This is the movie review item.  It doesn't matter if you saw
it at the theatre, through you VCR, or on television.  If 
you'd care to share your opinion just join in.

146 responses total.

"One True Thing" is an excellent effort.  I started reading this
book when it first came out, which was while my mother was dying.
I had to postpone reading it then and I never got back to it,
not sure why exactly.  The film has some powerful emotions packed
into scenes where not a word is spoken.  Hurt and Streep are
perfect in every scene.

This is an emotional film but not in a manipulative way.  It's
very real.  

I finally saw "Fire Walk With Me" the Twin Peaks movie...
My god...I think if you watch that and "Lost Highway" one after the
other your brain will simply explode! 

Very very cool...

  "very very cool"?

  I'll offer a contrasting view..  Didn't like either of them..

Seeing FWWM in the theater was one of the times when I really felt awful
about paying $6.50 (or whatever it was) for a ticket.  I thought it was
dreadful.

As long as we're voting, I'll put in that I liked both "Fire Walk with
Me" and "Lost Highway". For the former, I think it helps to be
acquainted with the "Twin Peaks" TV series (which I was).

I'd seen and enjoyed the entire Twin Peaks series before seeing FWWM, but I
still couldn't deal.  I thought about it afterward and decided that what I
really liked about Twin Peaks was the humor in it, but there was absolutely
no humor at all in the movie.  I noticed that while David Lynch and Mark
Frost co-produced the series, Lynch did the molvie by himself.  I wonder if
perhaps the humor was all coming from Frost.

Last night I was subjected to what is possibly the worst movie ever
made. Worse than "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" without audience
participation, worse than "Bimbo Movie Bash", worse than an ice cube
enima. 
A friend of my roommates cajoled all of us into watching "Castle Freak"
say that it was an al time classic horror flick. If I can overcome my
nausea <not at the gore or violenence, but the stupidity> anytime within
the next year I"m going to be forced to strap him down and subject him
to hours and hours of Lambchops Play Along.

I saw "Rounders'-- sort of a remake of "The Hustler" with Matt Damon as Paul
Newman and the game being poker instead of pool.  I found it fascinating
because I used to play in a regular weekly poker game for years.  Wish that
movie would've come out a few years back.

Damon is a law school student/poker hustler who loses his life savings on one
hand of poker to a devious Russian, and retires, only to be forced into playing
again months later at the behest of a loser friend in need (Edward Norton)  

So what do you think?  Does Damon get the big rematch with the devious Russian
to win back his mafia savings?  Well if you ever saw the "Hustler" (a *great*
movie btw) you know the answer already.   ***  (three stars)

 re #5,6:  Like Mark, I too had seen and enjoyed the Twin Peaks television
 series before seeing "Fire Walk With Me".  Also like Mark, I felt really
 annoyed at having paid full movie price for it..  

  I saw Woodstock-3 days of Peace and Love tonight and I was very impressed
at the way the crowd was behaving, that is, civilized. The music was awesome.
I enjoyed seeing Ritchie Havens, Jimi Hendrix, Crosby Stills Nash and Young,
The Who, and a lot of others. The movie is powerful. The images of people
interacting with the music and one another.
  Martin Scorsese was an assistant director, and editor of the film, and I
think he did an excellent job of editing. This is a must see.
(Of course, I recorded it.)

Wait, did you see the *big documentary* or the *average sized film?*

  The big documentary-- It lasted 4 hours.

is that the one where they show them taking out the three od'd people
in bodybags by chopper?  coo-ell!

  It rocked. I loved it, and I will save it to show to my nephews and 
children when I have them. I think every person should see Woodstock, just
to show them that 3 million or so people can gather in one place for 3 days
and have a great time. Schindler's List is another of those films, to show
them how 1 man can make a difference, and that they should strive to be that
one man or woman.

"The Avengers"

Visuals:  good
Acting:   so-so
Script:   terrible

It had its moments, but the plot was rather mixed up.  They explained things
that were obvious, and left other things unexplained.

I saw 'The Fifth Element' on Friday.  It is one of the few movies that i can
watch more than once.  I really enjoyed it.

        #3 million?  Maybe that time travel tourism agency has been using
Woodstock as a destination point too much?
        <tpryan hears Joni Mitchell singing...by the we got to Woodstock
we were 3 million strong>

Letterman had a top 10 list about Things Learned From Woodstock. The only two
I can remember are "Not everyone looks good naked" and "If you have three days
to fill, you can probably find room for Sha Na Na".
 
I actually have not seen "Schindler's List". And I'm not sure if I want to.
 
Before you all start raiding my apartment, looking for armbands and Zyklon,
let me explain.
 
At the time "Schindler's List" came out, one of my film genres classes covered
"Evil". While, for the most part it covered works of fiction ("Boyz N The
Hood", "Apocalypse Now") we had an especially indepth examination of "Shoah".
 
"Shoah" is a documentary by Claude Lanzmann, in which he speaks to Holocaust
survivors (one of whom spared his own life by acting in complicity with the
Nazis), unrepentant former Nazis, and the people of the towns with
concentration camps, who knew what was going on, but chose not to do anything
about it.
 
When I was through with this unit, although I was heartened to know the human
spirit could survive such atrocities, it also profoundly saddened me to
realize that this same human spirit could do these things in the first place,
and I really didn't want to see anything more about the Holocaust for a while
after that.

And now, I think the film I would go back to is still "Shoah", rather than
"Schindler's List". I'm not saying that Spielberg, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes,
et al aren't capable of telling their story well. But when I watch a
recreation like this, no matter how painstakingly researched, no matter how
sincere everyone involved is, I still know fully well that this is a work of
art. It's a construction. 
 
No matter how well they tell someone else's story, it's still exactly that:
someone else's story. And that can't touch me nearly as much as someone, in
his own words, telling me what's in his heart.

(For example, a few of the interviews are in English, most are German, and
there's some more in other languages. When I had to read subtitles to
understand the interviews, I didn't feel the impact as strongly as I did for
the English and German scenes. Simply knowing there was another layer
distancing me and the people on the screen was enough to remove me.)

I went to see "Ronin" on it's premiere (9/25/98), starring Robert Deniro.
Great performance by Pryce, McElhone, and Reno; among other notable actors!
The cast was excellent, and having Deniro as the leading character, makes this
movie worthwhile!  I give it "two thumbs up". (expect wild car chases, massive
killings, and a host of betrayals.)  I give it ***** !

Agora 15 <-> Cinema 23

"What Dreams May Come" - B+, too much of the scene-jumping reminiscent of
"Deconstructing Harry", but other than that an excellent movie.

"What Dreams May Come" is an extraordinary movie.  Not all scenes worked. 
The philosophy is right out of a hemp haze.  But it takes so many risks it
is forgiven the lapses.  See it for the sets, the cinematography, the
computer generated art, and the opening scenes of Hell. 

D.W. Griffith's silent film INTOLERANCE is showing at the Michigan
Theatre next week.  If I remember correctly, it's Tuesday October 13
at 4 pm.  Live organ accompaniment.  I managed to miss this last 
time it was here, so I'm hoping to make this show.

Actually, I did mostly see What Dreams May Come for the backgrounds, and that
aspect I give an A+ to.

Re: 23 John and I saw it a few years ago, at the Michigan.  It was the
first time I'd seen it and I was blown away.  It is a magnificent movie.
From time to time I still find myself thinking about the closing shot.

I saw Antz last night.  It's animated, and rated G, so I was expecting it to
be a childrens' movie.  It's not.  It's both very Woody Allen and very
Spielberg, with an excellent story and spectacular cinematography.

(Can you really call it "Cinematography" when it's an animated film?
I thought it was rated PG.)

My understanding is that the difference is sometimes difficult to discern in
this movie.

We borrowed a copy of "Titanic" on videotape and watched it on Saturday.  
It was still a good movie; a good story, but the special effects much, 
much less impressive on TV than on a big screen.  It was a lot more 
obvious to both of us that the graphics were computer generated -- the 
water looks flatter and more fake.  Some of the background images of the 
ship looked like the mountains in old Westerns, where there was just a 
painting of a mountain in the background.

Also, it was much more obvious on the 2nd showing that almost the entire 
last hour of the movie, when the stars are dashing from place to place 
around the ship, is just a demo of how impressive the ship was.  The 
story wouldn't suffer at all from that part being clipped.

It's still a great movie, in my opinion.  I'm glad I didn't buy the 
videotape, though.

Does anyone know if it's possible to get "The Poseidon Adventure" on 
videotape?  I've asked for it at our local Video Connection, and at 
another video store in Tecumseh, but neither had it.  I'd like to see it 
again.

        ***The Apostle***

We suffered through the whole thing waiting for the good parts, and finished
it convinced that the academy awards were a purely political nod to the right
wing, and perhaps even to the moderate forces who are tired of the industry's
glorification of sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, smoking, violence, car chases and
all the other good stuff.  If you're an evangelical sort, or an anthropolgist
studying evangelical movements, you might have a more interesting time with
this one.  as for me, even the human drama was buried under an unpleasant crud
pile of saccharin religiosity.  i give it a resounding "bleah"  (with
appropriate nods to charles schultz)

fdfd

Re #30: Hm, I came away from "The Apostle" with a very different
impression. Although I didn't think it was all that great a film,
it didn't seem to me that it was endorsing the evangelism and
religiousity that it depicted, and more than "The Godfather"
endorsed organized crime. The main character, played by Robert
Duvall, was a pretty un-virtuous guy..

Oh that was such a painful movie. It was awful. I don't mind movies 
about scum as long as they have good reasons for being scum, this was 
just bad. He was stupid and arrogant and preying on that woman who was 
being just as stupid in falling for him. Nasty nasty man. At any rate, 
it sparked a discussion about kissing with a hat on, and it was decided 
that it might be quite a talent to have, and that discussion in turn 
gave me a good idea for a library poster. So it wasn't a complete waste 
of a movie, but very very close.

re 27:
        Yes, I can call it cinematography even though it was animated.  With
most animated films I couldn't, but with this one, I can.

"Touch of Evil" - FOUR STARS

When Orson Welles' noir thriller about crime and corruption in a
US/Mexico border town was released in the 1950's, alterations
were made that were contrary to Welles' wishes as expressed in a
long memo that he wrote to the studio. Despite this, the film has
achieved classic status over the years.

Now, forty years later, "Touch of Evil" has been re-edited -- with
Universal Studios' cooperation -- to conform to what Welles wanted.
The incredible three-minute-long single-take tracking shot that opens
the film no longer has the credits and Henry Mancini's music super-
imposed on it. Key scenes that explain characters' motivations have
been added back in. Overall, the film seems more unified and
consistent.

It's not a perfect film. Welles and Charleton Heston are too limited
as actors to quite bring off the monumental clash of wills that I
think was intended. Welles' character is supposed to be tragic, but
as written and played he's a pretty one-dimensional villain. 

But things move along so fast that you hardly have time to notice
the flaws. For atmosphere and camera pyrotechnics, "Touch of Evil"
has few rivals. With its rapid editing and pacing, its gallery of
bizarre characters and situations, it's a continually engrossing
wild ride that shouldn't be missed. Highly recommended.

Re #33: Hm... I'm curious what the good reasons are for being scum.

  I really want to see Touch of Evil now that it's been restored.

i don't mean to imply that i thought the film endorsed the evangelical idea,
but merely that its portayal of it was overbearing in relation to the story...

A web reviewer (Salon, I think) recently referred to "What Dreams
May Come" as a "hideous explosion in the cosmic kitsch factory."
That's what the TV commercials for it make it look like, but I'd
still like to see it and make up my own mind.  If only Robin
Williams weren't in it . . .

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss