79 new of 146 responses total.
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: