132 new of 165 responses total.
Nah, "Thelma and Louise" wasn't a chick flick. It was a remake of either "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" or "Laurel and Hardy". Haven't quite figured out which, but I'm leaning toward the latter. There were several points at which I expected Susan Sarandon to say "That's another fine mess you've gotten us into" to Geena Davis.
[md narrows eyes and nods slowly]
I think that line is in the film. Really. Chick flicks are feel good films where women can associate with the characters. They are filled with females making poor choices and/or being victimized. The formula usually includes a great wardrobe and the woman eventually manipulating it so she gets to have or dump the man (her choice), lands the job, or dies like a saint. Woman love this stuff. My comment is that sometimes, in the process of becoming a saint and dumping the guy, cars get blown up. ;-)
Well, I now have a new phrase in my head.
Did anyone see Hit and Run on Lifetime? Ugh. formulaic all the way, and completely brain dead. Whoever made that dog should've been shot. But it was a good chick flick.
Rented "High Art". Excellent.
no no no no no titanic was a *good* movie. here's the key. the two main characters are to be avoided and most cost (without forgetting to glance at their costumes everyonce and a while). Now watch the *rest* of the movie and enjoy the fact that you get to see nice archetecture and pretty ships and good reproductions etc etc.
"A Bug's Life" came to the $2 Clinton Theater, so we went to see it last night. I thought it was kind of boring, really; I've heard it called (here or somewhere) "extremely funny" but I didn't think it was more than mildly funny. We watched "Grease" over the weekend. The most fun part is observing the 40-ish actors who are masquerading as high school students. John Travolta was in his late-20's, I believe, when the movie was made, and Olivia Newton-John was approaching 40. The other actors were as old or older, or so it seemed as I watched the movie. We both had a good time. David (age 7) watched, too, and was clearly bewildered by a lot -- which is all to the good.
saw "shakespeare in love" last night. two theatrical professionals sat laughing through almost the entire film. highly enjoyable. if you know shakespeare, there's a lot of well-written humor. if you know show business, there's a lot more.
the best bit was not realizing that Tom Stoppard had written it until the end..he is the only on who could have come up with the working title 'Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter'
dunno about the best bit, but both of us said "aha! that explains it." when we saw his name as writer.
I liked Thelma and Louise, it was a lot better than other "Men are Scum" genre movies like "First Wives Club" or "Try not to Breathe Rented an interesting feminist (though not "Men are Scum") movie last weekend. It was called "HIGH ART", and starred Ally Sheedy as a lesbian heroin addict photographer, who has an affair with a highly insecure but far less destructive younger female student. The movie shows Ally Sheedy as a user not just of heroin but of everything and everyone. Her photography is indeed 'High Art' but high art, due to the brilliance it requires comes at a high price. "High Art" is a really good movie and Sheedy is great, but I would only recommend it if you are comfortable with the points of view it takes-- particularly the implication that lesbianism is healthier than heterosexuality because men cant bond with females as closely as females can bond with females. I give "HIGH ART" 3.75 stars and I hope Sheedy gets a best actress nomination.
"In The Company of Men" a must see before trusting any of your coworkers:)
I love Ally Sheedy... can you give more of a summary of the plot and/or story line?
I saw the same film but didn't see any of what Richard got out of it. So don't go by what others have to say, just see it. Unless, of course, you have a problem with nakedness, lesbian sex, self-destructive behavior, and stuff like that.
Lest I mislead anyone, I did like the movie a whole lot.
Last night I rented "The Court Jester", starring Danny Kaye. Great movie, very funny. A couple of dropped plotlines, but overall very clever.
I like the old Danny Kaye movies..
I *love* old Danny Kaye movies. One of my first experiences of laughing so hard I could hardly breathe, at a movie, was at a Danny Kaye movie (called Merry Andrew, I think).
I just been listening to old Danny Kaye songs. The one about the hat designer is wicked.
Danny Kaye is probably more personally responsible than any other individual for the fact that our currency bears the phrase "in god we trust." fanatic...
A few weekends ago, TVO showed City Lights and Modern Times as the Saturday night double feature. I made Patrick (7) sit and watch City Lights with me. Wonderful film, 1931, B&W, silent. I read the cards Pat couldn't. He liked it enough to tell his mom all about it, and they rented it and watched it again. Vast wasteland, indeed!
Re resp:54 - Eric, could you elaborate on the Danny Kaye/currency connection? "In Dreams" C- I had hopes for this one. Talented director (Neil Jordan of "Mona Lisa" and "Crying Game"), good cast (Annette Benning, Robert Downey Jr). Jordan also wrote it; maybe that's part of the problem. Despite some atmospheric camera work and slick editing, the thing just didn't work. Never-believable premise, and in the end it was just another slasher movie. Skip it.
