response 273 of 323:

Dec 11 03:52 UTC 2000

CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON--  This is the new movie from director Ang
Lee (director of The Ice Storm,among others)  It is of all things, an
artsy kung fu movie.  Its a blend of mysticism, fantasy and kung fu.  Chow
Yung Fat plays an aging warrior who has decided to retire to a life of
contemplation and has bestowed his famous magical sword to his protege.
But the sword is stolen, amidst epic battles between him, the female
warrior (michelle yeoh) he loves but cannot marry, her young protege
(another female warrior who spurns her family because she loves a desert
outlaw), the outlaw himself, a villainess .etc  It is all about honor,
tradition and the secrets of this sword.  The fight scenes in this movie
are incredible, they blow away anything you saw in the Matrix. Plus it has
wonderful direction from director Ang Lee and a beautiful score by cellist
Yo Yo Ma.  What more do you need.  It is in Mandarin with english
subtitles, but don't let that stop you from seeing this, its really good

response 275 of 323:

Dec 12 03:02 UTC 2000

Saw Unbreakable tonight.  It was not worth the money, nor the time.  
Little to no plot, and the character development is not great.  Half the 
film seemed to be a flashback sequence, but at times it was hard to tell 
the flashbacks from real time.  It also seemed to be shot out of 
sequence, as in one scene Bruce Willis' hair grew from being none there, 
to about a 5 day growth (he shaves his head) over the course of 3 shots.

response 277 of 323:

Dec 13 21:37 UTC 2000

Colin First is the reason why I have A&E's Pride and Prejudice on video.
*drool*

And let us not forget the Feinnes brothers... *major drool*

response 279 of 323:

Dec 14 16:00 UTC 2000

I can't spell! oh my gawd! I CAN'T SPELL!

response 281 of 323:

Dec 14 19:29 UTC 2000

<grins> We knew that... ;) (re: Jenn)

response 283 of 323:

Dec 15 00:42 UTC 2000

I went and saw Dungeons and Dragons tonite.  I had been built up to not like
it, since the critics panned it as one put it "the worst movie ever made"
(which I personally reserve for "Howard The Duck").  But in truth, I did like
it.  I get the feeling none of the critics played D&D, or they don't want
anyone to know they did.  As a former D&D player (who liked Human or Half-Elf
Thieves) I was pretty happy.  They didn't sprout the classic line "You're in
a bar", and I think they got the dwarf and elf a bit...well...wrong, I did
like it.  Most of the movie was something you could imagine a player making
a character do, and perhaps that's why the critics didn't like it.  They
wanted a complete theatrical presentation, rather than what I found in an
extension of a gaming session brought to life.  

But here is a beef...what is it with costume designers of sci-fi fantasy
movies?  Do they have a thing with large bones?  Or other spikey things on
outfits?  I also object to powder blue lipstick.  Just on principle.  The
outfit of the "Empress" for her battle seemed less functional than decorative.
It would do more damage on her than any weapon.  They also seemed to make the
assumption that "mages" were the aristocrats of society and the "commoners"
were anyone without magic.  They can get away with this by creating a new
world, but on most worlds that I have played on or known of everyone is mixed
in, and if anything, mages were considered a hinderance, weak (at times), and
something to be ridiculed or feared.  But like I said, each world is
different, and so they can get away with it.  

I liked it.  I would definatly see it again.  Justin Whalin (from Tv's Lois
and Clark, he played Jimmy Olsen) made a good "hero" but Marlon Wayans made
a GREAT "thief" <giggles emphatically>  oh yeah...  and any movie with Richard
O'Brian in it (RifRaf from Rocky Horror Picture Show, who wrote the music to
it) is a winner for me!

response 285 of 323:

Dec 15 04:10 UTC 2000

Dungeons and Dragons? isthat the movie that usa today and two of the 
new york papers gave zero stars?

response 287 of 323:

Dec 15 06:36 UTC 2000

The point of fantasy is to be creative and NOT horribly accurate...  =)
(I'm speaking about the costumes)

response 289 of 323:

Dec 15 15:33 UTC 2000

Re #283: If it's only enjoyable if you've played D&D, it sounds like I
should skip it.

response 291 of 323:

Dec 15 16:19 UTC 2000

Hmm... maybe I'll find time to see that sometime this weekend...

response 293 of 323:

Dec 15 21:40 UTC 2000

There's a real problem with costuming especially in SF, but also fantasy
movies, and that is that human actors only come in certain shapes &
sizes.  You can write all you want about intelligent 6 legged cats and 8
foot tall blue orcs and awful evil villains with one side of their face
chopped away in a freak sword accident.

When it comes time to actually put these characters into a movie, things
have to change.  That 6 legged cat is, well, nearly impossible to do
right; a muppet just isn't going to have much sinuous grace as it leaps
and lopes and lears.  Facial expressions are particularly complex:
people have a lot of hardwired programming to recognize faces on
hominoid shapes - so if you have a computer based character, and you
want it to seem "human like", you pretty much *have* to give it a face.
Ok, so maybe people in the future will give computers human shaped
avatars simply so they can interact in a human-like fashion; but what
about aliens, who may either have no facial expressions at all, or may
have faces that aren't hominoid, with expressions that *don't* map well
into human equivalents?

8 foot tall blue orcs present the usual problem of: a 7 foot tall actor
on platform shoes?  Stilts?  Muppets?  Or all of the above?

The evil villain with one side of his face chewed off? Well, human
actors, for some reason, don't *want* one side of their face removed,
even temporarily.  Also, their pronunciation really suffers when this is
done to them, insurance costs sky-rocket, and it's not clear if a movie
still qualifies for an R rating with such a hideous face.  Also, there
is the facial expression problem, again.  It's generally easier to *add*
things to a human actor than remove them.  Horns, for this reason, are
really attractive.  Various bulges, veins, and so forth also work.  It's
possible to do hideous wounds, if care is taken to raise the surrounding
skin profile so that the wound doesn't look tacked on - but it's still
the case that wound is tacked on.  The "bulging brain" thing is really
popular, because it's an easy solution for the problem of what to do
with all that hair on an actor's head.  A lot of SF costuming is
carefully designed so that the face & eyes are basically left untouched.
That gives the actor a lot more ability to do the facial expression
thing.

This is all changing as computer generated graphics get better and
better.  Someday, *someone* is going to do another Marilyn Monroe movie.
It's just bound to happen.  Once we have the skills to do that, we'll be
able to do proper 6 legged cats, villains with one side of the face
missing, and 8 foot tall blue orcs.  But we aren't (quite) there yet.

response 295 of 323:

Dec 16 00:09 UTC 2000

  Marcus's #293 snuck in on me..  The concept I'm still trying to digest
  is that "Gladiator" is a movie with major substance and a hardened plot..