Grex Cinema Conference

Item 27: Grex Goes To the Movies!!

Entered by richard on Sun Mar 21 20:35:51 1999:

185 new of 292 responses total.


#108 of 292 by iggy on Wed Apr 21 17:40:41 1999:

i would highly recomend a russian film, called
'repentance'. (well, translated as)
a corrupt official dies in a village, and a woman with a grudge
keeps digging up the corpse and leaving it all over town.
it is an old movie.. you may not find it.
it is superb.


#109 of 292 by md on Thu Apr 22 14:53:17 1999:

Recent rentals:

ONE FINE DAY (B) -- A decent romantic comedy, if you like
that sort of thing.  One little shock that made it more interesting
for us was that a few scenes were shot in and directly outside
of an Upper East Side dessert shop called Serendipity that
we took the kids to a couple of weeks ago.  Aaron ordered
something called "Sundae, Bloody Sundae," which was dripping
grotesquely with raspberry sauce and had a spring-loaded
fake knife stabbed into it.  Didn't see anyone being served one
in the movie, though

BRIDE OF CHUCKY (C+) -- Can't decide if I should recommend 
this one or not.  It was kind of fun, but it was too cheesy for words.  
It has Jennifer Tilly, who adds a kind of cheerful nastiness.

36 HOURS TO DIE (B-) -- One of those ordinary-Joe-gets-
revenge-on-the-mob movies.  Not bad, not great.


#110 of 292 by maeve on Thu Apr 22 15:11:31 1999:

Plunkett and Macleane:  Frabjously good film(in a kind of dialogue-out-
of-the-20th-century, last minute rescues and general we're-having-too-
much-fun-to-bother-with-accuracy sort of way). Music by the person who 
did the score to Romeo+Juliet, and while not *quite* as amazing, it was 
very amusing to see them dancing an almost-minuet to something 
ressembling period music with a heavy beat. It may not be out in the 
states tho, but if it is, see it.


#111 of 292 by katie on Sat Apr 24 04:27:00 1999:

I just saw "Cookie's Fortune" and loved it!


#112 of 292 by mary on Sat Apr 24 11:19:04 1999:

Yeah, well, you and every other critic on the planet have it wrong.


#113 of 292 by richard on Sun Apr 25 22:05:40 1999:

"ELECTION"--  This is a funny satire on elections in this country.  
Matthew Broderick is a popular teacher/advisor to the student council at
this high school, who is having a mid-life crisis.  Reese Witherspoon
(from Pleasantville) is one of those have-to-be-perfect and do everything
types, who is running for student council president.  She's also
promiscuous and had an affair with one of the other teachers, causing that
teacher to be fired.  Broderick is paranoid and convinced he'll end up
having an affair with her too if she is elected president, and ruin his
marriage.  He convinces this airhead jock to run against her.  The jock's
sister is a lesbian, and when her girlfriend dumps her for him and starts 
running his campaign, she enters the race too on an "abolish the student
council and tell everyone to fuck off" campaign.  

So this movie is about a riotous student council campaign pitting miss
perfect against the airhead mr. popular jock against the radical lesbian.
Not too different from a presidential election.  And poor Broderick,
wallowing in self-pity over his midlife crisis and faltering marriage, is
the referee.

I wont give away anymore.  This is a really funny satire, somewhat like
"Rushmore" if you saw that, that has a lot to say.  It is a commentary on
the state of politics and relationships in our country.

Good movie.  I give Election 3 1/2 stars ***1/2.  


#114 of 292 by katie on Tue Apr 27 01:47:22 1999:

I liked Cookie's Fortune so much I saw it again last night, with leeron.


#115 of 292 by scg on Tue Apr 27 04:12:28 1999:

I saw and liked Cookie's Fortune as well.


#116 of 292 by gregb on Tue Apr 27 23:27:16 1999:

Not exactly an in-depth review.  Why was it good?  What's it about?  
Who's in it?  Are there renegade ninja Teletubbies? 8-)


#117 of 292 by scg on Wed Apr 28 03:00:15 1999:

It's directed by Robert Altman, and the stars (working for some fraction of
their usual rates, since it was a low budget film that they wanted to do,
according to some article I read) included Liv Tyler, Glenn Close, Lyle
Lovett, and a bunch of other people.  It's a rather bizarre movie about an
old woman who kills herself to be with her husband in Heaven, an extremely
snobbish relative who makes the suicide look like a murder because, "nobody
in this family commits suicide," and the subsequent murder investigation. 
Nope, no renegade ninga teletubbies.

It's showing at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor.  None of the multiplexes
around here seem to be showing it.


#118 of 292 by remmers on Wed Apr 28 13:47:59 1999:

Others in the cast of "Cookie's Fortune" include Patricia Neal
(wonderful as Cookie, the old lady who kills herself), Charles Dutton,
and Julianne Moore. Unlike Mary, I basically liked it, although I'll
admit the humor was a bit labored at times.


#119 of 292 by mary on Fri Apr 30 12:13:02 1999:

Highly recommended is "A Simple Plan".  It's a amazingly well crafted film
that reminded me some of Hitchcock, although instead of giving the
audience slightly more information than the characters here we get a
better view and a saner perspective.  The acting is awesome.  Each scene
counts and nothing, not even the opening scene, is tossed-off.  *****. 

Don't let folks tell you much about the plot first if you intend to
see it.  But do know it is intense, serious, violent, and most
certainly for a mature audience.


#120 of 292 by md on Sat May 1 23:02:33 1999:

I liked A Simple Plan, too.

LOST AND FOUND (C) -- This movie is being criticized
because David Spade's schtick is funny supposedly in
small doses but not at feature length.  That sounds
like one of those lines everyone has made up and 
ready before they even see the movie.  Almost any
comedy schtick, including David Spade's, can sustain
the yucks for 90 minutes.  The problem with this movie
is that Spade doesn't try to do that.  Instead, he
interjects all this material about owning an Italian 
restaurant and needing a loan to finish the new wing 
and his pretty Frenchgirl neighbor needs a shot of 
confidence so she can play her cello at Hollywood 
Bowl yada yada yada.  Audience to David: Stick to 
the schtick, please.


#121 of 292 by md on Sun May 2 12:42:12 1999:

Here's a spot quiz for you.  Who are these 
people, and what do they all have in common?

Emma Bunton
Freddie Prinze Jr.
Reese Witherspoon
Keri Russell
Melissa Joan Hart
Carrie Henn 
Soleil Moon Frye
Alicia Silverstone


#122 of 292 by remmers on Sun May 2 13:07:21 1999:

Hmm... Young actors who are offsping of well-known actors? (Just a
guess.)


#123 of 292 by md on Sun May 2 17:35:23 1999:

Nope.


#124 of 292 by jazz on Sun May 2 17:56:02 1999:

        Big foreheads?


#125 of 292 by aruba on Sun May 2 18:49:31 1999:

They're all blond(e)s?


#126 of 292 by scg on Sun May 2 19:04:27 1999:

There all actresses (or actors?  I don't know who Freddie Prince is).


#127 of 292 by drewmike on Sun May 2 19:22:55 1999:

Emma Bunton: Baby Spice. Broke her ankle when she fell off her platform shoes.

Freddie Prinze Jr.: Officially has the World's Weakest Detectable Connection
to Tony Orlando. (Replaces Telma Hopkins.)

Reese Witherspoon: Given name Laura Jean Reese Witherspoon. One of the pivotal
plot points in "Cruel Intentions" was whether the character played by Ryan
Phillipe would be able to bed her; she eliminated much of this drama by
revealing that she is engaged to him. And expecting.

Keri Russell: "Felicity". Cover of "Yahoo", May 1999, wearing a toe ring.

Melissa Joan Hart: "Sabrina the Putatively Still Teenage Witch". Admitted to
"Details" that while playing "Clarissa", she was so afraid of losing her
virginity that she wore leotards rather than traditional undergarments, to
serve as a form of chastity belt.

Carrie Henn: Played "Newt" in "Aliens". Likely received much name-based
taunting as a child.

Soleil Moon Frye: "Punky Brewster". Sister of another child actor with an even
goofier name, Meeno Peluce. Became the poster child for breast reduction.
Recently appeared on "Friends" as Joey's too-physical girlfriend.

Alicia Silverstone: Nickname "Leesy". Poster child for "Toxic Boyfriend
Syndrome": By having dated Adam Sandler, many guys who might want to go out
with her would reconsider. (See also: Carmen Electra.)


Commonality: All born in 1976.


#128 of 292 by md on Sun May 2 22:09:16 1999:

Wow.  We're not worthy, Muhammad.

The odd man out, is Carrie Henn, who seems to
have vanished.  Aliens was her one and only
movie.  We know what all the others look like
as 22- or 23-year-olds, but not her.

I bow to your superior starlet erudition,
Muhammad.


#129 of 292 by drewmike on Sun May 2 22:54:35 1999:

Among many others born in 1976...
 
Joey Lawrence: Nothin' his love can't fix for you, baby... with the possible
exception of his career.
 
Giovanni Ribisi: Under the name "Vonni" Ribisi, played one of the neighborhood
kids on "My Two Dads". Now Giovanni is to film and television what lecithin
is to packaged food... he just keeps showing up everywhere.
 
Danny Pintauro: Played Judith Light's son on "Who's the Boss". Later came out
of the closet, neglecting that his left his career in there.
 
Brice Beckham: Played Wesley on "Mr. Belvedere". Assumed to be heterosexual,
though he's had even fewer acting jobs than his former ABC neighbor, Mr.
Pintauro.
 
Candace Bure (nee Cameron): Starred on Full House with the Olsen Twins. When
they got too old to be cute, another pair of twin infants was added to the
show. Shortly after its cancellation, she had a daughter of her own.
Allegations of a talcum powder addiction remain just that: allegations.
 
Liberty Butterfly Phoenix: Because every acting family dynasty needs its own
Stephen Baldwin.
 
Fred Savage: On "The Wonder Years", aged only slightly more gracefully than
Jerry Mathers as the Beaver. Currently in hiatus from "Working"--the show
hasn't aired since January, and with four episodes still unaired, NBC appears
not to want to risk losing even more money beyond their 16-episode commitment.
 
Will Friedle: On "Boy Meets World", with Fred's younger brother Ben. Thanks
to the advent of HBO 2 and HBO 3 he now has even more opportunities to regret
having made "Trojan War".
 
Jeremy Miller: Appeared with Mrs. Bure's brother Kirk on "Growing Pains".
Clearly casting directors remember the calibre of Mr. Miller's craft: He's
worked twice in the '90s.

Chris Demetral: Born in Royal Oak, Chris played Jeremy Tupper on "Dream On".
Now shooting "The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne", in the title role. No
word whether his father in this show will also date a long series of women
who doff their tops.
 
Jaleel White: No comment.
 
David Arquette's quieter, less spastic friend.


#130 of 292 by drewmike on Sun May 2 22:57:15 1999:

Last line should have been in reference to Lukas Haas.
Got munged somehow.


#131 of 292 by omni on Mon May 3 07:17:31 1999:

  How does one get addicted to talcum powder?


#132 of 292 by drewmike on Mon May 3 07:45:45 1999:

From ALWAYS being around babies, as the former Ms. Cameron has been.


#133 of 292 by mooncat on Mon May 3 13:22:38 1999:

Erik's my hero. <grins>



#134 of 292 by krj on Mon May 3 16:05:52 1999:

resp:128 on Carrie Henn, who as a child appeared as "Newt" in ALIENS:
Not too long ago ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY did a feature on youngsters who 
had appeared in science fiction films & where are they now.  
I don't remember all the details, but Carrie Henn had left the movie 
business and has gone on to have a normal life somewhere.


#135 of 292 by drewmike on Mon May 3 17:31:33 1999:

I'm slipping: Out of all of them, I was kindest to Baby Spice. But only
because she was first, and I hadn't gotten bitchy yet. I request a do-over...
 
Emma Bunton: Baby Spice. On a British music show, fell off a platform shoe
and broke her ankle. The culprit clearly had one more moving part than Ms.
Bunton could handle.


#136 of 292 by mcnally on Fri May 7 06:00:43 1999:

  Telling myself that if I didn't get out to see it tonight I was going
  to miss seeing it in a theater, I spent the evening watching "A Simple
  Plan" at Ann Arbor's 2nd-run theater..

  [semi-spoilers follow..]

  I'm not sure quite what to make of it..  On the one hand, it had several
  things going for it:

    +  it was very well made -- almost certainly the best that director
       Sam Raimi has ever done.
    +  the plot was nowhere near as predictable as an average suspense movie
       and I hadn't had it spoiled before seeing the movie.
    +  it featured better-than-average acting from principle leads

  However, more than offsetting these things, as far as I was concerned,
  was the cringe factor.  Call me shallow if you must, but when I go to
  a movie for entertainment I like ones where I can identify with one or more
  of the characters.  It's particularly distressing for me, then, when the
  character (or characters) I've connected with starts doing painfully stupid,
  even horrible things.  Maybe it's great filmmaking to be able to twist the
  viewer's empathy around and turn it against him, but it doesn't really make
  for a fun evening..  

  I know plenty of folks who've liked the film, and I can see why they might
  have done so, but I found it difficult and unpleasant.  For me it was like
  watching a car wreck in slow motion -- I wanted to reach out and stop it,
  to change what was going to happen.. 

  Lastly, it may be one of the strengths of the film that it doesn't
  resort to a pat, "Hollywood" ending, but at least when you're privy to
  a main character's similar descent in, say, a Russian novel, you know
  that in the end there's going to be some sort of transcendant redemptive
  moment where the "hero" will be healed by his suffering.  Unfortunately
  viewers can't expect that sort of consolation here -- there's no magic
  ending to lighten the gloom from the rest of the film.  I admire the
  fact that the writers didn't choose to cop out with a happy ending,
  but I left the theater a little too depressed for my money...



#137 of 292 by mary on Fri May 7 10:55:13 1999:

I'm still thinking about this movie.  I wasn't looking to be
entertained, which makes a big difference.  This was the best
film I've seen in a very long time.


#138 of 292 by md on Fri May 7 11:03:40 1999:

I thought it was terrific, too.  I also had some
vague reservations about it.  It did seem lacking
something to me, although I don't know if it was
anything as simple as an epiphany or a happy ending.
I have to watch it again.  Is it out on tape yet?


#139 of 292 by mooncat on Fri May 7 12:38:29 1999:

Saw "Matrix" for the third time last night... It still drew me in, and
I still think it's a great movie... I'd even go again to see it...



#140 of 292 by jiffer on Fri May 7 13:37:22 1999:

Saw Matrix for the second time.  Due to the drooling during this movie, 
I have decided to not make my opera cape, and I will instead, make the 
full length jacket.  (Not vinyl or leather, but wool)  There are approx. 
three versions of that jacket.  Morpheaus, Neo, and Trinity wear them, 
one inleather, one in vinyl, and one of wool.



#141 of 292 by mooncat on Fri May 7 15:07:42 1999:

<nods> And I want the Morpheus version.... but I'll never get it. <le sigh>



#142 of 292 by jiffer on Fri May 7 16:56:07 1999:

I would have to get a new sewing machine, and learn how to work with leather.
Please I can handle though.


#143 of 292 by richard on Fri May 7 21:50:13 1999:

if you liked "a simple plan", you'd love the "treasure of the sierra
madre" with Humphrey Bogart.  this is basically a modern era-set remake
of that movie.


#144 of 292 by happyboy on Fri May 7 22:03:18 1999:

we don kneed no steenkeen badges


#145 of 292 by richard on Fri May 7 22:12:00 1999:

video recommendation.  I rented the DVD version of "The Apostle".
Wonderful movie with Robert DuVall as a charismatic southern minister
whose deep faith conflicts sharply with his inner demons.  Duvall has an
amazing screen presence and is totally possessed by the character he is
playing.  He also wrote, directed and produced this film, and paid for it
out of his own pocket when no studio would pick it up.

The movie is about a minister who goes over the edge and assaults a man he
believes to be having an affair with his wife.  He hits the road, shedding
his old identity and re-baptizing himself the Apostle E.F. and eventually
tries for redemption by reviving a small church in the Lousiana
backwaters.

On the DVD version, you can watch the movie with an alternate soundtrack
of DuVall doing commentary, talking about the actors, characters, and
various scenes and what they meant to him; and talking about why he shot
certain scenes in certain ways.  There's also a "making of the Apostle"
documentary, and the DVD doubles as an audio cd of the soundtrack so you
can turn the tv off and just listen to the music from the film.
 
I give "The Apostle" four stars.  great film!



#146 of 292 by jiffer on Fri May 7 23:32:40 1999:

Editor's note: please = pleather.... tired and need sleep... (help me)


#147 of 292 by ivynymph on Sat May 8 04:40:52 1999:

<ivynymph laughs out loud>
It's interesting to read a recommendation of "The Apostle", which I would be
almost willing to bill as the worst thing I've ever watched.  

I did, however, view "What Dreams May Come" this evening.  It's a new release,
according to my video store shelves, but I don't recall ever having heard of
it.  It's a shame I never did though, for it contains the artistic, visual
brilliance I adore with touches of comedy, fantasy, and romance...  I'd
particularly recommend it for fans of that older film with superman and Jane
Seymour.  I can't recall the name right now, but it's something to do w/
time...  Places in Time?  <shrug>  gems...  



#148 of 292 by remmers on Sat May 8 11:55:09 1999:

"Somewhere in Time" was the Christopher Reeve/Jane Seymour movie.
Photographed on Mackinac Island.


#149 of 292 by md on Sat May 8 13:45:41 1999:

Swoony music by Sergei Rachmaninov: the 18th variation
from his Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, the 1934
composition date of which becomes a plot element.


#150 of 292 by senna on Sat May 8 17:06:51 1999:

You mean that horrible, horrible movie they showed at TOP two years ago? 
 


#151 of 292 by aaron on Sun May 9 03:36:20 1999:

re #130: Did it bother you that Billy Bob Thornton is yet again typecast
         in the role of a mentally deficient character? Sling Blade, A
         Simple Plan, Primary Colors... (Okay, it was cheap, and now I owe
         James Carville an apology.)

         I have to admit that I, also, found some of the characters'
         choices to be painfully stupid, and I was not impressed by the
         conclusion of the film, which is rife with plot holes. It didn't
         bother me that the ending wasn't happy, but it did bother me that
         the ending was silly.


#152 of 292 by anderyn on Sun May 9 03:40:52 1999:

I rather liked the Mummy which we saw last night. Not a terribly original
plot, and the characters were archetypes rather than finely-drawn individuals,
but for what it is -- action adventure and plenty of it -- it's one fine
movie. Very enjoyable. Probably the "Zorro" of this summer. (For the record,
I like movies that have good guys/bad guys and pulp adventures.)


#153 of 292 by md on Sun May 9 14:35:37 1999:

THE MATRIX (B) - The special effects are the best
I have ever seen, and I've seen 'em all.  The 
concept was a little too dorm-roomy for my taste.
(Remember those earnest conversations in your
sophomore year: "What if I'm just a brain in a
vat, man?  And all this is, like, being fed into
my mind by a mad scientist or something?")  I loved
the actress who played Trinity.  How many faces can
survive such exreme close-ups?


#154 of 292 by shf on Sun May 9 15:13:08 1999:

( how many extreme close-ups of such faces can anyone survive?)


#155 of 292 by md on Sun May 9 15:20:34 1999:

I just looked her up.  Carrie-Anne Moss.
Never heard of her.  Turns out she was
the female lead on a short-lived TV crime
drama series in 1993 called -- are you
ready for this? -- "Matrix."  Talk about
deja-vu.  


#156 of 292 by richard on Sun May 9 22:03:21 1999:

"MATRIX"-- I'll give it two and a half stars.  I thought the special
effects were terrific, but that it didnt have much character development.
I thought the complexity of the plot played against the development of
much depth in the characters.  It might make an interesting tv series
though, where the characters *could* be developed.

"NEVER BEEN KISSED"-- Former high school geek Drew Barrymore goes back to
school as an undercover reporter and has a chance to re-experience school
from a more mature and wordly perspective.  Something Im sure we've all
wondered what it would be like-- I didnt think this was particularly
realistic though and thought the script was weak.  (** two stars)

(Note about "The Apostle" in response to earlier message...that movie is a
character study so the story it tells is less important than how the
central character evolves and reacts to the situations and people around
him.  In that respect its a lot like Martin Scorcese's "Taxi Driver".
They are both great films, but if you are looking strictly for a story
with a beginning and an ending and a plot, you wouldnt like them)


#157 of 292 by mooncat on Mon May 10 01:55:05 1999:

Saw "The Mummy" and loved it.  It was funny, and had lots of action.
The storyline wasn't original, but I'm not sure it was supposed to
be.  I didn't find any glaring errors in Egyptian mythology, so that
was a plus.  I found it to be a very enjoyable movie.



#158 of 292 by aaron on Mon May 10 03:45:00 1999:

"The Mummy" is very much in the spirit of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" -- but
without the memorable central character. They do a pretty good job balancing
the "suspense/horror" and humor elements. If you like that type of movie,
it's an A-, with a recommendation to see it in the theater.


#159 of 292 by other on Mon May 10 06:21:26 1999:

thought the apostle was well acted, but a terrible film.  at least as
entertainment.  i never evaluated it as art.


#160 of 292 by mcnally on Mon May 10 07:08:48 1999:

 re #156:  I find something inherently redundant in criticizing
 a Keanu Reeves movie because it doesn't have enough character
 development..  ..dude!


#161 of 292 by anderyn on Mon May 10 19:25:47 1999:

Well, I did find some nasty glitches in the Egyptian setting (BOOKS?! In
Egypt? Eeeep! No. No. No. Scrolls. Yes. Books with clasps and locks? Never.
And the fishnet draping on the "princess"? Sheah. Egypt might have gone
for transparent linen, topless fashions, but I have *never* seen fishnet
on anyone....
Those were the two that jumped up and bit me, but there were more. I still
liked "The Mummy" a LOT.


#162 of 292 by richard on Mon May 10 21:41:06 1999:

#160...Keanu Reeves was much better in "My Own Private Idaho" where
he played River Phoenix's gay lover who dumps him and goes straight--
of course beingmethod actors, Keanu and River Phoenix decided to play
heroin addicts they had to *really* do heroin.  Made for a great movie
but of course neither, particularly Pheonix, ever really kicked the
habit.  great movie though.


#163 of 292 by aaron on Mon May 10 21:41:47 1999:

That wasn't draping -- it was body paint. (That actress had her own, credited
body painter.)


#164 of 292 by anderyn on Tue May 11 00:34:23 1999:

Yes, I figured that out after reading the book, but it still looked
dippy. Yeesh. Fish net is NOT Egyptian, and really neither is body paint.


#165 of 292 by mooncat on Tue May 11 02:49:58 1999:

re #162- Reeves and Pheonix's character were male prostitutes, I
wouldn't really just boil it down to "Pheonix's gay lover" both
characters were bi as well.



#166 of 292 by drewmike on Tue May 11 03:07:45 1999:

Um... other and I burned damn near a whole evening building a special effect
shot of the Michigan Stadium Jumbotron...


#167 of 292 by tpryan on Tue May 11 20:27:12 1999:

        The Led Zepplin crashing into it?


#168 of 292 by other on Wed May 12 03:06:43 1999:

nope.  'fraid at the current rate that would take several evenings...


#169 of 292 by daxabe on Wed May 12 08:17:19 1999:

help
a help
?


#170 of 292 by drewmike on Fri May 14 02:24:05 1999:

re #167: now THERE's one for the blooper reel.


#171 of 292 by gregb on Sun May 16 22:02:07 1999:

Video Review: A Bug's Life

This is what I call a feel-good type of flick...or should I say, Flik?  
I throughly enjoyed this second outing from Pixar/Disney.  I have to 
admit, however, I was quite skeptical at first.  The commercials I saw 
led me to believe that ABL was just for kids, which is why I passed it 
up while in the theaters.  But when it came to video, I thought I'd 
give it a go.  After all, I really liked Toy Story, and I love watching 
comp. animation pieces.

While the plot isn't new (how many are), it's the telling that makes it 
interesting.  Basically, it's your small-town-being-bullied-and-needs-
help kind of story.  The main character, Flick (voice of Dave Foley), 
an ant with big ideas, but little support, goes off to "The Big City" 
in search of "warriors" to help him defend the colony against a gang of 
grasshoppers, led by Hopper (voice of Keven Spacey).  Flik's search 
ends when he stumbles upon a group of performing bugs in a second-rate 
flea circus, who he mistakes for warrior bugs.  They, in turn, mistake 
Flik for a talent scout.  From there, things get quite interesting.

Like Toy Story, A Bug's Life is repleat with familiar voices, including 
the return voice of John Ratzenberger, as the voice of P.T. Flea, the 
money-obsessed flea circus owner.  Another noteworthy voice was that of 
Roddy McDowall, who played the ant, Mr. Soil.  This was the last role 
Roddy played before his death in October of '98.  Additional prominent 
voices included Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Princess Atta), Phillis Diller 
(The Queen), David Hyde Pierce (Slim), Denis Leary (Francis), Johnathon 
Harris (Manny), and Madeline Kahn (Gypsy).

Now for the animation.  Notice I left this for last.  And I'm sorry to 
say it's not because I "saved the best for last."  Don't get me wrong, 
it was well done;  on a par with Toy Story, I'd say.  But that's where 
the problem lies:  It looked /too/ much like Toy Story.  Whether this 
was intentional, I don't know.  I was expecting new techniques, more 
details, greater detail.  But it wasn't there.  Most everything has a 
plastic look about it;  Too many shiny surfaces where rough textures 
would'ov been more suitable.  In Toy Story, this made sense, but when 
dealing with organic objects, you want them to /look/ organic.  At 
least I do.  I did like the way they rendered trees, grass, etc.

On a scale of 1-10, to me, this one's a strong 9.


#172 of 292 by gull on Mon May 17 00:51:32 1999:

Interesting note:  I haven't seen it, but I've heard the video version of 'A
Bug's Life' wasn't panned and scanned, or letterboxed.  They changed the
computer rendering of the scenes to make them fit into TV's aspect ratio,
instead.


#173 of 292 by senna on Mon May 17 16:36:43 1999:

I saw the Mummy yesterday.  Rarely have I seen such an effective 
combination of humor, special effects, and action to make a bubblegum 
movie.  It was very entertaining, particularly with Brendan Fraser's 
one-liners backing up computer animated undead.  This movie is cotton 
candy, but it does what it does extremely well.  It puts on a good show.


#174 of 292 by senna on Wed May 19 07:49:54 1999:

Star Wars, Episode I.  The Phantom Menace.

Ultimately, all film is subjective.  This holds true from the pristine 
towers, the Godfathers and Casablancas and Citizen Kanes, to the dredges 
of Batman&Robin and Mortal Kombat Resurrection.  It is always helpful to 
remind oneself of this.  It holds true again for this Star Wars movie.  
If one walks into the theater expecting to see the dark drama of Empire 
Strikes Back, the heady enthusiasm of Star Wars, and the active fun of 
Return of the Jedi, one will be disappointed.  It's rather difficult to 
combine three movies into one.

However, this is not meant to be three movies in one.  It is the opening 
act of a six movie cycle.  Such a giant undertaking deserves a grand 
opening, and that is what it gets.  This movie splendidly establishes an 
opening to a story that will ultimately lead us through two generations 
of Skywalkers.  The foreshadowing in particular is superb, despite the 
dangers of overstatement provided when we already know how things end 
up.  

However, on that level it's like many other pieces of film or 
literature.  What's so good about the Star Wars series?  The effects, of 
course.  In this film, they are brilliant.  Once again, the boys from 
Lucasfilm have redefined moviemaking in their own image.  The results 
are spectacular.  Full armies, products of computers, fighting against 
each other without a second thought.  An entire main character (Jar Jar 
Binks, who isn't exactly a deep character) is created and executed with 
perfection against the other main roles.  Moviemaking will never be the 
same.

This movie was a spectacular experience.  Between the storylines and the 
effects, it is definitely worth seeing several times.  I have no 
illusions about its standalone greatness, since on its own it would be 
good but not great.  It does not, however, stand alone.  Watch it for 
the visuals, or for the foreshadowing, or for the marvelous action 
choreography, but be sure to watch.  It will blow your mind.


#175 of 292 by tpryan on Thu May 20 03:45:37 1999:

        It is also all the special effects going on to create the background
environment, including the action/movement in the background.


#176 of 292 by mcnally on Thu May 20 06:09:54 1999:

  Since I didn't have any classes today, and since I was really trying to
  find something to help me postpone doing work for my physics classes,
  I stopped by Showcase and bought a ticket for an afternoon matinee showing
  of "The Phantom Menace"  (apparently all of the hardcore cases had attended
  showings in the wee hours of the AM -- in any case I didn't have any trouble
  getting a ticket at the regular matinee price and my total wait in line was
  about 50 seconds..)

  My opinion:  I liked it.  I wasn't eagerly awaiting the movie, and my
  reaction to all the hype was that I was fully prepared to despise it,
  so it was with somewhat low expectations that I entered the theater.
  It turns out that Lucas very sensibly stuck with the formula that has
  worked so well for him in the past:  corny space opera with eye-popping
  special effects.  The movie was calculatedly manipulative and not 
  particularly imaginative but it was fun enough to watch despite its
  limitations and apparently managed to please the crowd who shared the
  theater with me.  As long as you haven't been living the past six months
  in anticipation of this film and as long as you realize that it's just
  another Star Wars movie (with all the limitations that that implies)
  you should have a fine time whiling away an afternoon or evening with it..


#177 of 292 by scg on Thu May 20 16:46:45 1999:

I'll be seeing The Phantom Menace on Monday evening with a bunch of people
from work.


#178 of 292 by jazz on Thu May 20 17:03:00 1999:

        I was disappointed in it's focus more on being a children's film than
a children's film with subtexts to keep adults interested;  outside of a few
references to the later movies, it was a very simple storyline with
one-dimensional characters but very pretty special effects.  The original Star
Wars was, to some degree, a kid's film, but nowhere to the degree Phantom
Menace is.


#179 of 292 by aaron on Thu May 20 17:54:37 1999:

Actually, I think that was a mistake/miscalculation by Lucas. The original
Star Wars had a lot to appeal to kids, without catering or condescending
to them. This film chooses to cater and condescend.


#180 of 292 by jazz on Thu May 20 20:45:29 1999:

        I was surprised how few people noticed it, to be honest.

        _Phantom Menace_ had less sublety than a brick to the head.


#181 of 292 by otter on Fri May 21 03:08:22 1999:

The political message certainly wasn't subtle. 8^}

I walked out wanting to club Lucas for manipulating me into loving a
particular character (no give-aways from me to those who haven't seen it!).

DEFINITELY stay through all of the credits, though, for the little kick in
the belly afterward.

And I was impressed by the music. Williams toyed with "The Imperial March"
and came up with some great variations on the theme.

Remembering that the point of the whole thing (besides $, of course) is
FUN, go and have some. We did. (twice today)


#182 of 292 by mcnally on Fri May 21 17:34:31 1999:

  Huh?  What comes after the credits?  I watched through what I thought was
  the whole credit reel and there wasn't anything notable at the end (at least
  not to my recollection..)


#183 of 292 by richard on Fri May 21 21:49:06 1999:

STAR WARS-- I thought it was good and delivered what it promised.  The
special effects may even have been overdone-- you dont want the effects to
overshadow the real characters.  Movie's biggest flaw is the kid who plays
little Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd)-- his acting wasnt up to the rest of
the cast.  When you are casting the central character, you need someone
who can convey emotional depth.  Too bad they couldnt find another kid
actor with a little more experience than him.  I also wish they would have
developed the Darth Maul character better, given him some dialogue and
gotten into his motivations.  Otherwise I enjoyed the movie, and thought
it delivered what it promised *** 1/2


#184 of 292 by otter on Sat May 22 04:11:15 1999:

ref #182: After the screen goes green, there's an audio thing.


#185 of 292 by senna on Sat May 22 07:50:27 1999:

I should point out that, in my lowly opinion, regardless of what you 
think of the rest of the movie, Phantom Menace has one solid selling 
point.  I holds in it one of the most stunning, awe inspiring, 
jaw-dropping-directly-to-floor combat sequences you will ever see.  
Easily one of the highlights of the series already, and it's a pity it 
didn't last longer.  

I only add this because I melted directly into my seat while watching it 
tonight on the big showcase screen.  Oh my god.


#186 of 292 by tpryan on Sat May 22 18:41:23 1999:

        I went to see "Trekkies" today at the Showcase.  A documentary on
fandom put together and featuring Denise Crosby (Bing's kid).
        If it interests you, see it qucikly, as I thing lack of audience
will see it wrap up it's theatrical release within two weeks.
        For the Sat morning, 11am showing, I almost had a private showing.
Two other people did finally show up.


#187 of 292 by anderyn on Sun May 23 00:33:06 1999:

The Prices went to _Phantom Menace_ today. It was enjoyable, though
some of the more conscious "echoes" of the earlier movies made me
wince.


#188 of 292 by bru on Sun May 23 02:31:46 1999:

and we sat thru the credits and there was no green screen, no audio kick to
the belly...


#189 of 292 by otter on Sun May 23 02:44:22 1999:

Bummer. Slap the manager.


#190 of 292 by tpryan on Sun May 23 10:21:14 1999:

        One interesting thing I saw in the credits of TPM, was
(some) digital effects by Michael Smith of Jaava the Hut.



#191 of 292 by senna on Sun May 23 17:30:16 1999:

the visual effects crew has fun, too.  Look closely at the senate 
chamber scene.  After the no confidence vote is called for you can see a 
delegation from ET's planet in the lower left corner.  I'm dead serious. 
 


#192 of 292 by mary on Sun May 23 22:18:13 1999:

eXistenZ is one of the best grossouts ever.  I think for most 
scenes you could have your eyes closed and the sounds effects
would be enough to make you cringe.  The whole thing is 
fairly sensual in an olive oil and tarp kind of way. 


#193 of 292 by mary on Sun May 23 22:20:14 1999:

On second thought, any oil would do.


#194 of 292 by mooncat on Mon May 24 02:30:52 1999:

I was truly stunned by "Phantom Menace" Saw it twice today (once
with Jim and Michelle and once with Sarah and Matt) the combat
scenes Steve mentioned were well done.  It was neat to see people
use the force to a full extent (not fumbling with it like Luke- who
I do like...)

Anyone else notice how similar Leia and Queen Amigdala look?



#195 of 292 by rcurl on Mon May 24 04:40:25 1999:

Do you realize that you can use the "force" just as well as they can?


#196 of 292 by mcnally on Mon May 24 05:36:19 1999:

  Geez, Rane, get a life.  You're clearly not really stupid enough to
  read everything literally, so why pretend to be?

  Of course she realizes that it's just a movie and they're all fictional
  characters.  But, like many others, she's excited about the further
  development of a shared story-line that has given her and many others
  a great amount of innocent pleasure.


#197 of 292 by mooncat on Mon May 24 12:22:33 1999:

What #196 said.   Yes they're fictional, but for all that, they're a lot of
fun to watch on the big screen.  I enjoy watching good guys and bad
guys that have extraordinary powers, I like watching characters do
things that they couldn't do in real life.  <shrugs> The Jedi and the
Sith are great types of characters.  And I was pleased to see the 
two 'new' Jedi characters that Lucas developed.



#198 of 292 by md on Mon May 24 13:35:27 1999:

Recent rentals:

VELVET GOLDMINE (F) -- It's about something called "glam
rock" or "glitter rock" and the you-cannot-possibly-imagine-
how-boring people who make it and listen to it.  I gathered that 
for a certain type of person, going to a live concert of this 
music makes them feel as if they're starring in an interesting 
version of their own lives.  I also read somewhere that the
movie is loosely based on the relationship between David
Bowie and Iggy Pop.  But the music, dear God, the music.
It went on and on and on and on.

STAR TREK INSURRECTION (B) -- A little drifty, but a lot of
care went into the production.  I liked it.

THE EXORCIST (not rated) -- My son wanted to rent this movie
after seeing THE EXORCIST 2 on cable.  There's a new 
25th anniversary edition out, with interviews, trailers, etc.  But
when we put it in the VCR, it made the VCR turn off immediately.
You could turn it back on again, but it would turn itself right off.  
So there sat our VCR with The Exorcist permanently stuck
inside it.  Finally, my son, who has Nintendo-honed reflexes, 
managed to hit the "eject" button in the tiny gap of time between 
turning the VCR on and the VCR turning itself off, whereupon the 
tape slithered out and the VCR went back to normal.  Oo-ee-oo.


#199 of 292 by jazz on Mon May 24 13:45:24 1999:

        Really, you'd rate Insurrection that highly?


#200 of 292 by mooncat on Mon May 24 13:52:40 1999:

"Velvet Goldmine" wasn't *that* bad.. I saw it this weekend too...
I wouldn't call it a wonderful movie... but.... Hmm... The music
was a bit weird though...

But hey, Ewan MacGregor is in it...  And dances around mostly naked 
during one scene (only mostly cause him pants are around his ankles...)



#201 of 292 by rcurl on Mon May 24 14:43:37 1999:

Re #196: just who is it that should "get a life"? 


#202 of 292 by jep on Mon May 24 15:04:16 1999:

I rented "Asteroid" over the weekend, and regretted it.

I was thinking I'd seen "Deep Impact" and this was "Armageddon", but I'd 
really seen "Armageddon" and was looking for "Deep Impact", and got this 
turkey instead.  No characters, no plot, just an asteroid heading toward 
the Earth, with nothing anyone can do about it.  At one point, I was 
ready to shout at the hapless cardboard people on the screen: "At least 
call the guys from Armageddon!"


#203 of 292 by md on Mon May 24 15:17:44 1999:

Two other rentals:

VERY BAD THINGS (B) -- It's like the frat-boy version of 
A Simple Plan.  Not even black comedy.  More like black
farce.  I enjoyed it, for some reason.

PERMANENT MIDNIGHT (B+) -- Ben Stiller does the best
impression of a drug addict's spiral into hell since Frank
Sinatra in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM (A).  Marred
by not enough plot, but it's based on an actual person's life 
so I guess that's to be expected.


#204 of 292 by rcurl on Mon May 24 16:14:01 1999:

Yes, "lives of quiet desperation" are due to their having "not enough
plot". 



#205 of 292 by md on Mon May 24 16:41:15 1999:

Whatever.

Btw, re Velvet Goldmine, if you like that kind of
music, or if you were ever into the glam scene,
the movie has to be heaven on earth.  There's
no arguing about tastes.  But given my own tastes,
yes I thought the movie was that bad.


#206 of 292 by mcnally on Mon May 24 17:24:05 1999:

  As an alternative viewpoint on "Velvet Goldmine" from someone who
  *does* like glam music (or at least a substantial subset..), I'd
  give "Velvet Goldmine" a B- (on a good day) or C+.  The music was
  good, the costumes remarkable, and there were not-very-subtly-
  disguised parallels to a number of real-life glam performers that
  were interesting only if you knew what they represented.  But the
  plot was weak and confusing, the movie went on for far too long,
  and I got sick of (director) Todd Haynes playing with Barbie dolls
  about two minutes into "Superstar:  The Karen Carpenter Story"


#207 of 292 by mooncat on Mon May 24 20:49:11 1999:

"Velvet Goldmine" really wasn't wonderful... When I saw the "Kurt Wild"
character, and heard he was from Michigan, immediately I thought of
Iggy Pop... It was an interesting movie... but I did have trouble
following it sometimes...



#208 of 292 by otter on Mon May 24 23:02:14 1999:

excuse me, #196 et al: I saw 195 as a call to elevate ourselves to that level,
not as a slam on the characters in a storyline.
Lots of people (me, too) believe that we lack only understanding and training
in that type of art. I don't know exactly what rane was after, here, but
SHEESH! lighten up on the subject.
Now, back to our feature...


#209 of 292 by ryan on Tue May 25 23:41:11 1999:

This response has been erased.



#210 of 292 by tpryan on Wed May 26 03:58:42 1999:

        It was something in watching ST: Insurerection in the theature, 
with the screen nearly overwhelming the vision, and those broad "flying"
camera scenes.


#211 of 292 by swa on Wed May 26 04:13:05 1999:

"A Midsummer Night's Dream."  By Shakespearean standards, mediocre -- lots
of liberties taken, cuts in the dialogue are not always seamless, many
actors seem to have trouble with the cadence of the language.  By Hollywood
standards, quite nice -- entertaining, humorous, and very artistic -- the
costumes, scenery, etc. are put together to make it a very *pretty* movie. 
I enjoyed it, and particularly liked the performances of Kevin Kline as
Bottom, Rupert Everett as Oberon, Calista Flockhart as Helena, and some guy
whose name starts with an "R", I think, as Peter Quince.  Can't remember the
name.  The humor could be a bit subtler in places, but it was still an
entertaining film.  But I don't recommend it for those who are purists about
Shakespeare.



#212 of 292 by mooncat on Wed May 26 12:44:54 1999:

I rather enjoyed watching Callista Flockhart stomp her foot and say "Oh
Spite!" <grins> 



#213 of 292 by richard on Wed May 26 22:37:14 1999:

video/dvd recommendation--  "THE SWEET HEREAFTER"-- this is a special,
profoundly moving, albeit dark, movie about a small town in Canada where
most of the town's kids are killed in a freak schoolbus accident.  A
laywer vists the town and tries to get the parents to channel their grief
and anger into a lawsuit.  The townspeople, most of whom lived through
their children, now have to accept the cold reality of life without
buffers and without illusions.  They have to accept that life has changed
*forever* and that they have gone from one existence to another; they are
living in the "sweet hereafter".  The lawyer, played by the excellent Ian
Holm, is also grieving, over his dying drug-addict daughter, and in
dealing with the townspeople, starts to realize what he has in common with
the townspeople.  Life, and this movie, is about surviving.

Note that I bought the dvd version, which is excellent-- widescreen
letterboxed version, with extras like interviews with the director and
cast, an interview from PBS's Charlie Rose show with director Atom Egoyan,
and the author of the book giving some readings and discussing the story.

SWEET HEREAFTER-- ***** (five stars, a classic)


#214 of 292 by maeve on Thu May 27 12:53:54 1999:

Pret a Porter:

 I'd seen it before, but we rented it again, and it was that much 
better knowing a few more British Actors (and having seen one of them, 
Richard E. Grant doing a BBC version of The Scarlet Pimpernel). But at 
any rate, it got me sketching again, and was generally a nice mostly 
brain-turned-to-stun evening.


#215 of 292 by shf on Sat May 29 20:19:57 1999:

any one else note any sendups of old scifi movies in Phantom Menace? I'm
thinking of the scene where the Jedi uses the light saber to try to burn thru
the door at the beginning, reminded me of the scene in Forbidden Planet where
the Krell were doing the same thing, only this time the Jedi were the Krell:)
Also saw some similarities to the way large objects and small hordes of people
were used for graphic effect and the way they were used in Dune.


#216 of 292 by senna on Sun May 30 02:09:33 1999:

Phantom Menace was full of allusions.  From the obvious (Ben Hur) to the 
subtle (aformentioned points).  The invasion army in theed reminded me 
of shot from the Nazis invading in WWII.  The ground battle looked very 
familiar, as well, but that was from a different era of wars.  Lucas 
tips his hat to an awful lot of people in this one.


#217 of 292 by katie on Mon May 31 01:52:21 1999:

Absolutely loved "Notting Hill."


#218 of 292 by ryan on Mon May 31 14:18:59 1999:

This response has been erased.



#219 of 292 by danr on Mon May 31 15:28:19 1999:

It wasn't directed to your 'demographic.'


#220 of 292 by gjharb on Mon May 31 22:29:29 1999:

Hmmm.  I woonder if that's why I liked Tea With Mussolini and didn't like The
Phantom Menace.  But then I did like The Matrix.   Hmmmmm.


#221 of 292 by mary on Mon May 31 23:26:15 1999:

"Star Wars I" was okay.  Nothing special.  Lots and lots of
computer generated stuff which left me feeling I'd watched
an animated film with actors walking through.  And I kept
hoping Liam's character would simply put that obnoxious
hyperactive rabbit-like thingie out of its misery.  C-.


"The Thirteenth Floor" is atmospheric but predictable.
I mean, *really* predictable.  They should have written
in an obnoxious hyperactive rabbit-like thing just to
keep us feeling something other than bored.  D.


#222 of 292 by richard on Tue Jun 1 02:02:58 1999:

#221...hyperactive rabbit-thingie?  Hey, just wait until episode II when
Jar Jar turns to the darkside! 

People are unfairly knocking Jar Jar because he takes up C3P0's screentime


#223 of 292 by senna on Tue Jun 1 04:29:20 1999:

He's a fair amount more obnoxious than Threepio, but he doesn't hit the 
level of annoyance that I feel with the Ewoks.  If he turned kinda 
serious in the next film, I'd be satisfied.


#224 of 292 by mooncat on Tue Jun 1 13:31:23 1999:

Heh, saw "Episode 1" again this weekend, and I *did* see the Wookiees and
the ETs in the Senate scene, and did catch the 'oops' when Obi-Wan had
the braid on the wrong side.



#225 of 292 by jiffer on Tue Jun 1 19:39:35 1999:

I keep hearing sound bites from the film (That Phantom Menance thingie), 
and Jar Jar *is* annoying, and I haven't seen the movie yet.


#226 of 292 by mooncat on Tue Jun 1 19:49:38 1999:

I rather like Jar Jar. <shrugs>



#227 of 292 by scg on Tue Jun 1 21:39:02 1999:

I liked Jar Jar as well.


#228 of 292 by gull on Wed Jun 2 03:44:37 1999:

I thought he was okay. Every movie needs comic relief.  He could have had a
less annoying voice, though...he has about the same vocal timbre as Roger
Rabbit.


#229 of 292 by senna on Wed Jun 2 05:38:20 1999:

My cousin is already a member of the SEJJB (Society for the Elimination 
of Jar Jar Binks), but I think he's excessive.  Jar Jar could be a lot 
worse.  Still, with rumors of his appearance in the next film comes my 
faint hope that he'll be more mature and a slightly more serious 
character.  One can dream, I guess.  


#230 of 292 by md on Wed Jun 2 10:29:52 1999:

My 13-year-old daughter loved Jar Jar.  She laughed
at everything he said and did.  Consider that if you
don't like Jar Jar, you are probably not part of the
target market for all the Jar Jar items now on sale in
toy stores.  


#231 of 292 by mooncat on Wed Jun 2 12:39:26 1999:

This movie wasn't aimed solely at adults... So it makes sense to have
a character like Jar Jar in it.  The kids like him...



#232 of 292 by mary on Wed Jun 2 18:09:29 1999:

Well, then he could have been in the first hour for 
the kids and brutally killed in the second half, for the
adults.  I can compromise here.


#233 of 292 by jazz on Wed Jun 2 21:21:17 1999:

        I'd argue the movie wasn't aimed at adults at all ...


#234 of 292 by aruba on Thu Jun 3 15:45:01 1999:

I thought the biggest flaw in Phantom Menace (we saw it last night) was
the lack of any interesting characters.  And Liam Neeson is the only actor
who does a good job, I thought.  Granted, most of the actors didn't have
much to work with in terms of dialog, but I thought the woman (women?  I
never got that straight) who plated the queen was particularly bad.  I
don't know how she passed the screen test.


#235 of 292 by drewmike on Thu Jun 3 17:37:21 1999:

I've found a way to not be annoyed by Jar Jar's presence on screen...


#236 of 292 by mooncat on Thu Jun 3 17:43:03 1999:

And that way was?

I rather thought the acting was pretty good.  Especially with the way
Ewan McGregor spoke... He sounded like a young Obi-Wan (given that we
heard the older Obi-Wan speaking first.).



#237 of 292 by drewmike on Thu Jun 3 17:44:15 1999:

(To not put myself in a theater where Star Wars is playing.)


#238 of 292 by richard on Thu Jun 3 22:26:31 1999:

I thought the acting was fine except for the kid playing anakin skywalker.
the other actors suffered from having characters not developed enough.
Ewan McGregor doesnt have much to do as Obi Wan until the end of the
movie.  Natalie Portman's character wasnt developed much at all.  Where
are her parents? Why is she queen at 15? who *is* this person? given that
she is the future mother of our hero Luke Skywalker, we deserve to know
these things!

Other nitpicks, why in the later movies does C3P0 not remember anything
about the events of Episode I, or that he was built by Anakin?  
If his memory was wiped, why was he not re-told everything by R2D2, who
obviously knows the whole story.

And in Episode IV, we find Luke living on Tattoine with his uncle, clearly
identified as his father's brother.  Except now in Episode I, we are told
he has no father, therefore how does he have an uncle?


#239 of 292 by mcnally on Thu Jun 3 22:40:30 1999:

  He's got a mother, doesn't he?


#240 of 292 by drew on Thu Jun 3 22:42:46 1999:

I think it might be that Anniken has no father. Luke has no paternal
grandfather.

..."plated the queen"... an interesting typo, brings up some strange images.


#241 of 292 by aruba on Fri Jun 4 00:02:27 1999:

Re #238:  I don't remember Luke's uncle being clearly identified as his
father's brother.  I suspect the "uncle" thing may just have been a euphamism.


#242 of 292 by rtg on Fri Jun 4 03:27:57 1999:

..."plated the queen"..  Is that something like the carbon freeze they
did to Han solo in one of the later episodes?  
  (Don't spoil it - I haven't seen it yet!)


#243 of 292 by senna on Fri Jun 4 04:18:42 1999:

It is almost certain that Owen and Beru are not related to Anakin.  It 
was speculated that they could be related to Obi-Wan, but that has yet 
to be determined.  Nothing has been changed in that respect, though.  
Further, the full bodies of knowledge of 3PO and R2 are never 
particularly established in the original movies.  It's possible that 
they know everything, and possible that they know nothing.  It really 
doesn't make that much of a difference.  They don't need to talk about 
it all that much.  It's part of how their characters work.  

Amidala was elected.  This is firmly established in both the text and 
the film.  Background isn't all that necessary.  Heck, we have no 
established backgrounds on Chewie, Han, Yoda, Lando, or Tarkin.  The 
only background we can really get on Luke and Leia is being established 
in the movies being made now.  Amidala is neither suited nor in need of 
a background.  


#244 of 292 by mooncat on Fri Jun 4 13:11:19 1999:

What Steve said.  I had always heard that Owen was somehow a relative of 
Obi-Wan's and that's why Luke was there.

Going by what books say... It wasn't uncommon for the droids to have 
their memories wiped after a certain ammount of time.  Perhaps 3PO
had his 'mind' wiped and therefore doesn't remember everything.  Personally,
I think R@ has a great deal of personality, some of those sounds he makes
sound to me like droid swear words. <grins>  Perhaps he does remember,
but just isn't sharing that knowledge with 3PO.

And remember- this is Episode 1, perhaps in 2 we'll get a lot more 
information on Amidala her election, or whatever else.  This isn't
exactly a stand alone movie- hence the title "Episdoe 1- Phantom Menace"



#245 of 292 by gjharb on Fri Jun 4 13:21:25 1999:

Who was the real queen - the lady-in=waiting or the one dressed up as the
queen?


#246 of 292 by senna on Fri Jun 4 16:38:54 1999:

The "lady in waiting," obviously.  She says it, and everyone believes 
it.  And, in general, she gets more focus from the camera.  There is 
some question about whether Amidala occasionally dons the make up 
herself, such as in the last scene.  She throws a rather obvious 
affectionate smile in Anakin's direction, which makes you wonder.  The 
other scene that could possibly involve that is the senate chamber 
scene, since it requires her to make an important decision that a 
bodyguard would likely not be trusted with.  Other than that, the one in 
the makeup is the decoy.


#247 of 292 by richard on Fri Jun 4 21:47:22 1999:

there was a story on cnn last night about people complaining that
Jar Jar is a racist caricature.  They had some high mined Columbia
professor making this case that Jar Jar's mannerisms were designed to
emulate an effeminate/gay black man and that George Lucas is a racist.

I think that guy is being a little TOO sensitive, if ya ask me!


#248 of 292 by tpryan on Fri Jun 4 21:55:32 1999:

        He R2 sensitive.


#249 of 292 by tpryan on Fri Jun 4 21:58:57 1999:

        I am amazed that R2D2 had a considerable service life *before*
the time of Episode 1.  Pretty damm good design to be functional then
and ?forty, fifty? years later.
        And we consider a three year old computer to be out-moded, a
ten year old one to be trash.
        And I bet R2 never had an operating system upgrade.


#250 of 292 by hhsrat on Sat Jun 5 01:47:27 1999:

Yes, but is R2 Y2K compliant?


#251 of 292 by jazz on Sat Jun 5 12:15:43 1999:

        I'm surprised no one's sued Lucas yet.  The Gungan tribe, of which Jar
Jar was a member, displayed mannerisms, slang, and an accent common to
Jamaicans.


#252 of 292 by otter on Sat Jun 5 14:55:30 1999:

He didn't have an accent so much as he spoke Pidgin English.


#253 of 292 by swa on Sat Jun 5 18:26:04 1999:

I have not yet seen the movie, but I read that Jar Jar was "played" (voice,
at least) by a guy who *was* from Jamaica.

Re #247: I've read a similar complaint, that C3PO was the stereotype of an
effeminate, meek, appearance-oriented, etc. gay man.  Interesting to rewatch
Episodes 5 and 6 with that theory in mind... it holds up fairly well, if you
want to believe it, but is still kind of silly to my mind...


Isn't this the movie item?  Has anyone seen any *other* movies?  I watched
"Nobody's Fool" on video last night and I thought it was terrific.  Everyone
should see it.  :)


#254 of 292 by otter on Sun Jun 6 17:53:54 1999:

OK,OK. Rented _Mask of Zorro_. Fun in a comic book sort of way, and
Bandaras <sp> didn't stink it up too much.
Rented _Very Bad Things_. A skewed little story told very well. You don't
realize who the story is actually about until the last scene. Recommended.


#255 of 292 by aruba on Mon Jun 7 16:03:42 1999:

Cinerama Holiday
----------------

Last Saturday (May 29th) Carol and I drove to the only Cinerama theater in 
America - the New Neon Movie Theater in Dayton, Ohio.

Cinerama was a movie format created in the early 1950s, and is usually 
described these days as a precursor to Imax.  A Cinerama camera contained 3 
rolls of film, one pointed straight ahead, one to the left, and one to the 
right.  Together they could see 146 degrees of a scene.  The sound system had 
6 channels. 

To display a Cinerama movie, therefore, a theater needs three projectors which 
are somehow linked together so they stay in sync, a curved screen, and at 
least 6 speakers.  There are apparently only two such theaters in the world - 
one in England and one in Dayton.

Only a few movies were filmed in Cinerama.  The first was called "This is 
Cinerama", which began with a view from a roller coaster, and consisted of a 
lot of disjointed scenes designed to show off the medium.  I think the most 
famous Cinerama movie was "How the West Was Won" with Gregory Peck, Henry 
Fonda, and Jimmy Stewart. 

The screen manages to just about fill up your peripheral vision, which means 
the movie does a remarkably good job of making you feel like you're really 
there.  That was the idea - the creator of Cinerama had previously designed a 
simulator for gunners in the air force during the war, using (I think) 6 
projectors to make them feel like they were really in battle.

Cinerama also has one huge advantage over Imax.  Last I heard, Imax cameras 
were still so loud that it was impossible to record sound and film at the same 
time, so all Imax movies have the sound dubbed in afterward.  Not so with 
Cinerama, which makes it possible to film dance numbers and all manner of 
musical shows which you couldn't possibly dub. 

After "This is Cinerama", the producers of Cinerama polled viewers to find out 
what kinds of things they'd like to see filmed in Cinerama.  A large number of 
people said they'd like to see film of real and interesting places they could 
travel to vicariously. Thus the second Cinerama movie, "Cinerama Holiday", 
made in 1954. 

The print being shown at the New Neon is the *only* print of "Cinerama 
Holiday" left, and it is much deteriorated. Almost all its blues and yellows 
are gone; what's left is "vibrant pink-and-white." However, it is still sharp 
and clear, and the sound quality is excellent. 

"Cinerama Holiday" opens with a young couple from Switzerland (Beatrice and 
Fred Troller) arriving in St. Louis, Missouri, where they meet a hometown 
couple (John and Betty Marsh).  The couples are real people, not actors.  The 
filmmakers interviewed a lot of people before selecting them. They are young, 
good-looking, fun-loving types. John and Betty take the same plane back to 
Zurich (they are impressed that it only takes 18 hours to get there).  
Beatrice and Fred then travel through the U.S. while the Marshes visit 
Switzerland and France. 

Beatrice and Fred have definite ideas about what they want to see in
America, and they want to see as much as possible. Fred's motor-scooter is
lifted out of the plane and they head for the Wild West. First they stop
off in Las Vegas for some gambling, floor shows, and lots of glittering
lights. They are intrigued, because they say there is nothing like the
one-armed bandit in Switzerland. Their trip across the West takes them
zipping over rocky, deserty terrain on the motor-scooter, where they meet
some "real Red Indians" -- full-blood Apaches who are also prosperous
ranchers with names like Gus and Clarence. They finish their Western trip
in comfort, watching the scenery go by from the Vista-Dome of the
California Zephyr.

In San Francisco the Trollers visit a folk club called The Tin Angel.  On 
stage are Odetta, who went on to a career as a famous folk singer, and a lanky 
23-year old from Michigan named Larry Mohr.  The next year Larry would marry 
Jean Latimer (who can be seen in the front row in the scene at the club) and 
in December, 1955 (while Larry was in the army, stationed in France) they 
would have a daughter named Carol.  Later he would go on to very successful 
career as a Political Science professor at the University of Michigan.

Music is also the main event of their stay in New Orleans. Ardent jazz fans, 
they want to see the place where jazz was born. They visit an African American 
church service, and observe a funeral procession in which mourners and 
musicians walk solemnly from the cemetary through the streets. When the Saints 
Go Marching In takes on a stately, sad quality not usually associated with 
that tune. The New Orleans visit winds up with some hot jazz in a small club. 

In stunning contrast to the more exotic locations they traveled to, the 
Trollers go next to New England and a small-town harvest fair in Deerfield, 
New Hampshire, complete with livestock, hayride, and a Ferris wheel. (It seems 
a Cinerama camera is pretty portable, because the audience is treated to the 
view from a Ferris wheel seat--up and over we go!) You can almost smell the 
cider and the crushed autumn leaves underfoot. And they get a taste of 
American collegiate life at Dartmouth College, listening to the Men of 
Dartmouth singing traditional glee club choruses.

The choices the filmmakers made are intriguing, I think.  The movie really is 
an interesting look at some of the things that were going on in America in the 
early 1950s.  For all its extraordinary aspects, it also gives a real taste 
of what ordinary life was like at that time--the clothes, the cars, the ways 
of speaking, the look of the cities. Because of the way the medium was hyped, 
I was expecting more glamor and more showing off. I'm glad they didn't just go 
for cheap thrills. 

Meanwhile in Switzerland, the Marshes have chosen to sit back and let Cinerama 
plan their vacation. It begins in St. Moritz, where John tries out the bobsled 
run. This is almost the only gratuitous Cinerama "thrill" scene in the whole 
film, and worth every penny, as the sled whizzes down the long course at hair-
raising speed, down steep hills and around tight, high banked turns. For a 
tamer form of entertainment, the Marshes enjoy an outdoor performance of 
Holiday on Ice. (Figure skating sure has come a long way since the 1950s--no 
fast spins or overhead lifts, and very few jumps.) 

Then there's a lot of skiing, which (apparently) wouldn't have been complete 
without shots of ski-jumpers flying over the camera. This is followed by 
apres-ski featuring traditional Swiss fondue dinner and singalong.  (The 
recipe for the fondue is in the program.) 

After that it's on to Paris.  The experience of riding in a taxicab was never 
filmed quite like this, I think - it rivals the bobsled scene for excitement.
Art Buchwald, then a correspondent for the Paris Herald-Tribune, makes a cameo 
appearance, long enough to tell the Marshes that if they don't enjoy Paris 
it's their own fault.

They visit the Arc de Triomphe, Notre Dame, the Louvre, a private fashion 
show by a famous coutourier (not named) in a private home, and a show at 
L'Opera de Paris.  Betty, after a long day, wants to go to bed, whereupon John 
leaves her (she's a bit huffy) to spend the night carousing with his old Navy 
buddies who are stationed in Paris.  They see a spectacular Can-Can show. 

There are some lower-key scenes in Paris, too.  The Marshes visit the graves 
of Napoleon and General Foch, and watch a very entertaining puppet show of 
Little Red Riding Hood.  You can see and hear the audience of children as they 
are watching the show, and that makes it a lot of fun.  They also get to visit 
a French home, and talk about the changes the war has made in France.  It 
really is like being taken on a tour by interesting hosts. 

At the end the two couples meet back in New York (John and Betty take the 
Queen Mary, which is a sight to behold in Cinerama).  Then they watch Cinerama 
film of planes landing on an aircraft carrier.  This is a bit gratuitous, 
but the Trollers had asked about it at the beginning of a trip.  We're told 
that the pilot whose jet we're in is making his first ever landing on a 
carrier, and that makes the experience a little scarier.

The experience of watching the movie was enhanced a lot by the fact that the 
operators of the theater in Dayton really take themselves seriously as
torchbearers for Cinerama.  The owner and camera operator came out and talked 
to the audience a couple of times before the show, and showed a video of an 
interview with Fred Troller, made a few years ago, where he recalled the 
making of the movie.  (He remembered Larry and Odetta, too.)  We also saw a 
short film (without sound) made recently in Cinerama by some Australians - it 
was the first time anyone in America had seen it (John the owner wasn't even 
sure if he'd threaded the film in upside down or not until it appeared 
correctly on the screen).  The newsletter of the Cinerama Appreciation Society 
is also available in the lobby.  The current issue includes pictures of John & 
Betty Marsh and Leonard Maltin at a special gala showing in Dayton in 1997. 

The center projector is not enclosed in a booth - instead you can stand in the 
lobby and see the whole thing.  It's huge, and so are the rolls of film.

All in all the whole experience was a lot of fun.  I encourage anyone who's 
interested to make the trip to Dayton (it's about 3.5 hours from Ann Arbor) to 
see a show.  Info on upcoming attractions can be found at:

  http://http://www.neonmovies.com/cinerama.html


#256 of 292 by omni on Mon Jun 7 16:45:11 1999:

 Mark, there is one minor nit.

  Well, two.

   There is a third theatre, Located in Los Angeles called The Cinerama Dome
or some such. And there is one more movie, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
which was also filmed in Cinerama.

   I agree Cinerama should make a comeback.


#257 of 292 by aruba on Mon Jun 7 20:03:40 1999:

My understanding from the CPS newsletter is that the Los Angeles theater,
while built for Cinerama, doesn't currently have Cinerama projectors
installed, though they're working on it and hope to be able to show Cinerama
movies by summer of 2000.  There's also a theater in Seattle, bought and
restored by Paul Allen, which hopes to get Cinerama equipment next year.


#258 of 292 by aruba on Mon Jun 7 21:13:33 1999:

The IMDB lists 10 movies filmed in Cinerama and one in Super-Cinerama:

Best of Cinerama (1962) 
Cinerama Holiday (1955) 
How the West Was Won (1962) 
Lafayette (1961) 
Padrone delle ferriere, Il (1959) 
Scent of Mystery (1960) (Super-Cinerama)
Search for Paradise (1957) 
Seven Wonders of the World (1956) 
South Seas Adventure (1958) 
This Is Cinerama (1952) 
Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm, The (1962) 

(see http://us.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?Cinerama)

"It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" is listed as being filmed in "Ultra 
Panavision 70 (anamorphic)", though one of the "printed film formats" is "70 
mm (Super-Cinerama)".  Maybe that means prints of the film existed which could 
be shown with 3 Cinerama projectors?  I don't know.  I don't even know if 
Super-Cinerama used the same 3-projector format as Cinerama.  There are 14 
other movies tagged as having Super-Cinerama prints; here's the list: 

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) 
Battle of the Bulge (1965) 
Circus World (1964) 
Custer of the West (1967) 
Golden Head, The (1965) 
Grand Prix (1966) 
Greatest Story Ever Told, The (1965) 
Hallelujah Trail, The (1965) 
Ice Station Zebra (1968) 
It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963) 
Khartoum (1966) 
Krakatoa, East of Java (1969) 
Last Valley, The (1970) 
Song of Norway (1970) 

It sure would be spectacular to see some of those in Cinerama...


#259 of 292 by md on Tue Jun 8 16:01:29 1999:

NOTTING HILL (A-) -- An old-fashioned romantic comedy.
Julia Roberts is very touching, despite some corny lines 
she has to recite.  I've heard her say that she just stood
there and made herself do it as best she could.  It worked.
Hugh Grant I can take or leave, but he's well-cast in this
movie.  The Welsh actor who plays Grant's "flatmate"
is hilarious.  Gina McKee, who plays the part of Grant's
wheelchair-bound best friend, has one of those faces
that looks maddeningly familiar.  I don't think I've seen her
in anything else -- it must be she reminds me of someone.
She's a cross between Joely Fisher and Marisa Tomei,
if you can imagine that.  Mostly Joely Fisher.


#260 of 292 by scg on Tue Jun 8 16:17:35 1999:

I thought Notting Hill was hillarious, and also really liked it because a few
of the locations it was shot in are places I know fairly well, and like a lot.
Hampstead Heath, where Hugh Grant showed up to see Julia Roberts acting in
a movie, and where I think some of the final park scenes ma also have been
shot, is a few blocks from a house where I spent a month several years ago
and is fairly close to where my parents live now.  I haven't been to Notting
Hill, but it looks similar enough to some other parts of London where I have
been, and my parents were commenting that a friend of theirs who lives near
Notting Hill kept seeing scenes from the movie being filmed while walking to
the Underground.


#261 of 292 by remmers on Tue Jun 8 18:40:55 1999:

Re the Cinerama discussion: Super-Cinerama was a projection format
that used a single projector and a curved screen (not as deeply
curved as the original 3-strip Cinerama screen, however). Unlike
3-strip Cinerama, it was not a photographic process per se. The
films exhibited in Super-Cinerama were actually made in some other
wide screen process -- such as Super Panavision or Ultra Panavision --
and reformatted to fit the Super-Cinerama screen shape.

I'm glad to hear that the Neon Theater in Dayton is still showing
Cinerama. Had hoped to make it down there a couple of years ago when
they opened and showed "How the West Was Won", but never got around
to it.


#262 of 292 by aruba on Tue Jun 8 18:47:27 1999:

Thanks for that Info, John, I thought that might be the case, since none of
those Super-Cinerama movies were mentioned in the newsletter.


#263 of 292 by maeve on Wed Jun 9 14:14:10 1999:

Notting Hill was rather weak in dialogue, but Bella (the hauntingly 
familiar one) is amazingly beautiful..

it was cute, and mostly forgettable..decent costumes at times


#264 of 292 by md on Wed Jun 9 20:35:42 1999:

Bella!  I couldn't take my eyes off her when she
was on screen, even when Julia was in the shot.
She has a future, that one.


#265 of 292 by gregb on Thu Jun 10 04:37:25 1999:

Yet one more Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace review:

Like most everyone else it seems, I would have to rate this movie 
as "Good."  The plot was thin, but I understand why.  The characters 
were under-developed, which I don't understand why.  And the effects 
were good, but not revolusionary.  And as for Jar Jar...I haven't made 
up my mind about him yet.  He's definitely annoying at times, but has a 
lovable quality about him.

Things I noticed:  It's been mentioned how Jar Jar's voice has a 
Jamacan accent to it, which I noticed.  Did you also notice that the 
voices of the Trade Federation reps had oriental influences, both in 
voice and costume, at least I thought so.  And Watto's sounded rather 
Russian.  I'm just wondering why Lucus did this.  Now about the Battle 
droids:  Were these the most pathetic pieces of scrap metal you've ever 
seen?  Take away their guns and they're useless.  It's a good thing 
there were so many of them cuz they were getting sliced and diced like 
some tossed salad.  The rolling ball droids were much more effective in 
a combat situation.

While I wouldn't want to pay full price to see it again, I'll 
definitely catch it when it comes to the dollar theaters.  And with the 
apparent sharp drop-off in attendees, that might be before Summer's out.


#266 of 292 by scg on Thu Jun 10 04:52:31 1999:

I saw it again last night, in one of the larger theaters at Showcase, and it
wasn't sold out, but it was still pretty full.  I'm not sure there's that much
of a drop off in attendees, compared to other blockbuster movies I've seen
this long after their release.


#267 of 292 by mooncat on Thu Jun 10 12:50:18 1999:

re #265- Someone else pointed out somewhere that there are limitations
to the type of accent possible. <shrugs> also, yeah the droids were 
getting sliced and diced- but they were facing two Jedi. ;) (Even in the
seen with the Gungans - however that's spelled - they weren't doing all
that badly initially...)



#268 of 292 by jazz on Thu Jun 10 16:36:38 1999:

        Besides, they're the bad guy footsoldiers.  Bad guy footsoldiers tend
to die left and right.


#269 of 292 by mooncat on Thu Jun 10 17:22:25 1999:

that's to make the one or two good guys look even more amazing and
like, powerful and stuff. <grins>



#270 of 292 by scg on Thu Jun 10 22:16:52 1999:

All the Gungans had the same type of accent.  Only Jar Jar was presented as
being rather incompentent, and even he managed to be a successful diplomat.
Yes, the slimy Trade Federation people were Japanese, taking orders from a
greedy and slimy Englishman.  I suppose you could argue that they were being
anti-Jewish on the planet with slavery, but other than that, I can poke holes
in most of the racism theories, although having watched it again I can see
where the theories were coming from.


#271 of 292 by anderyn on Fri Jun 11 01:04:38 1999:

ACtually, I thought that the Trade Federation people were Chinese.


#272 of 292 by drewmike on Fri Jun 11 14:36:07 1999:

Rumors are flying that George Lucas is interested in Leonardo DiCaprio 
to play Kind Of Still Young Anakin Skywalker in the next Star Wars.

Wow. Star Wars with Nardo in it? It's like they're trying to 
scientifically engineer a flick with the specific intent of keeping me 
away. All they got to do now is throw in Rosie O'Donnell in a bikini 
singing a Garth Brooks song and it will be compl


#273 of 292 by mooncat on Fri Jun 11 17:31:53 1999:

I liked Leo in "Titanic" and all... but as Anikan?  ewwwwww.....



#274 of 292 by omni on Fri Jun 11 19:33:53 1999:

   Did onyone catch "Touch of Evil" on cable the other nite? I found it to
be an excellent film. Welles and Dietrich were amazing as was Heston. It is
being shown on Encore this month. I highly advise you to tape it.


#275 of 292 by tpryan on Fri Jun 11 21:20:44 1999:

        Had I known DiCaprio was going to die in Titanic, I would have gone
to see it sooner, at the movies.


#276 of 292 by richard on Fri Jun 11 21:21:37 1999:

#272....actually Ive heard Anakin is going tobe played in the next two
movies by Rick Schroeder (of NYPD Blue)...not that DiCaprio would be
bad.


#277 of 292 by senna on Fri Jun 11 21:50:27 1999:

both of those old rumors have been succeeded in the past weeks.


#278 of 292 by hhsrat on Sat Jun 12 01:58:33 1999:

I saw "Austin Powers - The Spy who Shagged Me" tonight.  I haven't 
laughed so hard in quite a while.  (except when listening to the Capitol 
Steps, but that's another story)  Some of the old jokes from the first 
Austin Powers movie are back, but they're still funny, such as the bad 
guy who has a bad accident but lives through it.  There was also some 
new stuff added, such as the "relationship" that led to Dr. Evil's son 
Scott.  Dr. Evil's Mini-Me was also good.  The fight scene was 
HILARIOUS, and there was one other really funny scene that had to do 
with the shape of Dr. Evil's rocketship.

Overall I give this movie an A-


#279 of 292 by jep on Mon Jun 14 16:38:25 1999:

We finally saw "The Phantom Menace" last night.  It's great to be the 
last one to see a hot new movie for the first time, because with little 
effort you can know every line of dialogue and every nuance of the 
entire movie.  I am gifted, though.  I ignored almost all of it, and so 
got to see the movie without reams of instructions as to how to 
interpret it.  I didn't know who "Jar Jar" was.  I didn't know about 
"Darth Mal".

Such was "The Phantom Menace", that I still don't know much of what 
happens in the movie.  It was just not very well put together.  The 
story was bad, the characters were weak, and the connection to the rest 
of the Star Wars movies, as viewed by a casual movie watcher, was pretty 
feeble.  My 8 year old, who has Star Wars Lego sets, and reads about 
Star Wars in kid's magazines, and heard all about the movie from his 
friends over the last 4 weeks, was able to fill me in on some of the 
details which were not present (or clear in some cases) from the movie.

I don't see how anyone could avoid going to see this movie.  I couldn't 
avoid it, not permanently.  You've almost certainly seen it; the odds 
are about equal that you've seen it more than 5 times, versus having not 
seen it at all.  And if you haven't seen it, you're more likely to avoid 
paying taxes this year than avoiding the movie.  I do hope you enjoy it 
more than I did.  I am now pinning my hopes of enjoying a new movie this 
summer on "Wild, Wild West".  Which I will also see after everyone else 
has seen it, I am sure.


#280 of 292 by rcurl on Mon Jun 14 17:45:30 1999:

I expect I'll go see it someday. I've seen all the others.


#281 of 292 by drewmike on Mon Jun 14 17:54:37 1999:

Short Attention Span Review of "Austin Powers 2": They didn't try to cover
new ground, but once they set their sights, they opened the valves full blast.
If I'd directed it I would have trimmed about 7-10 minutes out. 
"Coffee Scene" = no ah ah. But before the opening credits were over, I'd
laughed harder than I had all week, and it just kept on. 


#282 of 292 by aruba on Mon Jun 14 21:04:53 1999:

Yeah, I pretty much agree with drewmike; I enjoyed it a lot and could have
lived without the "coffee scene".


#283 of 292 by scott on Mon Jun 14 21:07:21 1999:

Ah, but the coffee scene was the funniest part (IMHO).


#284 of 292 by hhsrat on Mon Jun 14 22:04:28 1999:

The coffee scene was OK, could have been better.  The "other" coffee tie 
in (the location of Dr. Evil's secret headquarters) was much better.


#285 of 292 by remmers on Tue Jun 15 02:59:22 1999:

Re resp:274 - Didn't see "Touch of Evil" on cable, but I did catch it
when the "director's cut" played at the Michigan Theater last year.
I assume that Encore is showing the same version, which is a distinct
improvement over the film as originally cut and released by the
studio. In either version, it's a great film.


#286 of 292 by omni on Tue Jun 15 06:34:14 1999:

  Fortunatly, it will get several repeats. Encore does things like this, and
it was the director's cut. Lenny Maltin even introduced it.


#287 of 292 by maeve on Tue Jun 15 13:31:49 1999:

Human Traffic-

Don't know if it will be released in the states..
It's brilliant. It's about a group of friends and the club scene in 
Cardiff. Doesn't require *too* much thought, but generally takes you 
through the weekend. One of Alasdair's friends was an extra and 
appeared centre screen for a bit, and I managed to recognise a few 
places from when I visited in January. Highly reccomended


#288 of 292 by aaron on Tue Jun 15 14:07:17 1999:

A Touch of Evil is a cool film, but so dated in so many ways. It is wild,
seeing the use of the "high tech" portable recorder, given the changes in
technology since 1958.


#289 of 292 by remmers on Tue Jun 15 23:10:06 1999:

If you think that's archaic, you should see the telephone answering
machine that Mike Hammer has in "Kiss Me Deadly" (1955).


#290 of 292 by tpryan on Wed Jun 16 03:20:31 1999:

        For some reason, I have a spool or two of recording wire
around here.


#291 of 292 by aaron on Mon Jun 21 03:57:46 1999:

Tarzan - B+ -- By far, Disney's best integration of computer animation with
               hand-drawn art. The story... oh, slightly more faithful to
               the original than "Hunchback." The music? Are you a Phil
               Collins fan? Don't expect any "best song" Oscars for this one.


#292 of 292 by carson on Mon Jun 21 07:15:23 1999:

(it's out already? I really need to relocate from this rock I've
been hiding under.)


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: