response 252 of 278:

Jun 17 19:46 UTC 2004

Are the King and Queen of Spain financing the next one?

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.

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 ;) 

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.

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

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. 

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.

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.

response 268 of 278:

Jun 23 06:17 UTC 2004

 
     Zoolander is one Ben's worst films.
     He got into trouble trying to do two things
     at the same time: director & actor.
     Ben is a great actor but a terrible director.

response 270 of 278:

Jun 24 05:51 UTC 2004

     No way. It doesn't make sense tod. Why would I be 
     offended? I am not pretty heheh. I like comedies a lot.
     Moreover, I like Ben's work. He has a characteristic
     humor.
     But I have critical sense and I think Ben gave director
     all his attention. That's, he couldn't work that much.

response 272 of 278:

Jun 25 06:03 UTC 2004

     His performance could be better.
     Ben's best performances are with common stories.
     Zoolander, filmed in NY and LA, Ben directs, writes
     producers this movie. What did he prove with that?
     He proved that he doesn't have talent to be director,
     writer and producer at the same time.
     A good idea isn't ehough, it's necessary talent.
     Honestly, he went TOO far.

response 274 of 278:

Jun 26 06:37 UTC 2004

     Compared to films previous of him.
     Well, I know the difference between novella and
     comedy. My critic is only related to Ben's work
     as director.
     And, how I said before, what harmed his performance
     was the desire to do a lot of things at the
     same time.