We saw A SIMPLE PLAN (B) over the weekend. I can't make up my mind about it. I thought it was extremely well acted, the atmosphere was perfect, cool plot twists. But there was something missing. I'd love to read anyone else's reactions to it here.
I saw A Civil Action. I do not understand why everyone thinks it's a great movie and an Oscar-worthy performance by John Travolta. I don't even understand why they made a movie about this case. Triple yawner.
"Simple Plan" is on my list of things to see. Don't believe it's opened locally yet. (re resp:57)
Another film recommendation-- RUSHMORE: this a very touching comedy about a love triangle between a teacher at a posh private high school, one of her students, and immature 50-year old millionaire philanthropist Bill Murray. The relationship between Murray, and the kid, who are basically emotionally about the same age even though one is 17 and the other is 50, is really touching. I really enjoyed it, and Murray is an Oscar contender this year b/c he's really really good in this. **** (four stars-- RUSHMORE) Go see it when it opens in your area.
Shakespeare In Love: A -- A very funny film. A lot of the humor is meant
to reach a wide audience. Much of the Shakespeare humor is premised upon
the plays you typically read in high school. I was surprised, though, by
how silent much of the audience was during some very funny jokes. In any
event, the movie was *very* well done, and is very much worth seeing.
re #58: I think "A Civil Action" was pretty good, but the only Oscar-worthy
performance I saw was by Robert Duvall. I am a bit lost as to why
they made the movie, as well -- it is based upon a true story
(adapted for the screen from a non-fiction book by the same name),
and it isn't very "Hollywood." (Save, that is, for the big name
stars.)
This response has been erased.
Michigan Theatre films upcoming, from the Observer: The Michigan is running a HISTORY OF CINEMA series on Mondays at 4:10 pm. February 1 is Jean Renoir's RULES OF THE GAME (1939), often a contender when critics make lists of the best films ever made. It's a personal favorite; I've seen it about half a dozen times, and I recommend it highly. The story revolves around the amorous affairs of a group of French aristocrats and their servants during a country vacation. Feb. 8 is THE BICYCLE THIEF, one of those famous films I've never seen. Later in the month (not part of the Monday series) is a minor Renoir film which I have never seen, THE SOUTHERNER, from his American period.
re #61 you obviously weren't in the theatre when i asw shakespeare in love.
Or me. Now that I think about it, when I saw it, our group of five was making a large majority of the noise in there. Odd how that works. I enjoy getting jokes that other people don't, though.
LITTLE VOICE (C+) - A good movie almost ruined by Brenda Blethyn (sp) who spends the entire movie swallowing chunks of scenery without even chewing them first. She made it almost unwatchable. You wanted to say, "The character is *developed.* I *get* it, already. You can *stop* now." Jane Horrocks is very touching as LV. Who'd've thought that Bubble would be the first character on AbFab to get famous? It's like Woody Harrelson and Cheers. Never would've picked him. Something better could've been done with Horrocks' mimicry skills. SHE'S ALL THAT (A-) - Another highscoolers-coming-of-age-in-California movie. Cross it off your list if you want something deep and "resonant." If you accept it on those terms, it's quite good. The theater was filled with younger people who laughed, cheered, applauded, and generally loved the movie to pieces.
In England, Jane Horrocks' star has been rising for a while now. She's been in a series of supermarket ads, with Prunella Scales (Cybill from "Fawlty Towers") as her mother. She also did a TV special highlighting a bunch of her characters and impressions, called "Little Shop of Horrocks".
I very much liked "Shakespeare in Love" I thought it was quite funny. Sometimes you had to listen carefully to get the joke, but all in all, a very excellent movie. Two thumbs up. Well written, the accents were okay (I didn't notice anything glaringly standing out as poorly spoken), the costumes lovely. The only picky point I have, was that there appeared to be a Catholic Mass scene... Which is just so wrong... It didn't fit in with what I know of the early Angelican religion... But I could be wrong.
Was there an effort in the early Anglican church to be different from the ROman Church?
Oh yeah... the early Anglicans thought (and still might think, I dunno) that there was too much pomp involved in the Catholic Mass, and preferred sparser surroundings.
"A SIMPLE PLAN"-- good new movie about two brothers and a friend who discover a lot of money out in the woods, decide to be greedy and keep it, and suffer the consequences. you think you've seen this movie before, you probably have--THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE" with Humphrey Bogart. Same premise. Story hasnt really changed. Best thing about the movie is Billy Bob Thornton, the dimwitted brother whose conscious turns out to be stronger than the other two. He is really good in this. I give "A SIMPLE PLAN" *** 1/2 (3.5 stars out of 4)
conscience?
PAYBACK (B) - It has its moments, but it suffers from Mel Gibson being cast as a noirish bad guy. You like Gibson so you cut him lots of slack, but basically it's just bad casting. The movie's theme, if it can be said to have one, is pain. Lots and lots of pain. Then more pain. There were a couple of scenes that had the audience cringing and going "Eeeeeuuuuwww!" If you're even a tiny bit squeamish, avoid this one.
I just saw A Civil Action. I'd been wanting to see it since I first saw a preview, since I read the book a year or two ago and really enjoyed it. I found the movie somewhat disapointing, not because it wasn't a good movie, but because the book was considerably better. I often found the book hard to put down, while the movie came off as very slow moving and predictable.
I really enjoyed "Simply Irrisistible" Perfect if you're looking for a light hearted romantic comedy. This is not a movie to take seriously, but it's fun, and good for a number of laughs.
... and it features a magic crab, which is rare for a film that didn't
take this year's Cannes best-director award. If you liked "Water for
Chocolate", you'll like this one. Just don't see it on an empty stomach.
No defnitely not... too much food in this movie to see when you're hungry... the magic crab is one of the best characters. <grins>
I very much enjoyed "Rushmore."
Anne, if you ever happen to find a magic crab, please buy me one.
They're terribly neat and beat Furbies all to hell.
John- alrighty. :)
It's Elizabethan Week for us. We saw SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE on Valentine's Day; we liked it, as most people seem to. We're going to be sure to catch ELIZABETH on its Thurs-Sat run at the Michigan Theatre. Then on Sunday (non-movie), it's Verdi's operatic setting of Shakespeare's OTHELLO at MSU.
I find it amusing that of the best picture nominees, two feature Queen Elizabeth and three feature WWII
I would like to see a movie that features both.
re #78: Even without Reagan being added? ;)
Rental recommendation..."DRUGSTORE COWBOY"..this is a terrific movie froma few years back starring Matt Dillon as the leader of a group of junkies, whose main goal in life is to stay high, any way they can. This movie provides a brutal, uncompromising look at the drug culture, and how it affects lives. It makes you really start to understand why some people get addicted to drugs and let drugs control your lives. As Matt Dillon's character, who narrates the movie, points out, most people go through life not knowing what is going to happen to them and how they are going to feel from one moment to the next. But a junkie who controls and maintains his addiction, has a pretty good idea of how they feel and how they will continue to feel. they dont do drugs out of joy or hate,they do drugs out of fear...fear of one moment being different than the next. William S. Burroughs, the famous author/heroin addict who wrote the ultimate novel about drug use, "NAKED LUNCH' even has a cameo, basically playing a character based on himself. Drugstore Cowboy is a great movie.
Bonus feature of "Drugstore Cowboy" -- you get to hear Desmond Dekker's classic tune "Israelites" about six or seven times.. :-)
I think somebody needs to retitle this item now that Siskel is no more
By way of explanation of that last comment, Gene Siskel died today, apparently due to complications arising from a growth on his brain.
Ok, so how about the Amateur Film Critic Item? Saw Good Will Hunting on cable. Very interesting story about a youth from the wrong side of the tracks coming to terms with adulthood and taking responsibility for his life. Robin Williams was stellar as the therapist who tackles Will Hunting's demons, and who sets him on the road to actually going somewhere. Ben Affleck was excellent as well. A solid 4 star flick.
The "In memory of Siskel" item or "The late" Siskel and Ebert item.
My roommate Paul and I have been regular watchers of Siskel & Ebert's show for many years. I was very sorry to hear about Gene Siskel.
I'd be tempted to leave the item header alone, as a memorial. Getting the names of dead people off of everything they were involved in as soon as they die has never really appealed to me.
Bummer. A cousin of mine is the producer of Siskel & Ebert.
Roger Ebert was on Today this morning. It was touching to see him talk as a person instead of a film critic.
I wish I'd seen that.
Hi, this is Pygmalion, named so on grex because of the belief in the original from Shaw and also because of the relationship with my computer. Anyway, recently i saw a movie 'Six days and seven Nights' . It was i should say medicre, with the level of humour not producing the effect that you usually get when a movie is made professionally. The story is more or less close to another movie "Miracles', but the latter one was hilarious and eminently enjoyable. Harrison Ford is capable of better performances than this one. So if u are about to see it , just have another thought.
I wasn't crazy about that one, either.
Leslie and I are just back from seeing "Star Trek: Insurrection" at the Fox Village. We enjoyed it tremendously; it is a very good piece of Star Trek. I think it fits well in the series universe, without any need for time travel (again) or blowing up the Enterprise (again). I'd say this is the best of the three Next Generation cast movies so far. Patrick Stewart's talent for stuffing little classical theatre bits into the story is wonderful. This time it's Gilbert & Sullivan.
I disagree. First Contact, in my estimation, was significantly better. Insurrection holds the distinction of being possibly the most impressive odd.
senna, did some text get lost in #99?
I was disappointed by Insurrection as well; but then I'm a fan of the
Deep Space Nine series much more than the Next Generation series, and
Insurrection was one huge moralising Roddenberyism in the Next Generation
motif. I found it difficult to empathise with the "good guys" when the "good
guys" were putting their cultural values over billions of lives and the
security of the Federation.
ANALYZE THIS (B-) Lots of fun. It went on too long, and it went from good-farcical to bad-farcical toward the end. Zero chemistry between Billy Crystal and Lisa Kudrow. There's one scene where Billy Kristal dreams that he's gunned down exactly the way Don Corleone is in THE GODFATHER (A+). As Crystal lies bleeding on the ground behind the car, Robert DeNiro stumbles over to him and starts weeping. Crystal, as a psychoanalyst who can't not ponder the meaning of such things, tells DeNiro about the dream. DeNiro, as Crystal's patient, ubermobster Paul Vitti, says, "So I'm Fredo? I don't think so." DeNiro of course played the young Don Corleone in GODFATHER II (A+). If you get that gag, you might enjoy this movie. Recent rentals: BUFFALO 66 (A-) - A strange depressing movie. Nice atmospheric location shots and a low-key but very touching performance by Christina Ricci. The movie seems to revel in its low budget. I felt as if I were being asked to participate in it more than usual, which I was happy to do. I have no idea what the double ending is supposed to mean. If anyone can explain it for me, please do. SNAKE EYES (C) - Lots of running frantically around to no particular purpose. Some suspense. Very nice production values, which usually impresses me when it shouldn't, I admit.
Pleasantville (B+) - The ending of this movie was a little bit too simplistic for me, but otherwise it was quite thought-provoking.
Jackie Chan fans, pick up _Who Am I?_. It's *his* film which means, by his own admission, that he came up with the stunts and built the movie around them, but this time he actually had a budget. Tons of fun. There is one series of stunts which made me think, "Nah! It has to be blue-screened or something." The out-takes proved me wrong; they really *are* on the roof of a building. Again, tons of fun.
I dunno, I thought Insurrection was a very pleasant ST episode. I don't expect any more than that from any Star Trek effort these days, so I was quite happy with it, for the most part, and I'm hoping that any further movies will have the same effect. Anxiously awaiting Mulan from the store, since I sent Rhiannon out to obtain a copy. I liked it a lot on the big screen, so I'm wondering how it will fare on the small.
Re resp:102 - "Snake Eyes" would work better on a big wide theater screen, I think. That's how I saw it. Director Brian DiPalma's camera pyrotechnics play better in a theater. That and Nicholas Cage's incredible screen presence made the movie enjoyable for me, even though the story was a bit weak. The incredible long take at the beginning rivals the one in Oroson Welles' "Touch of Evil" (and was no doubt inspired by it).
I saw Snake Eyes in the theater. I guess the camera work was pretty good. However, no amount of good camera work can make up for a plot like that.
I thought the plot of "Snake Eyes" was no worse than average for the suspense genre (a sad commentary in and of itself..) and that the movie was better than average for its genre, largely because of Cage.. I wouldn't recommend it unreservedly but it's worth watching..
I didn't think it was horrible. I just didn't get as much out of it as I do from most movies I watch.
"8mm" is a mediocre thriller. Not awful and not great. The script needed more work and it would have been better with somelike like Kevin Costner in the lead if they wanted to have the hero appear uncomfortably outside of his morality zone. Not a good film for first date entertainment. (C) "Affliction" is a powerful film and it's probably the best work Nolte has ever done. No happy endings here, no explanations, no apologies, just a stark view of a dysfunctional family. (A)
EVER AFTER (A) - The accents don't make much sense,
and there are some anachronistic usages ("Have you lost
your marbles?" "I could care less.") which are either
post-modern irony or just poor writing. Probably the
former, in view of Drew Barrymore's spunky American girl
role. (The action is set in 16th century France.)
Which is to say the writers were deliberately playing
with the genre. Not important, though. *Love*
that Drew. Anjelica Huston is a wonderful actress, but
even she seemed to have trouble preventing her affection
for Barrymore from shining through her character's
contempt for Barrymore's character. The words were mean,
but everything else about her radiated affection and
warmth toward Barrymore. Or did I just imagine that?
I'm pretty sure that was an intentional contrast; recall when Huston
told Barrymore how much she reminded her of her father?
Yes! Interesting movie.
It is at that. I enjoyed the modern perspective on a fairy tale, and
I wished they'd done it more in-context of a modern perspective, instead of
attempting to do it as a period piece. I'm looking forward to seeing "Cruel
Intentions", which seems to be a remake of "Les Liasons Dangereux".
Stanley Kubrick has died at his home in England. He was 70.
Gah... wanna see Ever After! <grins> I really like Drew Barrymore too. :)
Reading around, I see that Ever After got mixed reviews. One thing that seems to have rubbed a few people the wrong way is that the movie purports to show the "real" Cinderella story, without the fairy godmother, the magic pumpkin. the transformation at the stroke of midnight, or any of that. They want the fairy tale to remain a fairy tale. The problem with that complaint is that Ever After isn't a naturalistic or realistic retelling at all. I mean, the real fairy godmother turns out to be -- Leonardo da Vinci?
It would figure her best friend was gay. :)
I was a bit wrong-way-rubbed by Ever After in parts; it should've been
more honest about being a politically-correct modern-cliche stab at a fairy
tale, instead of the "real" Cinderella story. Aside from that it was well
directed, and the acting was fairly good. The story kept me interested
throughout all but the most drawn-out music-and-strong-emotion scenes.
I also learned many years ago that in the original Cinderella story, the slippers were made of fur, not glass. Someone mistook the similar French words.
Yep. "Vair" instead of "verre," or something. Grey squirrel fur, to be precise.
[Btw, that image has always brought to mind a pair of those fuzzy slippers in the shape of bunnies or tigers or lambs, only in this case made out of a pair of real squirrels.] Re the "politically correct" angle: Danielle's ideas were more republican (small "r") than PC. It borders on anarchist in a few places. She repeatedly takes the side of the servants and peasants. "They are the legs you stand on," she defiantly tells Prince Henry. What really is hard to believe is that such a woman could live happily ever after with any absolute monarch, even a lovestruck sap like Henry, who founds the Sorbonne out of love for his bibliophile sweetheart (his bibliofilly?).
[Probably not the Sorbonne, actually, which was founded 400 years or so before Leonardo da Vinci was born. Probably best not to look too closely at the names and dates of this movie.]
Re 119-120: Hmmm. I'm sure there are many versions of the Cinderella story,
but the one in Grimm's fairy tales ("Aschenputtel") was from Germany of the
early 1800s. I don't remember exactly what the slippers were made of, but it
was something hard, because the stepmother cuts one of the stepsisters' heel
off to make it fit. The Prince only realizes she's the wrong girl when he
sees all the blood pouring out of the shoe. (It was rather different from
the Disney version. :))
My favourite re-telling has the heel cut off the first girl, the toes cut off the second sister, and then the birds pluck out their eyes when Cinderella finally does snag her prince. Gory. But did you know there's a Cinderella- type story on Egyptian papyrus? I mean, there's this story told in ancient Egypt that parallels the ideas -- this young girl, brought up away from society, who is found by the pharaoh when birds carry off her shoe/sandal.
My sister collects Cinderella stories... My favorite one is CinderEdna Cinderella's next door neighbor, who married the 'Not-So-Hansome' Prince. They were more fun. <grins>
re #124: Falling in love with a girl based on a shoe or sandal seems to be a popular theme in some of the Arabic folk tales I've read, too..
Interesting
Another complaint I've heard about Ever After is that when the gypsies steal the "Mona Lisa" from Leonardo, it's a rolled-up canvas; but the real "Mona Lisa" is painted on wood. A more serious complaint, I guess, is that Leonardo himself is trivialized into a "kindly old curmudgeon" movie cliche'. How much does any of this matter?
i remember noticing the mona lisa fallacy.
Hey looking at the kind of movies that are coming now and making waves...like all the classics of Shakespeare will soon be filmed. And not just that, may be the works of the rest of all poets/playwrights of Elizabethian age will be filmed in the coming days. Well it may look nice for us viewers, but actually it speaks of a gradual loss of ideas in Hollywood and elsewhere.
I must be the only person alive who saw "Something About Mary" and found it lame and boring. Really lame and boring. (D-)
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: