|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 326 responses total. |
goose
|
|
response 283 of 326:
| 
Jun 18 05:36 UTC 2000 |
which will be bought my Time-Warner.
|
other
|
|
response 284 of 326:
|
Jun 18 05:37 UTC 2000 |
which will be acquired by the new Seagram's/SBC Communications partnership
|
mcnally
|
|
response 285 of 326:
|
Jun 18 06:58 UTC 2000 |
Saw tonight:
"Rules of Engagement" -- (C+) No surprises in this military coutroom
drama, except perhaps the performances phoned in by Tommy Lee Jones
and Samuel L. Jackson, both of whom can do better. I won't go off on
another implausibility rant, but I will say that sensible plotting is
a lot more important to a movie that's not going to have any car chases
and the writers would have done well to have considered that. I will
also admit that I'm looking forward to the time, not long from now,
when military dramas set in the present day will no longer be able to
feature characters who suffer from Vietnam flashbacks..
"Mission to Mars" -- (unratable) I may have thought that "Rules of
Engagement" didn't feature the two leads' best performances, but I
wouldn't have said, either, that they were their worst. There's nothing
stopping me from saying that about "Mission to Mars", though. Terrible
script, numbing performances, and a monstrously intrusive and annoying
sountrack are the substantial downsides here. Unintended humor is the
only upside, but things were so laughable that I nevertheless managed
to enjoy the movie at least enough not to be bitter about two hours of
my life that are now gone forever..
Has anyone seen "Chicken Run" yet?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 286 of 326:
|
Jun 18 14:45 UTC 2000 |
Nope, but I've seen the HBO special on the making of it. Worth seeing. They
show how they animate the characters.
Trays and trays of plasticine(?) chicken mouths in different positions.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 287 of 326:
|
Jun 18 18:15 UTC 2000 |
I just read Dave Stein's review from the stilyagi mailing list.
He says it's a hoot!, worth seeing.
|
omni
|
|
response 288 of 326:
|
Jun 19 05:39 UTC 2000 |
Saw 2 good flix tonight:
Rear Window- What else? 4 stars. Hitchcock didn't make dogs.
I never saw this one before and all I can say is OH MY GOD. The
movie is completely awesome, even for being made in the early 50's.
You know the story, so it is pointless to recap it here, but
the last half hour was so intense, I wouldn't have left the house
if it was on fire. I was on the edge of my seat, paralyzed with
fear that something really bad would happen to Jimmy Stewart.
Fortunatly, I had the presence of mind to record it from AMC.
Hitchcock, when you're speaking about movies, is God.
The cast was great: Jimmy Stewart, Thelma Ritter, and Grace Kelly,
not to mention Raymond Burr.
Then on TCM came:
Father of the Bride-4 stars
In my opinion, Spencer Tracy never made a bad film. He was
very funny as the Dad Who Paid For The Wedding. You had to start
feeling bad for the guy when all the bills begin rolling in, then
the bride decides she can't possibly get married, and from there
it only gets worse. Soon, it is time for the main event and...
I won't spoil the ending.
An excellent cast: Elizabeth Taylor and Russ Tamblyn, as well as
Spencer Tracy.
Can't wait to see "Father's Little Dividend" which is the sequel.
Another very funny wedding movie was "Betsy's Wedding" which borrowed
a bit from FOTB.
I'm getting to like old movies. :)
|
lelande
|
|
response 289 of 326:
|
Jun 19 07:37 UTC 2000 |
hot damn . . .
got 'crumb' and 'rope' and a documentary on dietrich bonhoeffer on tape.
|
edina
|
|
response 290 of 326:
|
Jun 19 14:09 UTC 2000 |
Re Dogma: Joey Lauren Adams was supposed to be in the movie, but becasue the
movies was financed heavier, Kevin Smith lost some control - she was supposed
to play Linda Fiorentino's part.
|
jep
|
|
response 291 of 326:
|
Jun 19 14:54 UTC 2000 |
I finally saw "Gone with the Wind" yesterday. I'd never watched it
all the way through. I also finished the book yesterday.
As my wife said, the movie was over-acted. There was no subtlety; if
you were supposed to think "Scarlett is self-absorbed", the movie
banged you on the head several times and shouted at you "Self
absorbed!!!" As anyone could tell you, it was very long. It was
probably the most faithful reproduction of a book I've ever seen in a
movie. Many things were left out of the movie, but almost nothing was
added or changed. I thought it was a great movie. I don't know how it
could have been improved in any way.
I guess there's no point in saying much. If you're interested, you've
seen this movie 100 times. If you don't know about it, it's because you
want it that way.
|
remmers
|
|
response 292 of 326:
|
Jun 19 17:16 UTC 2000 |
Re Dogma: Some of the financing could have been spent on a good
script doctor, in my opinion. A promising start and a few clever
bits, but the thing became insufferably talky after a while and
went on much too long.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 293 of 326:
|
Jun 19 19:30 UTC 2000 |
That's probably a fair criticism..
re #288: Actually, Hitchcock made a number of films which are
mediocre at best.. They're just generally swept under the rug
whenever his films are discussed..
|
jerryr
|
|
response 294 of 326:
|
Jun 19 19:57 UTC 2000 |
re: gwtw - my gawd what an overblown, over acted cornball flick. every actor
in it chews the scenary. from "superman" on the steps of tara to rhett butler
who cares more about how he stands visa vis the camera than how he "acts."
far more entertaining is the pbs documentary "the making of gwtw."
|
iggy
|
|
response 295 of 326:
|
Jun 19 21:33 UTC 2000 |
<i'm a sucker. i liked the book and movie>
|
slynne
|
|
response 296 of 326:
|
Jun 19 21:39 UTC 2000 |
me too, iggy, me too
|
otaking
|
|
response 297 of 326:
|
Jun 19 22:03 UTC 2000 |
GWTW is great, but not something I'd want to watch repeatedly.
|
lelande
|
|
response 298 of 326:
|
Jun 19 22:24 UTC 2000 |
the 39 steps still kick ass.
can't swallow dogma, or any other kevin smith movies -- the problem, for the
most part, is the color. kevin smith can't keep his colors under control. his
flics (except clerks, course, cuz it's black & white, which he obviously has
better control over) come off like sloppily thrown together crayon drawings.
he has no respect for shade, no respect for shadows and darkness, he has no
evident interest in blank space -- just busy busy busy color color color, no
symmetry, no decent portraiture, no motherlovin feng shui.
i watched 'mallrats' 7 times because jason lee is a doggone funny boy. but
the movie was still an acrylic array of crap.
is it because smith grew up so close to comics that he can't direct anything
but contrived spunk? every time i go into a comic store these days i have to
put up with his cartoons everywhere. he wrote daredevil for a while, and a
really good story at that, with really long, slow, sometimes pathetically dull
dialogue.
i wish he'd stick to movies rather than contribute to the quickening decline
in the quality of comic books.
i bet tim burton thinks he's an asshole, and signed him up to write the
superman script just so burton could reject it. tim burton isn't the greatest
director in the world, but, christ, at least he knows how to deal with
something as basic as COLOR.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 299 of 326:
|
Jun 20 01:02 UTC 2000 |
(by making everything a murky grey and claiming it's "artistically moody"?)
|
omni
|
|
response 300 of 326:
|
Jun 20 04:23 UTC 2000 |
I liked GWTW, although it was a bit too long. There are a number of
fine performances given by: Jane Darwell, Clark Gable, Butterfly McQueen, and
Hattie McDaniel. I particularly liked Olivia DeHavilland's role. I have always
like Ms DeHavilland.
Ok the movie is cheesy, but it does tell a good story.
|
lelande
|
|
response 301 of 326:
|
Jun 20 17:47 UTC 2000 |
resp:299
i know it may be more work than you're willing to take on, but if you can
manage to think about more than 'sleepy hollow' you might be able to
contribute to discussion rather than muck it up.
i used burton as an example because he's recent, well-known, and has
extraordinary control over the pallette of his flix. most of the time his
movies have a synthetic look to them: very plastic as in edward scissorhands'
suburban setting, the miniature model town in beetlejuice, the hokey alien
invasion in mars attacks, etc. etc. yadda yadda. maybe one can criticize
burton for always employing such an artificial look to his movies, but since
burton seems to strive for said artificial look in accordance with the
characters and the places in which they exist in the movies, without trying
to pull wool over the audience-eye, it wouldn't be criticism, it would be a
matter of difference in aesthetic opinion. a buddy of mine is severely
anti-formalist, so he'd fall into the bracket of cats that despise burton for
this reason (and others); beyond aesthetic difference, it's impressive stuff
that he does with his colors.
then look at kevin smith, who also has very unrealistic arrays of colors, but
i get the feeling that smith doesn't want his colors to look unrealistic, but
that he wants his scenes and characters to look authentic, real,
real-life-like. so he uses generic shirts, unprovocative lighting, and
striaghtforward camera-angles. metatron and what's-her-name drink tequila in
a mexican restaurant: i saw only one angle of this mexican restaurant, making
it seem very much like a stage dressed up to be the quintessential small
mexican restaurant. snore. snore.
boy ain't no FENG SHUI, that be fo damn shur.
|
jazz
|
|
response 302 of 326:
|
Jun 20 18:27 UTC 2000 |
Kevin Smith is arguably influenced by four-colour layout comics,
though, and in accordance with that theory, his not-quite-real colour schemes,
staging, and dialogue, make considerably more sense. He's also directing on
a very small budget, unlike Burton, and the combined budgets of all of the
Kevin Smith films put together wouldn't begin to approach the special effects
budgets of one Burton film.
My beef with Burton is that he's a one-trick pony. His ideas were
fresh and creative in Beetlejuice, but by the time Edward Scissorhands rolled
out, the "Burton feel" was beginning to get a bit dated. Sleepy Hollow
deviated enough from the traditional "Burton feel" that I didn't mind it at
all, but it was still obviously a Burton film.
|
jor
|
|
response 303 of 326:
|
Jun 20 22:08 UTC 2000 |
omni . . Rear Window . . that was Raymond Burr!
sheesh I wasn't paying attention.
Yes the Hitchcock mass showing on AMC is irresistable . .
I made the mistake of watching The Birds in it's entirety.
Their entirety. The Great Gasoline Accident is
still great, but I found myself being very critical
of much of the film, e.g., the superficial romance that
is the premise for the leading lady's visit to
Bodega Bay. Yes I was just pecking it apart, I've
seen it too many times.
I've always wanted to visit Bodega Bay.
So since then I've just watched chance segments. A bit
of Miss Froy in The Lady Vanishes. The very end of
Suspicion. The climax of Rear Window. The light and
shadow, shadow, shadow, let's colorize it all and
erase all the shadows.
|
remmers
|
|
response 304 of 326:
|
Jun 20 22:59 UTC 2000 |
I think the problem with the superficial romance in The Birds
wasn't that it was superficial but rather that the actors
weren't up to making the audience forget that. Rod Taylor
and Tippi Hedren were no substitute for Cary Grant and Grace
Kelly.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 305 of 326:
|
Jun 20 23:10 UTC 2000 |
Believable rumor has it that Hitchcock's interest was not primarily in
Tippie Hedren's acting skills..
|
omni
|
|
response 306 of 326:
|
Jun 21 01:25 UTC 2000 |
I've seen enough Perry Mason to know that it was Raymond Burr. He did a
great job, nonetheless. Didja see Hitchcock in Dial M For Murder and The
Birds? He's easy to spot in The Birds, but you have to be closely watching
to see him in Dial M.
|
iggy
|
|
response 307 of 326:
|
Jun 21 01:32 UTC 2000 |
what did billy joe throw off the tallahatchie bridge?
|
