120 new of 146 responses total.
(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 . . .
Williams is very subdued in "What Dreams...". The computer animation and special effects *are* the movie.
Dangerous Liasions was a good example of justified scummy-ness. He was a horrible person, and he did horrible things, but he did them so well, and with such grace, that you can't help but admire him for it. Basicaly it's the idea of admirable villains.
"Buffalo 66"-- catch this if you can while its still in theaters or rent it when its out on Video. This is a terrific little indie film starring and directed by Vincent Gallo, about a young man who comes back to his hometown of Buffalo, NY after having been in jail for gambling. He has not told his parents he's been in jail, instead lying and saying he was married and living in another town. So once out of jail, he kidnaps a girl (Christina Ricci) and gets her to pretend to be his wife, and they visit his neurotic, dysfunctional parents (his football obsessed mom is wonderfully played by Anjelica Huston) and other hometown friends. Everyone they encounter is portrayed as being warped, dysfunctional and living in their own private universes. Eventually Ricci, who has been pretending to be Gallo's wife, realizes she's really fallen for him, and Gallo has to consider whether he wants to live in *his* own private universe, or whether there is a place in it for someone else. The movie points out a decision we all make in our lives at some point on whether we should live through our fantasies and neuroses, or to live and accept life as it really is. The movie brilliantly portrays the extents to which so many people live in denial, refusing to accept life as it is and people as they are-- instead insisting on believing in fantasies and pre-conceived notions. And how, the difference between a loveless relationship (Gallo's parents) and a loving relationship (Gallo and Ricci) is in having complete acceptance in who the other person really is and not distorting reality or living in denial. "Buffalo 66" is one of the best movies I've seen this year. Very funny and higly recommended. **** (four stars)
*** By the Sword ***
F. Murray Abraham and Eric Roberts star in this 1991 dramatic sleeper.
Abraham is drifter Max Suba, who arrives at the fencing studio of Maestro
Villard (Roberts) in New York City looking to teach fencing.
The artistic sport of fencing plays a lead role in this well written, but
sometimes unsubtlely directed morality play. The opening sequence reminds
one of a cross between a low-budget martial arts film and a low-budget crime
drama, but don't be misled -- this *is* a low-budget film, but ultimately,
it doesn't matter. The unfolding of the story is as engaging and as
fascinating as the romantic artistry of fencing itself. The strangely
animated flashback/dream sequences, at first enigmatic and obscure, begin
later to reveal the hidden truth behind the present lives of the characters
of Suba and Villard.
Mia Sara plays a supporting role as a fast-learning new student who arrives
on the scene presumably only moments prior to Suba's arrival at the beginning
of the film.
Admittedly biased, having been a collegiate varsity fencer, I have to say I
really enjoyed this film, not only for the way the story was told, but for
the most realistic sport fencing sequences I have ever seen on film. Even
if you're not and never have been a fencer, the story still has a rich
romantic appeal, and the telling of it grows better and better from the
slovenly beginnings at the opening credits.
intreguing..I should fence again..not enough time.. oh, does anyone know where I might be able to find out some information about 'The Governess'? I've already seen it, but I want some historical information and I couldn't find any on the web and I was wondering if people had some other bright ideas as to how to find out things like design work etc..
AMERICAN HISTORY X-- Powerful drama about a man's learning how *not* to hate. Edward Norton, in a great performance (IMO he's one of the best young actors in the business) as a teenager who becomes a nazi skinhead after blacks kill his policeman father. Hate and racism consume his life, to the point where he gets a nazi swastika tattooed on his chest, and alienates everyone who doesnt share his hate. He ends up shooting to death two blacks trying to steal his car and goes to jail. In jail, he learns he hasnt been hating blacks, but himself, and actually befriends a black man, causing his former skinhead jail buddies to beat him up. He is guided and helped by his old high school principal (Avery Brooks of Deep Space Nine in a terrific performance) Once out of jail, he is a changed man, and sets out to save his little brother, who has become a skinhead himself and joined the same nazi gang. He has to teach his little brother what he has finally learned, how wrong it is to hate. This is a powerful and disturbing movie, with brilliant cinematography, shifting between black and white flashbacks of Norton's skinhead past and color in the present when he has gotten out of jail. Well worth seeing. **** (four stars)
Tonight I finally got around to seeing (on video) "Paulie," a very sweet movie about a talking parrot. A children's movie with a good bit of appeal to adults, and a "name" cast including Gena Rowlands, Tony Shaloub and Cheech Marin. Sentimental idiot that I am, I sniffled through the whole thing. I'd wanted to see this ever since I saw the child actress in it appear on Jay Leno's show, and since I read Janet Maslin's rave review. ----- Leslie is looking to find a movie which was released in the mid-1990s. It's about three eccentric English women, possibly set in Italy, and all the lead roles are played by grand dames of the British stage. Does this ring any bells?
That sounds like "Enchanted April".
We went to see Pleasantville last night. This was the first movie in a long, long time that I didn't feel bad about paying $7.50 for. (Well, I felt bad when I paid it, but not after I'd seen the movie.) It's a story about the choices we make personally and as a society. Would we rather have things be pleasant all the time, or have soaring highs and deep lows? Would we rather live in a small world where we understand everything, or a big one which is scary but much more varied? Is there a way life "should" be, which consequently makes it easier to know what to do, or is it up to everyone to make what they can out of their lives - making life harder but boundless. People who are nostalgic for the 1950s often talk about how life was "simpler" then. I am such a person sometimes (even though I was born in 1967) when I am frustrated about not knowing what to do with my life, or how to interact with people, or how to judge if what I've done is a success. Sometimes I wish that the world were small and the rules clearly defined, so that I wouldn't have to make so many choices. But I subscribe to the notion that you can't really be alive in such a world. In other words, no one is a whole person who depends on everyone else to make all the rules and judge all the accomplishments. The essence of what makes us "intelligent life", and other animals less so, is that we can confront new situations, solve new problems, and find our way in the world unguided by evolutionarily built-in instincts. The very reason we are able to do the things we do is that humanity didn't get locked into a pattern of behavior and an evolutionary niche that would eventually dissappear. Societally built-in patterns and instincts, while making it a lot easier to live, are no less deadly than evolutionary ones, in the end. If we allow ourselves to think that there is one way that things "should be", we are condemning ourselves to stagnation and, eventually, extinction. The movie has a wonderful way of showing people coming alive. I give it an A+.
Nice analysis. I liked "Pleasantville" a lot.
"apt pupil" is yet another example of someone screwing up a stephen king story when attempting to translate it to film. don't bother seeing this movie. the plot has been mostly removed, much of the rest of the movie including the ending has been disneyed, and several of the performances are lame. otoh, the story "apt pupil," which is in stephen king's anthology _different seasons_, may well be the best thing king has ever written. i'm no big stephen king fan, but that story is one of the best i've ever read, as well as being one of the most disturbing.
_The Wizard of Oz_, on a screen bigger than will fit in your living room,
see it. (And try to cope with a narrow-frame movie and credits that end
before the theater vacates. {Including the extra restoration credits.})
I don't think I want to see the new Wizard. I saw it years ago at the Michigan, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. For one thing, this movie is made for the big screen, not TV, so even seeing the old version in a theatre is yards better than on TV. I think the sequences where the WWW is flying on the broomstick doing the pollution thing is neat when you're watching it from a balcony, and the sequence where the trio meets the Wizard for the first time is really scary when the sound is loud and it's 30 feet tall and in your face. You sort of lose than on TV. Hey Hollywood- If it aint broke, don't fix it.
WWW= Wicked Witch of the West.
Re resp:51 and resp:52 - the new version of _Wizard of Oz_ is a restoration with a remastered digital stereo soundtrack. That could be good or bad, depending on whether they tried to be faithful to the original sound & just reproduce it better (good), or whether they added snazzy directional effects that weren't in the mono original (bad). The color restoration is, according to Siskel & Ebert, magnificent. However, there are two kinds of prints circulating: Eastman Color and 3-strip Technicolor. The latter is the way color movies used to be done and, although it is more expensive, the results are stunning. People who haven't seen 3-strip Technicolor in a theater (a process abandoned in the 1950's for cost reasons, but now making a limited comeback) don't know what they've been missing. I'd be interested in seeing _Wizard_ in the Technicolor version. The local ads don't mention Technicolor though, so I suspect they're showing an Eastman Color print.
I'm a revisionist, and I hate spoiling things from the past. Why can't this generation just accept the work of the hollywood that was, instead of retooling it into something evil? There are some wonderful old movies that have been ruined by colorizaion. The Maltese Falcon is the first one I can think of, and Mutiny on the Bounty is second. Heretics all! I wonder what Lenny Maltin said about this new Wizard. He usually is the voice of reason. Siskel and Ebert like most everthing, and that is the reason I don't put much stock in the thumbs up/thumbs down thing.
Restoring or improving a movie's media condition isn't spoiling the original intent, and is sometimes an outright necessity, the recent restoration of "My Fair Lady" (as seen on AMC) a case in point. (And I'm not referring to colorization as one of those media improvements! :-) Re: King books into movies: 2 of the 4 "seasons" episodes were made into pretty good flicks, the first, "The Body", doing well as "Stand By Me", and the 2nd "The Shawshank Redemption". I'm sorry to hear that "Apt Pupil" suffered in the translation. I'd still probably pay $2 to see it, bad reviews notwithstanding, if for no other reason than to personally ridicule it for deviating from the book! :-)
*** Balto *** When this first came out, I was sorta interested, but not enough to spend money to go see it. Not too long ago, it was shown in the Cartoon Network, so I gave it a look-see. I enjoyed it emensely. While this is an "animal" flick, I think the story is pure drama. Thyis is no wussy Disney film (I think Spielberg was Exec. Producer). There's big names doing the voices, including Kevin Bacon and Phil Collings, et al. The music was composed/ conducted by James Horner, my second-fav movie score composers (John Williams is my first). The animation was alright; not the best I've seen, but there \was some nice bacground scenes. Basically, the story is about a half dog/wolf named Balto and his search for his place in the world, and to fulfil a dream: To become a sleddog in Alaska's big sled race (I know the name, but can't spell it<g>). Unfortunately, Balto is shuned by both humans and the other dogs. The only ones who will accept his are Boris, a goose and his best friend; Two polar bears (whose names escape me); And Jenna, a female dog and love interest. The antagonist of the story is Steele, a champion sleddog whose more interested in his own fame--and Jenna (in that order)--than anything else. What I liked about this movie was none of these characters were two- dimensional. You get to learn about them to some degree: Boris, a goose who for reasons unknown doesn't want to re-join his fellow geese; The polar bears, who love to squabble, and don't know how to swim, thus becoming out- casts from the other bears (they also refer to Boris as "Uncle"); Jenna, who is completely devoted to her little-girl master; And Steele, who'll do anything to retain his "top-dog" status. If you like "feel-good" movies, this one's a must see.
resp:47 :: Leslie thinks that "Enchanted April" is indeed the title she was looking for. Thanks! She got to thinking about it because Joan Plowright has a role in the presumably-doomed sitcom ENCORE, ENCORE. (Plowright plays the mother of retired opera singer Nathan Lane.)
re #57: didn't see it but I thought that Balto was adapted from the story of the origins of the Iditarod. "Velvet Goldmine" -- C+. Different and potentially interesting subject matter spoiled by muddled treatment and big problems with the narrative. Relates the story of a glam-rock superstar told in "Citizen Kane"-like flashbacks. (Many reviewers seem to assume that the character is supposed to be David Bowie but those familiar with the music of that period will recognize that the character is a composite of several performers.) Outrageous costumes and good music fail to redeem a poor script but fans of the era's music will probably enjoy the show.
I too saw Wizard of Oz on one of previous appearaces at the
Michigan. However, I was in the Ann Arbor News reviewers seat (it said
so on the plaque), about 9 rows back. It would be good to see it again
at a theature.
Exceptional that two movies from that era have re-shown on our
screens this year. The other being Gone With The Wind. Also amazing
that in just less than ten years after 'the talkies' where introduced,
movies making had advanced to what it was to Wizard and Wind caliber.
Re #55: Siskel & Ebert certainly do *not* like most everything. And they have been very critical of Ted Turner's colorization campaign. When he restored GWTW, they applauded him for finally getting the right idea: colorizing movies that were in color to begin with. Film deteriorates, Jim. Why do you think restoring it is evil?
The reissue of the Star Wars trilogy illustrates both sides of the coin. On one hand, they revamped the special effects, particularly in the first movie, and added some scenes. This changes how the movie was originally released. (George insists that there was a reason for this, since technology is only now able to tell the story how he envisioned it, and there's reasont to believe him.) On the other hand, a lot of the unchanged stuff got restored. I shouldn't have to be the first one to tell you that the picture quality of recent trilogy showings has been degrading. The original negatives are over 20 years old, and they were restored for a reason. They were showing their age. I suspect the Wizard of Oz restoration is along a similar vein, restoring the picture to its original quality.
I'm not opposed to restoring negatives, in fact, I'm all for it. I just wish they would leave the film as it was shot. Of course, excluding Touch of Evil, which I understand was not shot the way Welles had intended. I'm glad that someone finally shot it according to his notes.
As I understand it, the effort in _Wizard of Oz_ was to restore the film as closely as possible to its *original* look. For example, the scenes in Kansas were originally sepia-toned instead of straight black-and- white. The new release restores the sepia.
I'm still grumping at Spielberg for his revised version of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS.
Never saw that. What was wrong with it?
re 65,66: Pinochio becomes a real boy.
Gripes with CLOSE ENCOUNTERS: SPECIAL EDITION -- Spielberg cut the long sequence where Richard Dreyfus wakes up one morning and starts collecting the material for his living-room sized model of Devil's Mountain. That was a sequence which got an *ovation* in the movie theatre opening weekend. Speilberg also decided that he had to add some extra footage showing the interior of the Mother Ship; in the original film, the camera never went inside that ship. What's commonly shown on TV now is a blend of both versions.
Dreyfus' building of the Devil's Tower model was one of the highlights of "Close Encounters" for me, so I'd miss it too.
"Six String Samurai" (1998) Really cool film. The setup (told in Star Wars scroll): "In 1957 the Russians dropped the bomb and took over America. The only free place left was Lost Vegas. 40 years later, King Elvis has died." FRom there is the story of a "samurai" and his quest to get to Lost Vegas to try and become the new King. (A samurai in this future has to be both a good swordsman and also play a mean guitar). Our hero, a Buddy Holly type, fights various Mad Max style desert characters while protecting a tagalong kid. Very funny, very cool. Plays again next Friday and Saturday at the Michigan, midnite.
The Stand
Based on the book, and the teleplay was written by Stephen King, this
was an 8 (count 'em) 8 hour miniseries which told the story of a post
superflu world and it's struggle between good and evil.
Unlike most other Stephen King productions, this one was suprisingly
good. Gary Sinise, Rob Lowe, and Molly Ringwald were oustanding, as were Ray
Walston and Miguel Ferrer. Steve wrote himself a nice little part, since
he was the producer as well, and he acts just about as good as he writes.
All in all, it was very interesting, and the last hour is perhaps the
most gripping I've seen in a while. 3 stars.
_The Stand_ reminded me of a 1971 movie called _Omega Man_.
I recently very much enjoyed both Pleasantville and Meet Joe Black. The AA News gave Meet Joe Black only 1 star. Must be the male reviewer has a sour grapes problem.
BTW, the _Ann Arbor News_ also gives a "turkey" rating to the worst of the worst films playing in town.
Newsweek trashed "Meet Joe Black". They recommended "Death takes a Holiday" with Frederic March. At least it's a better way to spend $7.
Never saw th original. But I considered my $7 well spent. Have you seen the remake, omni?
The Stand was possibly my favorite Stephen King book, out of the 7 or 8 or so that I've read. There wasn't much chance I was going to watch an 8 hour miniseries on TV, even had I known about it, but I kind of wish I could have.
Nope.
Re. _The Stand_: I watched/recorded it when it originally aired on network TV (ABC, I think) a couple years ago. For anyone who's seen both, were there any alterations/additions/deletions this time 'round? I saw a scene in a commercial that I didn't recognize.
(Then how do you know whether your $7 would be better-spent on the original?)
I saw "Belly" recently. DMX, Method Man, T-Boz, etc, etc. :) It rocked, if you're into the whole "thuggish-ruggish-let's-sell-drugs-and-shoot-people-and-screw-everyone-over" kinda movie. ;) For real, it offered an interesting insight...
Not that I judge books (or films) by thier cover, but I know that Freddy March never made a bad movie, same goes for Edgar G. Robinson and Gary Cooper. Brad Pitt, on the other hand, remains open for discussion. Leonard Maltin, who is my guide in these matters, tells me that "Death takes a Holiday" is 3 1/2 stars. Newsweek said that "Meet Joe Black" was a dog. I tend to share that opinion. (No, I have not heard Maltin on the subject).
Jim is very devoted to Newsweek. He reads every issue cover to cover, sometimes twice.
Seems you should ask Leonard fro his opinion, then.
Mary, your making me sound like an idiot, which I am not. I subscribe and I do read it very carefully. As for believing everything that's printed in it, I don't think so.
Re. 82: I never listen to critics. If a flick looks interesting, I'll give it a view. What qualifications do these guys have to tell us what to see/not see? They're not actors, directors, producers, etc. There's no training to be a critic, no guidelines...nuttin'.
Chris Potter, the lead critic for the Ann Arbor News, judging from his reviews, hates everything. He is even more critical of theatre productions than movies.
What Potter likes: Brynn O'Malley Kathy Marrero Kandy Harris Bronwen Rae (do we sense a pattern?) skin on stage implied homosexual undertones What Potter does not like: sudden very loud noises blatant sexual content (of any affiliation) wearing a belt or underwear (Thus, Erik does not like sitting near Potter in an audience, in case he drops his pen. And he ALWAYS drops his pen. I'm so serious about this one. When he leans down to retrieve his apparently irreplaceable Bic, the acoustics of the room change.)
I read Newsweek. Not every article, but I do stick my nose in it every week for a decent amount of time.
Me too.
Re resp:88 - I don't know who those people you listed are, so I can't sense a pattern.
I really liked "Meet Joe Black".
potter likes female actors, more if they appear scantily clad. that's the pattern above...
Yep. In his review of "A Little Night Music", he did everything short of salivating over Brynn O'Malley; praising her talents (yes, she's good) and lusting after her. Problem was, she was 16 at the time. So theoretically, you could laugh it off, saying, well, she was dressed and made up to look a few years older, so it really could be classified as an honest mistake. Except he kept harping on the fact that she was 16. And then drooled more. Several people's gut reaction to Potter for many months afterwards: "EEEYEW!!"
Recent rentals: CAN'T HARDLY WAIT (C+) - A story about two young couples learning to be in love. Since it's also a highschool graduation comedy, the love affairs are between pairs of cliches: the prom queen who admits to herself, almost too late, that her football hero boyfriend is a moron who gets off on mooning the cashier at Burger King and giving the freshmen wedgies, and the quiet young writer-to-be who has idolized her for four years and whom she's never so much as noticed; and the painfully virginal boy who wants more than anything else to be cool and who vows to get himself laid at the party, and who ends up falling in love (and, yes, having sex) with a childhood friend, a dumpy little girl he abandoned freshman year because she was in all the smart classes and had no money. The former couple are kept apart until the very end of the movie, while the latter couple spend the entire movie locked in a bathroom together. Nice symmetry. Many subplots and incidental characters, and some memorable scenes descended from National Lampoon's Animal House. Jennifer Love Hewitt as the prom queen girl didn't seem half as desirable to me as the supposedly "dumpy" little bluestocking, who was in reality a cupcake. Hewitt has all these facial expressions she makes, rather like the visual counterparts of the way girls that age talk nowadays. Highly annoying, but I guess she has her fans. DIRTY WORK (C) - Either you love Norm MacDonald or you hate him. I happen to think his comedic bits are funny. This movie made me laugh out loud in a few places. The comdeic bits have to be strung on a plot of some kind, naturally, and this is where the movie fails badly.
"There's Something About Mary" (B-) A comedy about a man who's been mooning over a lost high-school sweetheart and the troubles that ensue when he decides to find her. Enough jokes actually worked to make up for the majority that failed to move me but not enough for me to really be thrilled. B- is probably on the generous side, I'm giving it a bit of extra credit because the rest of the audience apparently thought it was hilarious. I enjoyed the contrived and contorted plot and liked the couple of incidents in which the main character's life would spiral nightmarishly out of control but didn't much like the physical humor, nor am I big on comedies that rely on embarrassment and humiliation for laughs. Showing at Ann Arbor's 2nd run theater, worth $1.50.. "Enemy of the State" (B+) Enjoyable paranoia thriller about a Washington D.C.-area lawyer whose life suddenly careens completely out of control when the wrong people decide that he's got the MacGuffin they want. He of course has no idea what's happening. Directed by Tony Scott, so you can count on plenty of explosions and helicopter chases, but the plot is better than average for a modern suspense movie (but then I've got a pretty low opinion of your average suspense movie..) Will Smith and Gene Hackman are unexceptional in their roles but things move quickly enough that you don't have time to dwell on the movie's deficiencies.
( For a much better Ben Stiller see _The Zero Effect" Bill Pullman is very good in this also. )
I'd second that -- I liked "Zero Effect" much better than "Something About Mary" but fans of the latter should be warned that "Zero Effect" is not very much like it, though it is funny in an offbeat way..
I third the recommendation of "Zero Effect".
I like Zero Effect, too, but I thought Stiller and Pullman were both miscast. I don't know if it's been noticed or remarked on that the "something" about Mary in There's Something About Mary is that she is an incredibly good person who looks like Cameron Diaz. I mean, a really, really nice young woman, whose niceness positively radiates like a beacon from a lighthouse. Her goodness elevates all the men smitten with her -- ie, literally all the men in the movie -- at least a notch or two. It's a sweetly Capraesque kind of movie, as if a Capra had made a movie when he was in his teenage gross-out phase. It's the people-are-basically-good message that makes the movie so popular, not merely the gross-out stuff.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. The Mary character is certainly idealized -- almost without flaw in fact. But the way I saw it, infatuation with Mary drove the men around her to elaborate deceptions, betrayals, and foolish behavior -- they'll do anything or say anything to get her (hire detectives to watch her, spy on her day and night, insinuate themselves into her life under false pretenses, take any chance to back-stab their competitors, etc..) This is what it means to be "elevated a notch or two"?
Re resp:100 - I've read the suggestion that Stiller and Pullman should have switched parts in "Zero Effect", with Stiller playing the detective and Pullman his assistant. But I think the casting was exactly right just as it was.
I am from India and unfortunately hollywood movies come after a few months to the theatres. I recently saw X-files the movie and thoroughly enjoyed the flick. The chemistry between Scully and Moulder have been depicted well and transition from small screen tothe big screen is done superbly. I am sure we will see more of the X-files on the big screen
Honey bees _?_ corn.
What I still want to know is, how the heck did they get out of the artic alive? everything was destroyed when the ship accended, and nobody knew they were out there. As a two-hour episode, I'd say it was great. As a movie, I can only say it was pretty good.
A BUG'S LIFE (B) -- The animation is pretty cool, the story is pretty lame. Kevin Spacey shines as the evil grasshopper. Julia-Louis Dreyfus's ant-princess sounds too much like Elaine Benes. A fun movie. ENEMY OF THE STATE (A) -- A totally preposterous, ridiculously contrived, riveting nail-biter of a movie. I will never understand how Hollywood can make such terrific entertainment out of such weak material. (Sudden dismaying thought: maybe they count on weak minds like mine?) THE RUGRATS MOVIE (A) -- Like many parents, I am a Rugrats fan. I caught it from my kids. The adorable malapropisms are when make the TV series so much fun: during a game of pirates, someone exclaims, "Shiver me fingers!" Much of the feature film takes place in a gloomy forest, which gives it a curiously mythic feel. Anyway, childish, simple, sentimental, but very enjoyable if you like Rugrats. Recent rentals: A PRICE ABOVE RUBIES (B-) -- This has to be for Hassidic Jews what THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST (B-) was for fundamentalist Christians. A young Hassidic woman (Renee Zellweger, whose stylized pouty mouth moves are starting to get on my nerves) is sexually aroused way more often than is healthy in a culture where they do it, when they do it at all, with the lights off and their clothes on. She gets turned on when she nurses her baby, and she even starts to come on to a female friend at one point. When she confesses her "problem" to the Rebbe, *he* gets so turned on that he drags his wife, the Rebbetzin, into bed and dies of a heart attack. At his funeral, the Rebbetzin, played by Kim Hunter, walks up to Renee Zellweger and whispers "Thank you!" in her ear. Unbelievable. And there's flashbacks of Renee's little brother Yossi, who died in a swimming accident when they were kids. Supposed to mean, you gotta go swimming even if you drown. So she breaks away, gets funky with blacks and hispanics, is kicked out of the community, and loses everything but gains her freedom. This movie evidently takes place in a world where women don't masturbate. FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS (F) -- Unwatchable. Put me to sleep three times. THE BIG ONE (B+) -- Michael Moore's latest. It got so-so reviews, but I enjoyed it a lot.
Waterboy (B) - Funny yes, but not Adam Sandler's best. Did Disney have a part in the making of this movie? I could almost swear that the ending is incredibly similar to "The Mighty Ducks," or "The Big Green," If I were choosing, I would say wait until it comes to Fox, or on Video.
Due to the fact that my tape deck is nonfunctional and travelling strains radio signals, I was forced into listening to Howard Stern for 20 minutes yesterday. He said that Adam Sandler is the only actor who should be able to make 20 million dollars per film, because he can make absolutely horrible movies and people will see them. I think he has a point.
I enjoyed "A Bug's Life" a lot.
Wow! With such an insightful review as that, how couldn I _not_ go see it. 8-)
I really liked _There's Something About Mary_ It was absolutely hilarious. The plot was good and the gags were funnier than I expected. I give it an (A) personally. _Enemy Of the State_ was very good. Awesome effects...a real nail-biter. I also recently saw _John Carpenter's Vampires_ I really liked it as a whole. There was a lot that could be done differently but all in all it was entertaining.
I really enjoyed "Enemy of the State". Scary stuff because you know it's possible for the most part. I also applaud the clever ending and the interesting characters. Kudos to the screenwriter.
I liked "Enemy of the State" too. Formula, but with enough cleverness and energy to make you forget that. Will Smith in the lead part was an inspired bit of casting -- a stodgier producer & director might have given it to somebody like Harrison Ford. The big climax reminded me of the one in director Tony Scott's earlier film, "True Romance".
Hmm. I was disappointed in Enemy of the State. I found it hard to follow and too contrived.
It was contrived as all-get-out. But then, I expected it to be.
THE LAST EMPEROR (Director's cut)-- This is the complete version of the great movie of several years back that won the Academy Award-- Bernardo Bertolucci's masterpiece about the amazing life of Pu Yi, China's last Emperor. The version released several years ago was chopped up in the cutting room to get down ot 2 hrs. 20 mins. Bertolucci's complete version, the film he would have liked to release, is more than an hour longer (3 hrs. 40 mins) The extra time allows for fuller character development and a much more extensive view of chinese life. This is a beautiful movie, and great to see it the way it was intended to be seen (Director's Cut of Last Emperor-- ***** (five stars))
(Last Emperor was an exquisite look at the loss of power and privilige)
hello i'm new user my name is francoul i'm french my e-mai francoulworldnet.fr
Me and a friend went to see Star Trek: Insurrection on opening night (yeah, I'm a little late getting this in). This movie, again, features the cast of STNG, including Worf (though no explination is given to his presence). As a whole, I'd say that STI would'ov made an excellent MFTV movie, but as a theater movie, I felt it wanting. One thing I did like about this Trek story was the inclusion of, what I like to call, everyday life scene; Something that's been missing in Trek stories. If your an ST fan, I think it's worth spending seven bucks...once. Otherwise, wait 'til it comes 'round to the dollar theaters.
Matinee was $4.25....
Explanation of why Worf is there is given, briefly, early in the film.
I'm going to the matinee this very day...
...and Star Trek: Insurrection is... Not bad! OK, it will likely be a long time, if ever, before we get something like Wrath of Khan again. This was a TNG film, so it wasn't quite as bombastic as a TOS film. Rather, lots of interplay between well-known characters. If you recall on TOS (The Original Show) where Dr. McCoy and Spock were sort of bickering friends, TNG (The Next Generation) characters *all* have some kind of relationship with each other full of little in-jokes from the series. This movie plays on that a lot. What else? F. Murray Abraham wasn't much of a villian, the obligatory plot holes, yada yada yada. If you liked TNG (even if you *hated* the last season or two, like I did) you'll probably like this movie. Catch it at matinee or second run for cheaper tickets and therefore more enjoyment. Oh, and one other (unrelated) observation: I hadn't been to Showcase in a couple years, so this was my first time with the new lobby and more theatres. Wow, reminded me of walking thru Detroit Metro Airport, with all the twisty little passages leading back to the last theatre in the building. I would have waited for this movie to get to Fox Village for the $1.50 price, but decided I wanted to see it *now*.
(Huh huh hhhhhuh. You said "toss".)
Re. 121: Care to share? Re. 123: IMO, STWOK was the second worst ST film made. Talk about "holes."
Wrath of Khan is still by far the best, IMO. I enjoyed Insurrection. They tried to do a good episode this time, rather than a grandiose "save the universe" kind of thing, like the last two, and I appreciated that. I would've liked more exploration/exploitation of the characters, but that has always been TNG's weak point; while the characters in TOS were all essentially flawed, in one way or the other, the TNG characters were much more blase. They all seemed to be just along for the ride this time, though; really, the script could just as easily have made up some new characters and not been a Star Trek movie at all.
Greg? Are you okay? Wrath of Khan is almost universally worshipped as the best Star Trek movie that was ever put together. I fail to see where you're coming from in your particular criticism. Oh well. (And if its the second worse, that means you rank either five or one better than it, both of which are horrendously bad movies with plots like swiss cheese). This movie was a nice, light-hearted break. Not a world beater, and F. Murray Abraham wasn't the worst guy ever invented, but he got the job done. Mark is partially correct about the last two being serious, but Generations wasn't a "save the universe" movie. It was a "save unlisted planet with 200 million people" movie. More people, but it was still relatively minor on the Star Trek scale of things. Not that that is bad. The characters in TNG have much more backstory behind them than TOS. TOS had three seasons to develop its characters and the only ones that got significant work were the main three. The others were essentially one dimensional matte paintings until they got work in the movies. Insurrection plays off the 7 seasons and 2 movies worth of characterization the characters have, and it does it with contrast. I agree, though, that the script could have been a different movie entirely.
(I guess I shouldn't call Generations a "save the universe" film, but what I meant was that it was grandiose, and bit off more than it could chew.)
Didn't mean to denegrate Greg's opinion that much... I just think he's dreadfully wrong :)
HE GOT GAME (A) -- A great performance by Denzel Washington, a so-so story line but wonderful basketball vignettes and weirdly appropriate music by Aaron Copland (Appalachian Spring, Billy the Kid, music from the movies Our Town, The Red Pony, The Heiress, etc., and a chilling couple of scenes using Copland's Orchestral Variations, which is his orchestration of his famous Piano Variations). A good solid performance by Jim Brown, of all people.
Re 127: >Wrath of Khan is almost universally worshipped as the best Star Trek >movie that was ever put together "Universally?" And what statistical source came up with that conclusion? >I fail to see where you're coming from in your particular criticism. I've been around Trek since it's inception in '66. Over the years, I've become something of a Trek purist, and I balk at those things that try to upset the established universe. A couple examples from WOK: 1) Several references are made to something called "energizer" or "main energizer." You get the impression that this, whatever it is, runs the whole ship. This greatly departs from what's been laid down in previous movies, series, books, etc., and from third movie on, no further mention is made of it, implying that it was an error in "treknology." 2) Knan remembers Chekov. Excuse me, but Chekov came aboard /after/ the events of "Space Seed." Oh, and just for good measure, leet's not forget the amazing, moving blood stain. There are plenty other such things, if your interested. >if its the second worse, that means you rank either five or one better >than it, Five was definitely the worst. No surprise that Shatner was never asked to direct again. As for STTMP, no, it wasn't the best, but I think it was one of most technically acurate. And'ya gotta admit, seeing that grand cruise outside the new Enterprise was worth the cost of admission. There was a beautiful ship.
Oh dear. Peeing matches over finer points of Star Trekkery. This just can't get pretty.
In the immortal words of William Shatner: "Get a life!"
Anyway, The Voyage Home was the best Star Trek movie.
Chechov could have been in the crew for Space Seed, just not a bridge crew character yet.
Is it just me or is "Aliens" one of the top 5 best movies ever? The characters were fun (it sucked when some of them died.. actually missed the chaps), the creature effects were awesome, and the story wasn't too shabby for a horror flick. Too bad Alien 3 happened.
One of the top 5 I don't know, but it's a great ride. The way Sigourney Weaver spits out the word "bitch" at the end is perfect. "Get away from her, you *bitch*." She isn't afraid anymore; she's had it up to here with the f*cking monster, and is really, really, pissed off. The monster is the greatest monster ever filmed, by far. "Aliens" is a James Cameron film, which means his only agenda is to put fannies in seats. In another item ages ago, before I knew who James Cameron was, I said the difference between the directors of the (at the time) three Alien movies was: the director of Alien^3 wants you to think he's cool; the director of Aliens wants you to see his movie three times at the theater, and tell all your friends how terrific it is, and buy the video when it comes out; and the director of Alien wants you to eat shit and die. In retrospect, pretty good likenesses of David Fincher, James Cameron, and Ridley Scott, respectively.
SPeaking of Ridley Sccott, was the new Alien flick any good? I think he directed it, at least. Looked like it was pretty terrible.. The first two were fathomable because it just so happened (1) that her crew were the first to meet the Alien and survive and (2) that she was called to goto the planet with a marine squad because she knew more than anyone else about the Aliens. But the third one it made it out like it was her destiny and blah and the fourth one kinda confirms that it's her destiny to fight the alien... which is stupid. I heard the CG aliens looked really crappy too. I was kinda excited at first because CG aliens, if done right, could be really scary. But i hear they sucked, so whaeva.
Good summary of the contrasting styles, Michael.
Re resp:138 - By the "new Alien flick" I assume you mean the fourth one, "Alien Resurrection", which came out in mid-1998. I agree that it wasn't so great. The director was not Ridley Scott, but rather Jean-Pierre Jeunet. He did "City of Lost Children", a fantasy film that I liked quite a bit. So I had hopes for Alien #4 but was disappointed.
Is that the one with all the crude language? Everthing was full of "s..t" or "f.....g"? Like, this will be de-rigure astronaut language of the future?
((There was a lot written in the SF conference this past fall about the Alien movie series.))
Re resp:141 - "Alien 3" was the one with all the crude language.
Re #141:
Crude language is common among the sailors; why not the spacers as well?
No that you mention it - when space commerce becomes as common as merchant ships now. In fact, after I wrote #141, I thought of truckers.....
i head of a movie calle that one no enough. as pathetic as the title may sound , the movie totally sucked to the core. it is a complete disgrace ot the people who heard of how much moeny was put into the movie and how the hollywood wannabes cut movies and movies and movies about the same old story line.
You have several choices: