34 new of 165 responses total.
RE #131 Don't feel bad about "There's Something About Mary" being lame and boring -- I walked out of the theater in the middle of the movie.
Saw THE WEDDING SINGER (C) on cable last night. I recall some reviewers saying they liked Barrymore and Sandler but weren't crazy about the movie. I liked Barrymore (I suspect after seeing her in Ever After I'd like her in just about anything), and one of Sander's songs was a stitch, but that's all. What is particularly annoying is that it's Sandler, not Barrymore, who's now commanding $20 mil per movie because of The Wedding Singer's box office success. Grrr.
Re "There's Something About Mary," I enjoyed it. I also enjoyed "Beavis and Butthead Do America," so don't run out to rent "Mary" on my say-so. The movie's mass appeal was surprising. I think it had been out for something like nine weeks before it hit #1 last year. That hardly ever happens. It was the result of sheer word-of-mouth, enhanced by a belated advertising blitz after the distributors caught on to what was happening. We rented it when it hit the video stores and liked it even better. We even bought one of the Puffy-in-the-body-cast toys they were selling at Blockbuster. Poor Puffy now brightens a shelf in our kitchen. When we saw the video, we realized that an additional "something" about Mary for us now is her snazzy Durango.
I also thought "Mary" was kind of lame. A few scenes were funny, though.
Honestly, Mary was a very stupid movie. I can enjoy stupid movies, though. It doesn't reach the sublime wit that Kevin Smith movies do, but it's good for a few laughs. Sandler makes $20 million for a lot of reasons. Howard Stern actually had a good point about it. He thinks that Sandler might be the *only* person in Hollywood worth $20 million, because he can make an awful, awful movie like The Waterboy and people will still come see it. They always do. The Waterboy made the kind of money that usually makes studios think "sequel." I hope they don't, but you get the idea.
The new Premiere magazine reviews Ever After in its video section. It gets a "satisfying rental" rating. The reviewer adds that "it will be a staple at teenage girls' slumber parties well into the next century." Just when I thought I couldn't feel worse about my taste in movies. Speaking of which, we rented WHAT DREAMS MAY COME (C+). I kind of liked it, although I can see why it got such ghastly reviews. What I like about it is the way it looks. What I hate about it is the Peter Straub-like way things can "magically" change from one moment to the next. I have nothing against magic or change in movies, but it has to be to some purpose or effect. In this movie, all you're seeing is the boring fantasies of the writing team. "Hey, let's do this next!" "Cool!" Snore. The only thing that redeems it are the alpine vistas, the Italianate cityscapes, the Giverny flower beds, etc., which are quite eye-popping. I bet it was awesome at the Star.
I saw THE TRUMAN SHOW on PPV last night. I liked it, but it left me wondering what I would do if I were in that position. Carrey was unbelievably watchable as Truman; and I'm NOT a Jim Carrey fan because I always thought he was too silly and too manic. However, despite that Carrey did an excellent job, certainly an Oscar caliber performance. The Academy should be ashamed it snubbed him. I give it an A-.
I'm still ticked at the Academy for ignoring _Tombstone_, especially Val Kilmer's *incredible* performance. But that's what you get for releasing a movie in the same year as _Schindler's List_. Oh, well.
Re. STI: As a theater movie, I was dissapointed. But it would'ov made an very good two-hour episode. Re. SAM: I never made it to the theater. The promos were enough to keep me away. Just seemed too slap-stick for my taste. One movie I reccomend is Antz. And if you think this is some cute kids flick, forget it. It is cute, but definitely not for kids, IMO. Mo only disapointment was how short it was; Only 83 min., less than Toy Story.
Re #140: I second that. Antz is basically an animated Woody Allen movie. :)
I just saw The Truman Show today on video. It was a very interesting film. Peter Weir did a wonderful job adding dynamics to pull the audience (real and otherwise) into the movie. A nice added touch was to put entirely fictitious credits at the beginning. Carrey does an excellent job, and the fact that I forgot to expect him to revert to his normal overblown style reflects how encapturing it really was. To me, the best element of the movie is Weir's seamless translation of the fictional audience's inability to read what Truman is thinking despite seeing every second of his life on tv to the real audience, which experiences the same phenomenon. You see everything he does, but you can't be sure what he's actually doing.
The current Premiere magazine has an interesting table
on pages 86 & 87. Alex Lewin selected what he considers
the 100 most noteworthy films (the cover says "hottest
movies") of 1998, and read reviews of them by 15
well-known critics. He assigned a point score to each
review: 0 = a must to avoid; 1 = not recommended; 2 =
recommended; 3 = highly recommended; 4 = most highly
recommended. He added the point scores for each movie
and sorted by total score.
The critics' top 20 movies of 1998 using Lewin's method
are ("T" indicates a tie with the preceding movie):
1. Shakespeare in Love
2. Saving Private Ryan
3. Out of Sight
4. Happiness
5. Gods and Monsters
6. The Truman Show
7. Affliction
8. The General
T. A Simple Plan
10. A Bug's Life
T. Love and Death on Long Island
12. Bulworth
T. There's Something about Mary
14. Fireworks
T. Live Flesh
16. The Eel
T. The Thin Red Line
18. The Butcher Boy
T. Central Station
20. The Celebration
There is plenty of disagreement among the critics that
the averages can't show. The Truman Show, which
everyone else loved, got a 1 ("not recommended") from
Richard Schickel in Time magazine. Patch Adams, which
literally every other critic said to avoid, got a 2
from Leonard Maltin. There's Something about Mary was
the most controversial, with five 4s, five 3s, three 2s
and two 1s. The highest rated movie to get a 0 ("a
must to avoid") from a critic is The Butcher Boy, which
I've never heard of. The lowest rated movie to get a 4
("most highly recommended") from a critic is Very Bad
Things, which most critics said to avoid but which
Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman evidently loved.
If you want to know how a particular movie ranked with
the critics but you don't want to buy the magazine, ask
here and I'll look it up for you.
How did Pleasantville do?
Tied for 35th with Antz, below The Mask of Zorro and above High Art.
I saw three of those top 20. Antz and Pleasantville were two of my favorite movies last year.
Have been very pleased with the last couple of movies I've seen. The Truman Show, Pleasantville, Elizabeth, Rushmore, and Shakespeare in Love. Can't remember when I've had such a rash of movies I thought were well worth watching.
I've seen only 5 of the top 20. I just ain't the moviegoer I used to be. In the excellent-movies-ignored-by-the-academy category, I agree with the high ranking of "Out of Sight". How did "Henry Fool" do?
I don't even recall ever hearing about "Out of Sight" before the previous responses. What's it about? (That's *not* the one about the man whose eyesight was restored by surgery, right?)
Out of Sight was the one with George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. I think it was based on an Elmore Leonard book. Henry Fool ranked 64th. We rented it the other night, didn't like it much. I had the feeling I was watching an allegory of some kind, but allegory of what I couldn't say. Parker Posey was good, as always.
Right, "Out of Sight" was based on an Elmore Leonard and directed by Stephen Soderberg (sp?). The latter part of the movie is set in Detroit and captures the look & feel of locales such as the RenCen and bleak inner city residential areas quite well. A lot of people hated "Henry Fool", but it was one of my favorites of 1998. Maybe I'll try to explain why after seeing it another time.
Remmers: I enjoyed Henry Fool as well; perhaps my estimation is
coloured by my experience with previous films by Hal Hartley, however, as I
immensely enjoyed AMATEUR.
My brother and I saw Analyze This, in which Billy Crystal plays a psychiatrist who is treating a mob boss played by Robert DeNiro. It was hilarious.
I was at that viewing with my friend Dave, who's on spring break. We concur. It's a terrific movie.
Re resp:152 - I also had become a Hal Hartley fan by the time I saw "Henry Fool", although I didn't care that much for "Amateur". My favorite Hartleys are "The Unbelievable Truth" and "Trust".
Danny is still attempting to make a Hal Hartley fan out of me..we'll see how it goes. All his characters make me too uncomfortable for me to really enjoy any of the films..
FORCES OF NATURE (B+) - This movie won't be to everyone's taste, but I liked it a lot. If you want it to be a screwball comedy, as one reviewer did, you'll be very disappointed. There are a couple of discernible themes, one of which is the idea of Nature herself using all her formidable powers to throw the two main characters together and prevent the young man from marrying the wrong woman, the one he's trying to reach through fire, flood, hail, wind, you name it. Some of the effects are enchanting, to use an old-fashioned word. In the end, as fun as it was to imagine an all-powerful benevolent Force at work, you realize it was all just random coincidence -- beautiful, scary, sometimes hilarious, but with no "mind" or "purpose" driving it. The other theme is the theme of marriage, in particular the problem of finding just the right person, which also involves chance and luck. Take it, run with it, says the movie.
Is this a new release? On tape? I've not heard of it before.
Just opened. Sandra Bullock & Ben Affleck.
(The *real* reason md liked "Forces of Nature" is that he thinks Sandra Bullock is a babe... ;-) Actually, it sounds intriguing. I may try to catch it.
The critics are shredding it. Be warned.
re #160: Nothing wrong with that. I think she's a babe, too.
Why should Dame Judy Dench be given the Supporting actress oscar? Is it because the supporting actress oscar is itselfa very insignificant award? Remember last year also Kim Basinger got it god knows why ?
DOCTOR SLEEP "Doctor Sleep" is a good sequel to "The Shining". It may be the "2010: The Year We Make Contact" to The Shining's "2001: A Space Odyssey". It's a worthwhile movie in its own right, but doesn't come up to the legendary level of the original. It's not a typical horror movie, which is a point in its favor. There is one very disturbing scene which I won't spoil (contact me privately if you've seen the movie, or want to know how disturbing the scene is before deciding if you want to see it), and two or three jump scares. It is almost more of a superhero movie than a horror movie.
I don't remember the disturbing scene. I do remember thinking that Men Who Stare At Goats was bleeding through
You have several choices: