|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 326 responses total. |
mdw
|
|
response 84 of 326:
| 
May 6 01:48 UTC 2000 |
Quite a lot of stuff has been declassified in the last decade regarding ww2
cryptography. Lots of books have been written as well. A fair number
of details have been lost (quite a lot just after ww2, when things were
deliberately destroyed, most likely simply because there was *a lot* and
nobody wanted to pay to store the stuff), but the overall details are
pretty clear, & I don't believe there's much modern doubt regarding what
the germans & japanese knew or suspected. If I have the time, perhaps
I'll dig up my references regarding the german suspicions and enigma.
It's definitely the case that they had very strict rules about the use
of intelligence they gathered - in retrospect, overkill for the
japanese, but probably right on the dot for the germans.
|
mdw
|
|
response 85 of 326:
|
May 6 01:52 UTC 2000 |
Incidently, most of the thinking behind the british cryptography
breaking efforts were not done by soldiers. The british went out and
recruited very bright people from the universities, and looked for
people who were into games, mathematics, & languages. The US (in the
form of the NSA) still does this today.
|
richard
|
|
response 86 of 326:
|
May 7 06:14 UTC 2000 |
Im currently watching the new DVD of "Being John Malkovich"-- this is or
was my pick for the best film of last year, a movie about the search for
identity that we all go through. This DVD comes with lots of extras
including including an interview with director Spike Jonze, a photo album,
a segment with John Malkovich and other stuff. Movie stars John Cusack,
Cameron Diaz, Catherine Keener, and of course John Malkovich. I will
admit that Im a bit partial to this film because one of the producers is
godfather to my little neice (who just turned two) Of course I paid for
this dvd and for the time I saw this at the movies, so for the record it
doesnt really mean anything if you know somebody who's name is in the
credits.
|
otter
|
|
response 87 of 326:
|
May 7 13:35 UTC 2000 |
19 days 'til _Shanghai Noon_!!!!!
<giggle>
|
md
|
|
response 88 of 326:
|
May 8 04:28 UTC 2000 |
DOGMA (B) - Cretinous fun. A sort of live-action Beavis
and Butthead movie that tries to take on organized religion.
It fails when it tries to take itself seriously, when
characters have earnest conversations about religion,
theology, eschatology, demonology, etc. The only thing that
saves the chatty scenes is the insanity going on in the
background. During a conversation with a bishop, for example,
we see Silent Bob slapping away the hand of Jay, a truly
Buttheadian character who'd been amusing himself by tickling
the exposed armpit of a crucifix Jesus. The movie goes
neither far out nor in deep, as the poet says, no matter how
much it thinks it does, but shallow and obvious can be
hilarious when done as well as in this movie. Highly
recommended.
|
flem
|
|
response 89 of 326:
|
May 8 14:45 UTC 2000 |
That pretty much expresses how I felt about Dogma. I'm glad I'm not the only
one who doesn't think it deserves great homage. :)
|
otaking
|
|
response 90 of 326:
|
May 8 18:03 UTC 2000 |
Rewatched A FISH CALLED WANDA last night. I forgot how funny this movie is.
John Cleese starred and wrote this brilliant comedy. Kevin Cline, Michael
Palin and Jamie Lee Curtis were superb.
|
carla
|
|
response 91 of 326:
|
May 8 20:34 UTC 2000 |
I never liked that movie. I was dissapointed because the cast was so first
rate.
|
jules
|
|
response 92 of 326:
|
May 8 21:40 UTC 2000 |
i thought it was funny when i saw it
|
omni
|
|
response 93 of 326:
|
May 8 23:50 UTC 2000 |
I had to watch it twice to get it. It is one of my favorites, and the funny
thing was that I bought it used sight unseen.
|
scott
|
|
response 94 of 326:
|
May 12 23:16 UTC 2000 |
"Gladiator"
Went and saw this at the matinee at Briarwood. Probably would have been a
bit better on the newer equipment at Goodrich, but I'm not really complaining.
It's an epic! Yup, they've finally figured out that all that newfangled
digital technology is really good for period films. The visuals are great,
and you get a real sense for what Rome in the empire days looked like. The
plot? OK, I guess, could have been better. It's a bit long, I thought.
The fight scenes were good, but they used this annoying 2 or 3 frame strobe
effect for some reason, so it was jerky instead of flowing. Oh well. Still
fun to watch, with no lack of blood and even a few rolling heads.
|
aaron
|
|
response 95 of 326:
|
May 13 19:31 UTC 2000 |
The panoramic CGI was a bit lacking, and they didn't upset modern
sensibilities by having all of the statues of Ancient Rome painted in
life-like colors, but... it was interesting to see how things might
have looked. The plot? I half-jokingly say, "What plot?" It's an
action movie. The plot is provided only as a framework (and perhaps as
an excuse) for the action scenes. The cinematography of the fight scenes
is almost a necessity, when you mix that much cgi with live action --
and then there is the problem that combat with broadswords, when faked,
tends to look quite fake if you give the audience an undisturbed view.
|
bru
|
|
response 96 of 326:
|
May 15 02:23 UTC 2000 |
The varied speed action sequence may have been very good for suggesting the
confusion of wa, war, but, there were a number of things that did bother me.
1. There use of the jerky action made it hard to focus.
2. I would be willing to swear that part of the soundtrack was "borrowed" from
an old film. Specifically, "Zulu". Why would the germanic tribes be shouting
zulu chants?
3 The first helmet hre picks up looks like something reminiscent of "Dart
Mal".
|
mooncat
|
|
response 97 of 326:
|
May 15 14:13 UTC 2000 |
In a photo spread they did in Entertainment Weekly they showed him
apparently facing off with a tiger... Did he kill the kitty?
|
anderyn
|
|
response 98 of 326:
|
May 15 14:42 UTC 2000 |
Yes. Poot. (I adore tiggies. I was bummed.) But there were four tiggies in
that scene, and he didn't kill any but the one who was on top of him trying
to make him into kitty chow.
|
flem
|
|
response 99 of 326:
|
May 15 17:30 UTC 2000 |
It seems like realistic combat with broadswords wouldn't be *that* difficult
a cinematic feat. I'm no expert in computer editing of fight scenes, but it
would be simple enough to make something that looked superficially like a
broadsword but with lots of padding. I'd think that touching things up so
that it looked a lot more like a broadsword would be within the capabilities
of computer graphics programs.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 100 of 326:
|
May 15 18:08 UTC 2000 |
Hmph, I won't be seeing that movie...
|
anderyn
|
|
response 101 of 326:
|
May 15 20:27 UTC 2000 |
Welll, I was surprised. I don't usually do well with violence in movies,
but I wasn't squicked by this one. (Of course, I may not have SEEN all of the
violence that was there -- strange cinematography screws up my already patchy
vision, and I don't see things.) Even the tiger getting offed didn't bug me
as much as I had expected. It had flaws -- the costuming and the historical
accuracy were definitely off -- but it was a big movie. It worked on the level
that it was aiming for, I think.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 102 of 326:
|
May 15 21:00 UTC 2000 |
I don't really mind violence in movies, half the time I find it
amusing. But, this is violence against a kitty... I just don't want to
see something like that. <shrugs> Call me weird. (then again, look at
my login. <Grins> Now does it make sense that I wouldn't want to see
violence against cats? Actually... any animal...)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 103 of 326:
|
May 15 21:19 UTC 2000 |
Faked violence against animals is bad, but faked violence against humans
is okay?
|
senna
|
|
response 104 of 326:
|
May 16 06:49 UTC 2000 |
According to the religious pursuit of freedom of entertainment media, of
course it is.
Actually, even combat with *realistic* broadswords isn't that difficult to
pull off. Well, it is, but that's because it's a challenging art to learn.
Stage combat is quite fascinating, really.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 105 of 326:
|
May 16 12:49 UTC 2000 |
re #103- Yup, that pretty much sums it up. <grins> Hey, who said a
person's opinions always had to be logical and make sense? Actually...
I take part of that back, I hate seeing violence against children as
well. But adults? No biggie.
|
flem
|
|
response 106 of 326:
|
May 16 17:13 UTC 2000 |
I've never been impressed by stage combat. No matter how close you come to
not pulling your shots, it's always easy to see that they are pulled. And
there's really no way around it, if you're using "real" weapons. Give me SCA
style combat any day. It may not be convincing to see people get hit with
a rattan pole, but at least they're really getting hit.
|
void
|
|
response 107 of 326:
|
May 17 02:59 UTC 2000 |
"there i was, wearing five yards of carpet..." :)
|
swa
|
|
response 108 of 326:
|
May 24 03:51 UTC 2000 |
So I went to see "Titus". It came out last year, I think, but was
apparently released to a fairly limited audience at the time. We saw it
at this weird little artsy theatre, so I dont' know if it's playing
nationally or not.
I'd never read _Titus Andronicus_, but I'd read and seen several other
Shakespeare tragedies, so I thought I knew what to expect of this. Wrong.
It surprised me with how disturbing and bloody and brutal and well,
tragic, it was, even in comparison to others. Don't go see this when
you're feeling squeamish.
OTOH, it was quite well done, if a bit bizarre in some places. I
think the film would have been much improved if the director had cut out a
couple of little dream sequence/showing-the-inside-of-the-character's head
bits. I have no patience for artsy pretention in films, and these scenes
seemed to be full of sound and fury and not much else. There were only a
couple of them, though.
The director (whose name I can't remember at the moment for some reason)
chose to set the film in both ancient *and* modern times. Tony, who I saw
it with, found this anachronistic and irritating, so you may too. I
really didn't have a problem with it, since both ancient Rome and the
modern (actually earlier in this century) world got equal play, so I
wasn't left feeling like one was the "real" setting and one an
anachronism. They segued fairly fluidly between the two, and used
elements of both to tell the story. (Come to think of it, this is artsy
pretention, too, but it's the kind I like, so it's okay. ;)) Throughout,
the costumes, sets, etc., were quite well done, with a lot of attention to
detail. The photography itself was beautiful, too.
Anyway, the excellent cast (led by Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange, and
including lots of other people I'd never heard of, but who were really,
really good) more than made up for the film's weaker spots. Almost none
of the characters are really likeable or sympathetic in this story, but
the actors made even the most evil ones charismatic and compelling so
that the audience was fascinated and had to find out what happened to
them.
So yeah, I'd recommend this. Go see it on the big screen if at all
possible.
|
