"House of Sand and Fog" is an amazing film about three wounded people,
thrown together by circumstance, who enter a conflict unwilling to do
anything but prevail and, in doing so, atone for past mistakes.  Ben
Kingsley is superb and I expect he'll be up for an Oscar for this
performance. 

He deserves it.  But so does Bill Murray.  And Sean Penn.

306 responses total.

It's a bad month for science fiction movies.  We saw TIMELINE a 
few weeks ago.  Now, I like trashy dumb science fiction movies, and 
I *really* love time travel stories, so I had hopes for TIMELINE.
But Leslie and I agreed that it was the biggest mess we'd seen
in a movie theater in some time, mostly due to the sloppy writing.
TIMELINE does win a few points for some entertaining cast people and 
for the climactic medieval battle.
 
Friday my family saw PAYCHECK.  I kept looking at my watch.
Even the car chase couldn't pick up my interest.  Uma Thurman was 
enjoyable to watch; maybe I should go see her star turn in KILL BILL.
Eventually the noise of all the explosions and whatnot ground me 
down; it was a relief to leave the theater.

Saw Winged Migration on DVD. The pictures of birds in flight and other
behaviors were amazing, although we learned in the notes about the
filming that the close-ups were mostly of trained (imprinted) birds
taken to many different exotic locales and filmed from the ultralights
or boats they were following. We didn't learn what happened afterward
to these imprinted birds. On the other hand,  such imprinting to follow
ultralights is being used to build up the flocks of some endangered or
threatened bird species, although the breeding is usually done to avoid
imprinting to humans. No such precautions were taken with the birds in
WM - but then, they weren't playing with threatened or endangered species.

What is most noiceable is that the film is very choppy. Many different
species of mostly ducks and geese were shown, but with the exception of a
few mating and nesting behaviors, they were just birds in flight. There
was almost no complete life stories of any single species. I'd like to see
the opinion of birders on the film. 

LotR 3.  The effects completely took it over.  The mumakil were 
especially well rendered, as was Grond and its attendant trolls.  Worth 
seeing just for the Gondor battle scenes.  As for the acting, story, 
plot, etc., I realize LotR is sacred and everything, but why was I on 
the verge of giggling half the time?  Frodo's perpetually faux-anxious 
facial expression?  Gimli's embarrassing quips?  The way the story 
always seemed to join Aragorn exactly three days after he last shaved?  
The dowdy matron horribly miscast as Eowyn?  (Was anyone really able to 
suspend disbelief at her transformation from simpering love-puppy and 
snuggly maternal Hobbit-protector, to warrior princess roaring "DEATH!" 
at her enemies as she charges into battle?)  The grindingly tedious 
build-up to the Faramir's almost-immolation, all for nothing?  

  Don't forget Denethor's chewing, or scenery and other items..

  I thought the film showed astounding technical precision but the
  pacing just wasn't right.  It was simultaneously uncomfortably
  protracted and curiously terminated.  I give Jackson credit for
  getting through (almost) the whole story without floundering 
  badly but I do think he came close to losing it in the third act..

Shaolin Soccer

you have to see it. you think "oh no, they're gonna go there .. " and then
they go there and keep on going as far as possible. it's so incredibly bad
it comes around full circle to being really fucking good.

a classic.

The Battle for Middle Earth is over. The Battle to Win the Religious Debate
is about to begin....

again. /sigh.

I thoroughly enjoyed _Winged Migration_, but I view it more as an art
film than as a documentary.  Don't watch this if you're hoping to learn
a lot about birds, but watch it if you want to see some amazing
cinematography of birds in flight.

One of the unfortunate things about nature films in general is that, out
of necessity, there's always quite a bit of fakery going on.

Better conditioning thru fear!

I saw "Something's Gotta Give" on Christmas Day.  The stupidest movie
I've seen in a long time. Fie on all the reviewers who said it was
wonderful. Almost every scene was implausible. Also, all the articles
I read exclaimed that Diane Keaton looks amazing for her age (57).
She looked awful! They didn't even give her as much makeup as her
younger co-stars, and she had a very severe, strict wrinkled look.
Every 20 minutes or so, I had to whisper an apology to my friend, who
let me pick the movie.

Re #4, Denethor's scenery-chewing, you mean.  I got an iPod for 
Christmas and had just added a medley of tunes from "Girl Crazy" to it, 
and was listening to it on the way to the movie.  My wife thinks that 
maybe "I Got Rhythm," "Embraceable You," "I'm Bidin' My Time" and "But 
Not for Me" put me in a very inappropriate frame of mind for LotR.  Can 
that really happen?

We saw the new Peter Pan today.  A fantastic movie in every sense.  
Highly recommended for the whole family.  Impressionable younger kids 
might find the violence disturbing, and cynical teenagers might gag 
over the emo parts, but it's still an excellent movie.

Really?  I was just thinking today that I have the original Disney 
Peter Pan cartoon on videotape, and didn't think I'd be going to see 
the latest movie.  However, I'm always ready for movies to which I can 
go with my son.  We saw "Brother Bear" and the Looney Tunes movie, but 
skipped "Elf", "Santa Clause 2" and "The Cat in the Hat".  I thought I 
was going to have to pass on the Peter Pan movie, too.  I'm glad to 
hear someone thinks it's good, because on that recommendation, we'll 
go.

We got "The Lion King" for Christmas, which just came out on DVD.  
It's my 2nd favorite Disney movie, after "The Aristocats", and maybe 
it's #1.

However, the new DVD has an altered version of the movie, and the 
changes are no imrovement.  The scene where Simba is getting his 
pouncing lesson from his father, including the funny line where Mufasa 
tells Zazu to turn around (so Simba can pounce on him) is replaced by 
a new song, "Morning Report" with a matching scene.  It was cut from 
the original movie, justifiably so in my opinion.  There are a few 
other minor changes as well.

"The Lion King" is a really terrific Disney movie.  I think it's still 
the #1 selling Disney movie in theaters, and probably the #1 selling 
videotape as well.  (It came out in 1994 and might have been edged 
by "Finding Nemo"; I don't recall for sure.)  The DVD movie is still 
wonderful, but I think I might rather watch the original videotape.

  re #10, re #4:  yes, s/or/of/

  "Denethor's chewing of scenery and other things.."

IMDb is carrying some criticism of Peter Pan by its users about what 
they see as inappropriate sexual tension between Peter and Wendy.  The 
scenes in question struck me as the old-fashioned (circa 1950) type of 
movie love, where one kiss by a pretty girl can send your spirits (can 
send *you*, in Peter's case) soaring with happiness.  There was that, 
plus a little pop psychologizing about Peter's inability to feel deep 
emotions, and about the healing power of Wendy's willingness to show 
her affection for him.  

I don't want to give the whole thing away, but I should at least point 
out here that the actor who plays Peter is the only American in the 
cast, and he is very conspicuously so.  Okay, an American who refuses 
to grow up, and who bullies a bunch of innocent Brits into taking up 
arms and going on childish "adventures"?  Ahem.

The movie was executive produced by Mohamed Al-Fayed and dedicated to 
the memory of his son Dodi.  Personally, I think that's real blood up 
there on the screen.  Kids will see one thing, their parents might see 
another.  The best kind of kids' movie.

Haven't seen the new Pan.  But a certain amount of sexual tension
wouldn't be out of place.  In the book Tinkerbell is described as coming
home drunk from fairy orgies.  Tinkerbell also attempts to murder Wendy
to keep from losing Peter to her.  Peter himself not only cannot feel
deep emotions, he cannot remember things from day to day.  He's a fairly
dangerous playmate, as he'll lead you into a dangerous situation and
then forget you ever existed.  The movie "Hook" picked up on a couple of
these themes, to the general bafflement of people familiar with the
sanitized Mary Martin / Disney version of Peter Pan.

Re resp:12: I hear that song was included after it proved popular in the
live musical.  I hate it when movies are changed in between their
theatrical release and their video release.  Disney does this a lot,
usually for political correctness reasons.

Recent rentals include "I Take the Castle" and "Pirates of the Caribbean".
The were alike only in being movies that were basically a bit weak but
were largely redeemed by a few terrific performances each.  "I Take the
Castle" is an almost too sweet coming of age story, as the daughters of
a flat broke writer living in a broke down castle try to figure out
love.  The story is full of quirky eccentricity, but bascially the same
old multiply interlocking romantic triangles kind of plot.  Still, the
performances are mostly terrific, the characters are likable and love is
supposed to be the same old story generation after generation.

Pirates had big story problems.  It failed to get me interested in most
of the characters problems (why should I care if Jack Sparrow regains
command of the Black Pearl?  Why should I care if the curse is broken? 
Why should I want to watch immortals who cannot be hurt fighting each
other?).  It dragged out and got a bit repetitive.  Jack is caught again
and escapes again.  Another sword fight.  We go around and around a few
too many times.  And the happy ending is so contrived and unconvincing
that I figured aliens must have beamed a new brain into Captain
Norrington's head to cause him to change his mind about everything and
everybody.  However, though the story arc is a horrible mess, scene by
scene it works, with many fun characters, and inventive incidents and
terrific performances.  So it's worth seeing, but best approached with
low expectations.

Rented "Rabbit Proof Fence".  I liked this a lot.  It's set in Australia,
where, from 1905 to 1970, it was the policy of the government to remove
half-caste aborigine children from their families and raise them in government
schools where they could learn to be domestic servants.  It follows the true
story of three children who escape from the school and walk 1500 miles across
Australia to return home.  It's amazingly well done.  I strongly recommend
renting the DVD so you can see the little "making of" documentary that is on
the disk.  I'm not sure I didn't like the that even better than the movie -
it focuses on the challenge of casting the film - finding three aborigine
child actresses who can carry the entire film when no aborigine child
actresses exist proves a challenge.

janc is a SEX CRIMINAL!

Type:  HOMOSEXUAL

I saw The Last Samurai the day after Christmas.  It was very bloody, which
isn't really what I'm into.  The teenage boys I went with liked the blood a
lot.

It bothered me that we never really explained what the fighting was about.
Apparently it was because the Samurai were protecting their way of life,
much the same way the American Confederacy was.  I didn't see why we
couldn't find a comprmise and merge Samurai ideals with modern technology.

 Because then it wouldn't have been anywhere near historically accurate?

This response has been erased.

Well, it's not terribly historically accurate anyway, I gather.  But my
point is: yes there was a rebellion of Samurai in 1877, but it was a power
struggle between two sides who were looking out for their own interests.
It wasn't about morality, it was about power.

Why should I care?  Why should anyone care, 126 years later?  And in
particular, why should we be rooting for one side over the other?  In
other words, why make a movie about it?

I'd like to be rooting for the idea that reasonable people can work out
their differences without resorting to killing each other.

Todd slipped in - I was responding to twenex in #21.

This response has been erased.

Re: #23. So would I, but this is real life, not Star Trek.

This response has been erased.

There was a struggle between the Emperor adn the Samurai class.  The Samurai
had held the Emperor in awe for centuries, it also meant they held him as a
prisoner.  A ruler unable to rule without the consent if the Shogun, who was
the head samurai.

Finally the Emperor was able to thro off the protective yoke and take his
place as ruler.He forbade the samurai to do many of the things they had done
for centurieas,siezed their property, and created an army from peasants, who
had feared the samurai forever.  But it was his army, adn he coudl feel safe
from samurai cntrol.

This response has been erased.

I finally saw "WHALE RIDER"-- my five year old niece got it on DVD from
Santa this year and she loved it.  Santa has fine taste in movies :)  So
we watched it and I found it to be a wonderful movie, the story of a Maori
tribe in New Zealand struggling to reconcile its old ways with the modern
world. The story centers around an eleven year old grandaughter of the
Maori chief who believes deeply that it is her destiny, in spite of tribal
practices that forbid it, that it is her destiny to be the new chief.  A
very moving and uplifting movie.

The twelve year old girl the producers discovered to play the lead, Keisha
Castle-Hughes (remember that name) is just wonderful and is being pushed
to be the youngest person ever nominated for Best Actor or Actress.  I
hope she gets nominated, and "Whale Rider" deserves to be considered for
Best Picture.  The New Zealand scenery was just great too :)  

The Last Samuri C

I know better to believe all the hyperbole generated by the advertising
departments of studios, but I fell for the advertising campaign for this movie
and expected to see something really special.  It's nothing special.  It's
far from an awful movie, but the story line suffers on its own and knocking
it for historic inaccuracies might  mask a widespread conclusion that the
movie barely entertains. I write this with regret, for everybody seemed to
do their jobs.

Tom Cruise knocked himself out acting, but it just didn't seem to add up to
an academy award.  Hans Zimmer's score was serviceablee, but it had
nothing distinctive in it--although I'm glad for his not using variations
on Sakura or Kimigayo anyplace.  I concur with the above mentioned
complaints about the gore.  The sounds were out of balance and just plain
wrong for the crowd scenes.  I will not believe for a moment that the
audience thinks that it hears a mass of hundreds in the overamplified,
sampled and filtered howls of twenty.  The flashbacks and nightmares had
shrill noises that had me scrambling for my ear plugs.  Do see this movie
with hearing protection.

The lighting and photography were the best I've seen since Gladiator.  The
visual aspects of the film are a reason to go and reformatting to fit a
television screen would eliminate the opportunity to enjoy the New Zeeland
landscapes.

This response has been erased.

It was fun till they gouged Johnny Depp's eyes out, and he spent the 
rest of the movie with dark glasses and blood-like gooeyness flowing 
down his face. Yucky.

This response has been erased.

Agora 30 <-> Cinema 60

Mona Lisa Smile. (IF you haven't seen the movie, and plan to do so, 
skip this)

Watched Mona Lisa Smile last night. Chick flick, yes. Mushy and sappy, 
no. Starring Julia Roberts, Julia Stiles, Kirsten Dunst and a couple 
of other women that gave pretty good performances. Some men too, but 
they were more extras than anything else

Mona Lisa Smile is set in Wellesley College, a conservative women s 
university with the brightest female minds of the country. Here 
they re taught physics, pre-law, art history and a variety og highly 
intellectual subjects. And they re also taught elocution, poise, and 
how to be a good wife. The girls are expected to marry and raise 
families, never mind their own aspirations. Catherine Watson is the 
bohemian teacher from Oakland State, who comes here to make a 
difference, and teach these girls that there is more to life for a 
woman than marrying and raising a family. And that you can do both, if 
you have to.

The movie was interesting on many angles. The costumes were great. And 
the bright red lipstick seemed to be the norm of the day. Today, 
bright red seems to be sported mainly at parties and the like, very 
rarely in schools and businesses. But back in 1953, it seemed the most 
natural thing for women s lips to be blood red, never mind that it 
clashed with their clothes. Then you have the course where the girls 
are taught to be good wives, and mothers, for that is the  role they 
were born to fill . Divorce was frowned on, and all a woman had to do 
was appear to be happy. She s smiling, of course she s happy. (Hence 
the title   Mona Lisa Smile). 

While the movie s main thread was women s liberation and getting women 
to learn that they too can pursue careers, it did touch upon the fact 
that women s liberation is about equality, and the right to make the 
choice between home and work. And it s ok if she decides that a home 
and family are more important than law school. I m glad they touched 
upon that aspect of the whole issue, because too often it s overlooked 
when one considers what women s lib was all about. 

And what surprised me was that it was ok for a teacher to sleep with 
his student. While pre-marital sex, and promiscuity was frowned upon, 
it wasn t illegal for a teacher to sleep with his students. Though it 
was illegal in the State of Massachusetts for the school nurse to 
distribute condoms. Go figure. 

Watching the movie, I realize we ve come a long way in terms of 
women s emancipation. This really struck a note in the scene where 
Betty asks Joan if she has asked her beau if it s ok for her to go to 
Yale. I remember telling   not asking   my fianc  that I was applying 
to grad school and what my choices were. This movie explained why my 
mother was so concerned about what the fianc  had to say about my plns 
for further education.

The movie takes place in 1953-1954, exactly 50 years ago. It s 
heartening to see women come a long way in half a century. A lot of 
the sentiments displayed in the movie are still evident in present 
life in India, but I m hoping in another 50 years mothers won t have 
to worry whether their daughter s choice to go to grad school won t 
spoil her chances of a good match.

Technically, the movie could have been better. The transition from the 
student s derisive behavior toward their teacher to one of respect and 
admiration wasn t well defined. Joan s deciding to get married rather 
than go to law school (which was a good point to make) seemed 
incongruent with her character. And the last scene with Betty cycling 
along side the teacher s car with tears running down her cheek was so 
Bollywoodesque, it was almost laughable. Though not a great movie, 
this one is definitely worth watching, if only to learn how far 
womanhood has come in the last 50 years

That sounds like a female version of Dead Poets Society or Goodbye Mr.
Chips...*yawn*

I once organized an "acquaintance dance" between MIT (then all male) and
Wellesley (then all female) students. Generally, though, the Wellesley
students preferred Harvard men and the MIT students Radcliffe women. I
haven't seen the movie, though, to check on its versimilitude. 

IIRC, there are coming soon a Shrek 2 and Scooby 2.

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