tom Hanks movie about a tourist from
a small eastern european country who arrives at JFK airport in New York,
and finds out that while he was in the air, there was a coup d'etat in his
country. Since his government has been overthrown, his passport and his
visa are invalidated and he is not allowed to enter the U.S. He is also
not allowed to leave the U.S. for the same reasons. He is stuck in limbo.
This is like Tom Hanks' "Survivor" movie, except instead of being stranded
on a desert island, he is stranded in a big airport with no money (he
can't exchange his currency since his government was overthrown), no
friends and little command of english. We follow Hanks, as this eastern
european tourist, around as he tries to eat, sleep and survive in a
hostile, foreign environment where the authorities tell him that he
"doesn't count", that he has fallen into diplomatic limbo and is expected
to just disappear into the airport crowds.
The story sounds preposterous, to get stuck in an airport for more than a
year, but it is in fact based on a true story. There really was/maybe
still is a guy who got stuck in such limbo at DeGaulle airport in Paris
and ended up living there. The story is true, they just changed the
location to New York.
The movie is a bit long. A 2 1/2 hour movie where the entire movie takes
place in a busy airport can get tedious. JFK airport, where this takes
place, is my home airport and I've had my share of travel issues there
over the years. But anyone who has ever had to spend a night in an
airport due to missed flights, bad weather or airline snafus, will be able
to identify with this movie.
Hanks and Catherine Zeta Jones, who plays this stewardess who keeps coming
through the airport off of flights and befriends him, and Stanley Tucci as
the head of airport security, are all terrrific. The movie is I think
about the natural desire we all have to have identity and be acknowledged,
and the fear you can have of finding yourself becoming irrelevant and
disappearing into the system and wondering if anybody cares.
The ending is particularly poignant, which I won't give away except to say
Hanks's character has come to America to finish something his late father
started. Because by doing so, he can have closure and feel like he has
somehow expressed the importance of his father's life, that he was alive,
that he was somebody. The irony is that in the course of doing this, he
has seemed to lose his own identity, lose his country, his passport, his
money. This is a Spielberg film though, so you know it has a happy
ending. Spielberg would never leave one of his characters trapped at JFK
airport forever!
Good movie, as long as you don't hate airports.
|
richard
|
|
response 255 of 278:
|
Jun 19 02:57 UTC 2004 |
Note, the Tom Hanks "Survivor" movie I was comparing "The Terminal" to,
was of course "Cast Away" Of which there are a lot of parallells, as
anybody trapped in a foreign airport where they don't know the language
and have no money, might well feel like they may as well be on a desert
island
|
slynne
|
|
response 256 of 278:
|
Jun 19 19:41 UTC 2004 |
SAVED
My friend Kate wanted to see a movie this weekend. I let her choose
because there arent any movies out there that I feel I just *have* to
see. She chose "Saved".
I hadnt even heard of it so I did a quick search on the internet. When
I first read a plot synopsis I wasnt sure this would be a very good
movie. I heard that it was about high school students at a Christian
high school. One of them got pregnant . I figured it would be some
weird drama about teen pregnancy in what I often view as the rigid
world of fundamental Christianity.
My little web search turned up two other tidbits about this movie. One
was that it starred Macaulay Culkin which made me even more worried
about how this film would turn out. I wasnt really sure how well he
would be as an adult actor. The second thing I learned was that this
movie was produced by Michael Stipe. I have long been a fan of Michael
Stipe's and I have listened to interviews with him on the subject of
religion. I also know that he is from the south which is a place often
referred to as "The Bible Belt" by us yankees in our more rude moments.
This had me curious. Maybe this wasnt the Christian melodrama I was
expecting.
It turned out to be quite different from my expectations. In a general
way, while there were aspects of the dramatic and I found myself crying
a couple of times, it was mostly a comedy. And quite a good one at
least from my point of view which is one of an outsider peering into
the world of fundamental christianity with it's christian rock groups
and clean cut kids and "Jesus loves You" bumper stickers.
I was also pretty impressed with the way it used satire to explore some
of the more fundamental Christian values such as forgiveness,
tolerence, kindness, etc. In a strange way, it was almost a modern film
adaptation of that familiar bible story, The Good Samaritan.
Macaulay Culkin, btw, seems to have come into this own as an actor. The
rest of the cast was pretty good too. All in all, I was pleasantly
surprised and probably will let Kate pick the movie again ;)
|
tpryan
|
|
response 257 of 278:
|
Jun 20 00:32 UTC 2004 |
I enjoyed the "I'm more Saved than you competition".
A great line--after Mary had a Bible thrown at her by the cheif
bitch, she turns around, picks it up and says "This is not
a weapon".
|
klg
|
|
response 258 of 278:
|
Jun 20 01:15 UTC 2004 |
1. Terminal is not a "true story." It is loosely (very loosely)
based upon an actual occurance.
2. Stanley Tucci is not "the head of airport security." He is in the
process of being promoted to chief of the INS bureau at the airport.
3. It is not a good movie. It is a fair (very fair) movie. If you
miss seeing it, don't be disappointed.
|
pgreen
|
|
response 259 of 278:
|
Jun 20 01:16 UTC 2004 |
You're loosely (very loosely) based on an actual person.
|
richard
|
|
response 260 of 278:
|
Jun 20 05:01 UTC 2004 |
re: Saved...I want to see that because the movie's producer is REM's
Michael Stipe. He's got a pretty good second career going, he also
prodeuced Being John Malkovich, which I really liked
|
tod
|
|
response 261 of 278:
|
Jun 21 15:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 262 of 278:
|
Jun 21 16:23 UTC 2004 |
The original Stepford Wives is very creepy. I am getting that this
remake isnt so much. I might have to see it but I think I'll wait until
it is out on DVD.
|
tod
|
|
response 263 of 278:
|
Jun 21 16:39 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
furs
|
|
response 264 of 278:
|
Jun 21 16:53 UTC 2004 |
I went and saw Dodge Ball this weekend, which was one of the funniest
movies I've seen in a while. There are a lot of details they added
it, which just added to more fun. I can't remember laughing out loud
so much in a movie.
|
tod
|
|
response 265 of 278:
|
Jun 21 17:31 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jvmv
|
|
response 266 of 278:
|
Jun 22 05:59 UTC 2004 |
Is Ben Stiller a director? Well, then I'm Hitchcock.
What happened to Ben? He used to be funny.
"He should go to the Derek Zoolander school for
kids that can't read scripts good".
Ben has great performance as actor. That's all.
|