Grex Cinema Conference

Item 31: Grex goes to the movies!

Entered by richard on Tue Jun 22 22:30:32 1999:

337 new of 348 responses total.


#12 of 348 by giry on Fri Jun 25 17:48:58 1999:

Agora 20 <-> Cinema 31


#13 of 348 by drewmike on Wed Jun 30 05:48:56 1999:

Uh.... welll... Monday I was in the production offices of Julia Roberts' next,
"Erin Brockovich", and I passed the offices of "Nutty Professor II".
 
I bet I know which movie is going to have more ass jokes.


#14 of 348 by bookworm on Wed Jun 30 17:02:57 1999:

I'm dying to see "Tarzan" and "Wild Wild West"  They are in theatres over 
here and I haven't seen either.


#15 of 348 by mcnally on Wed Jun 30 17:07:21 1999:

  re #13:  you're not going far out on a limb with that prediction, are you?
           for more of a challenge, try to predict the first movie to be made
           *after* "Nutty Professor II" that will feature more ass jokes.
           If you can make that call correctly I'll be *very* impressed..


#16 of 348 by tpryan on Wed Jun 30 21:30:48 1999:

        Thusfar, I heard that "Wild Wild West" is Avengers '99...take a
TV show, fondly remembered, and mess with it.


#17 of 348 by omni on Thu Jul 1 05:41:46 1999:

 Wild Wild West doesn't impress me to the point I'd go and see it. I still
am a very big fan of the old one with Robert Conrad. Maybe the movie will
catch on so that some pimp station will begin showing the tv show again just
for the sole value of tying in.


#18 of 348 by drewmike on Thu Jul 1 07:16:15 1999:

Re 15: If they were doing a remake of "Tess of the D'Urbervilles", that would
be a shoo-in.


#19 of 348 by krj on Thu Jul 1 12:14:30 1999:

So far, "Wild Wild West" has provided a feast for fans of really 
negative movie reviews.  "Not As Bad As 'The Avengers'" was about 
the most positive evaluation I found so far.  Anyone actually seen it?


#20 of 348 by senna on Thu Jul 1 12:57:35 1999:

I was tempted, but I think I'll wait until video.  The previews did not 
impress me much at all.  When that happens, you know there's trouble.  


#21 of 348 by mary on Thu Jul 1 13:22:05 1999:

Wow, to me it looks like a whole lot of fun.  I like Kevin Kline.  He has
one of those forgiveably-naughty smiles.

A Simple Plan is now available on video.  I think it was last year's
best movie.


#22 of 348 by mooncat on Thu Jul 1 17:32:02 1999:

Yeah, I think Wild, Wild West looks like fun.



#23 of 348 by mcnally on Thu Jul 1 18:40:36 1999:

  I always liked the show "Wild, Wild West" -- it was one of the trippiest
  concepts for a television show ever ("I know -- let's make a science-fiction
  western!")

  I was hoping the movie would be good -- sounds like I can can kiss those
  hopes goodbye..


#24 of 348 by mary on Thu Jul 1 19:34:31 1999:

Well, WWW looked like fun from the trailers. ;-)

It had it's moments.  All two of them.  (sigh).


#25 of 348 by albaugh on Thu Jul 1 21:00:26 1999:

I wonder if this WWW movie is web-based...  ;-)


#26 of 348 by ryan on Thu Jul 1 21:18:07 1999:

This response has been erased.



#27 of 348 by jiffer on Fri Jul 2 16:17:08 1999:

I sw Wild Wild West, it was cheesey. Actually, it was double cheesie


#28 of 348 by mooncat on Fri Jul 2 17:15:42 1999:

Is that a bad thing?



#29 of 348 by omni on Fri Jul 2 18:10:14 1999:

Pizza, no. Movies, Yes.


#30 of 348 by cassia on Fri Jul 2 19:57:38 1999:

Recently saw "The Zero Effect" on video - liked it quite
a bit and suspect it did not do well in the box office
because though it has many parts that make one smile,
it is not a "comedy".

It is a good portrayal of that "Greatest Detective In the World"
idea - amazing while on a case, but socially completely inept;
finds love and so on, but all develops in an unexpected
and entertaining way.


#31 of 348 by aruba on Fri Jul 2 20:09:37 1999:

I enjoyed Zero Effect as well.


#32 of 348 by drew on Fri Jul 2 21:47:56 1999:

The original _West_ was almost before my time, but I remember a few bits and
pieces about it.

* They had a private train which also served as their base of operations. All
   you ever saw was the caboose, which looked *enormous* on the inside. I
   wondered how that caboose managed to fit on the tracks.

* West had a small two-shot pistol in a power holster, and a few other hidden
   devices.

* The railroad car was equipped with a "telegraph" that I thought would have
   had to be a radio tranceiver. How do you connect to wires from a moving
   train?

* The plots often involved fighting villians who were inventing various 20th
   Century devices to use in various attempts of world domination and other
   mischief.

* There was a Time Travel episode (an ex-Confederate general tryinmg to change
   the outcome of the Civil War), and an episode with Space Aliens! (details
   forgotten.)


I don't know why I lost track of this one. I think I'd watch it if it showed
up on broadcast television. There have already been a couple of movies made,
both of them shown on television, which I thought were okay.


#33 of 348 by md on Sat Jul 3 04:17:55 1999:

BIG DADDY (B) - Pretty good.  Adam Sandler is one of
those actors you never expect to mature, but that's
what he seems to be doing.  Who knew?  Sandler's
character's parenting philosophy reminded my son of
me, which I guess I have to take as a compliment.

WISHFUL THINKING (B-) - Too talky and too long, but
the writer/director's use of point-of-view shifts
and one or two neat plot twists kept my interest up.

THE FACULTY (C) - I wasn't crazy about it, but my kids
thought it was scary and cool.

Jon Stewart is in all three of the above movies.


#34 of 348 by other on Sat Jul 3 05:44:10 1999:

re resp:32

 * The railroad car was equipped with a "telegraph" that I thought would have
    had to be a radio tranceiver. How do you connect to wires from a moving
    train?

The train is not attached to the wires, it travels *on* them.


#35 of 348 by jazz on Sat Jul 3 11:26:41 1999:

        Since a number of folks here seem to have picked up Pullman's _Zero
Effect_, it's worth asking - have any of you seen _The End of Violence_?


#36 of 348 by remmers on Sat Jul 3 11:29:45 1999:

Yes, saw _The End of Violence_ and liked it a lot.


#37 of 348 by hhsrat on Sun Jul 4 02:29:23 1999:

anyone seen South Park yet?


#38 of 348 by senna on Sun Jul 4 05:35:46 1999:

After much mucking about, I finally witnessed both Pulp Fiction and 
Lawrence of Arabia.  Here we go.

Pulp Fiction was a lot of fun.  It neither panders to the senses nor 
denies them entirely.  The dialogue is vivid, the characters are 
splendidly developed, and the stories are the sorts of things that don't 
pop up every day.  The nonlinear presentation is really the icing on the 
cake, elevating this beyond any other movie.  The acting's nice, too :) 

Lawrence of Arabia was viewed with two prominent issues in mind.  1) It 
is meant to be viewed in a movie palace.  I couldn't agree more.  
Someone warn me when the Michigan plays it.  2) It is a "classic," and 
thus carries way too many expectations on it.  "Classic" movies tend to 
follow entirely different rhythms from today's modern film.  The 
differences are so great that comparing two films (the two I watched, 
for instance) is like comparing two completely different languages.  
Lawrence of Arabia essentially followed this pattern, and I was prepared 
for a long classic.  The first half in particular was terrific.  It 
trickled off at the end, leaving me somewhat unsatisfied, but it is 
still a magnificent work of art.  C'mon Michigan.


#39 of 348 by drewmike on Sun Jul 4 05:57:53 1999:

HHS: Twice, byotch!


#40 of 348 by katie on Sun Jul 4 06:07:15 1999:

An Ideal Husband is absolutely wonderful. I am going to see it again.


#41 of 348 by mooncat on Sun Jul 4 21:06:56 1999:

Saw "WildWild West" this weekend and I really enjoyed it.  That was
the general consensus of the seven other people I went with.  Personally,
I loved all the puns and even though it was cheesy- I enjoyed it.



#42 of 348 by ryan on Tue Jul 6 20:11:59 1999:

This response has been erased.



#43 of 348 by jep on Tue Jul 6 21:33:49 1999:

I saw "Wild, Wild West" and liked it a lot.

As others here have said, it was cheesy.  It really was.  But cheese can 
be very badly done, or very well done, and this one was some pretty good 
cheese.  

First of all, Will Smith is a very good actor.  I don't know why I think 
so, except that I can imagine some of the scenes he's done, but with 
someone else filling in, say, Donald Sutherland.  Will Smith is better 
than Donald Sutherland.

Second, it was more or less true to my long ago, childhood memories of 
the TV show.  (Which also was cheesy.)

There's a lot to dislike in this movie.  There are many unclever racial 
and handicapper jokes, and bland sex jokes (and bland sexism).  The plot 
is nothing to get excited about.  I was  not awed by the special 
effects, or stunned by the scenery.  The original "Wild, Wild West" 
theme music, which was good, appears only once.  Will Smith's rap song 
doesn't appear at all until the screen credits.  (Okay, I hate rap, and 
don't understand it, so this part didn't bother me much.)

But I laughed out loud several times while watching.  (Racial humor is 
not always funny, but when it's aimed at, and done with the 
participation of, one of the most successful entertainers around, then I 
might well find it funny.)

And the unsavory jokes went right over my 8 year old's head, nonetheless 
he liked the movie for what he saw in it.

On a scale of 4, I'd give it about a 2.5, I think.


#44 of 348 by richard on Tue Jul 6 21:47:04 1999:

Roger Ebert gave Wild Wild West thumbs way down-- says Will Smith and
Kevin Kline have zero chemistry and script is poorly written.  My 
problem with the movie is that it takes place in post-civil war 1860's
Will Smith shouldnt be playing the Robert Conrad role because in the\
1860's blacks had just been freed from slavery and were not yet accepted
as any other members of society.  A black man could not have been a spy
working for the government in 1866.  It is historically inaccurate.


#45 of 348 by tpryan on Tue Jul 6 22:20:11 1999:

        Duh!


#46 of 348 by janc on Tue Jul 6 22:25:30 1999:

A historically accurate remake of "Wild Wild West" would be like low-fat
lard.


#47 of 348 by jiffer on Tue Jul 6 23:02:46 1999:

ITs CHEESE! Richard, do you not know about Cheese Movies? If so, we can
educate you on them.  It is up there with comedies.


#48 of 348 by katie on Wed Jul 7 05:17:01 1999:

I saw American Pie. It was more entertaining than I expected, maybe becasue
..or even because...the audience was having such a good time with it. Kind
of a poor-man's There's Something About Mary.


#49 of 348 by senna on Wed Jul 7 05:22:28 1999:

Would it make you feel better if it was a white person staring down the 
80-foot mechanical tarantula instead of a black person?  


#50 of 348 by mooncat on Wed Jul 7 13:05:11 1999:

Come on Richard!  We're talking about a movie that has 80 foot mechanical
tarantula... like THAT's historically accurate. <rolls her eyes>
And what's the fun in merely spouting the opinion of someone else
if you've never seen the movie..

Heh, I recommend "Manhatan" to you, Richard, pay attention to the Eric
Stoltz character and his discussion on Jane Austen...



#51 of 348 by lowclass on Wed Jul 7 14:01:18 1999:

        Actaully RIchard, SOme blacks did espionage for the Union during
 the civil war. Is it so hard to believe they might have done so after?


#52 of 348 by drewmike on Wed Jul 7 15:33:12 1999:

Re 48: My friends in LA kept calling it "There's Something About Pastry".


#53 of 348 by md on Wed Jul 7 18:36:32 1999:

SOUTH PARK: BIGGER, LONGER & UNCUT (A) - You've heard 
it's offensive and you're wondering how offensive?  At one point, 
an adult tells one of the kids that the way to make a woman fall in 
love with you is to "find the clitoris."  Unable to get useful information 
about the clitoris from anyone, the kids go on line and search for 
"clitoris."  They breeze past a message about turning back if you're 
under age 18, and find themselves viewing a German web site 
featuring coprophagia.  Then the kids notice that the woman shouting 
"Ess mein scheisse!" is the mother of one of them, Mrs. Cartman.  
Cartman later asks his mother, "You wouldn't appear in a scheisse 
video,  would you?"  Finally, a gigantic clitoris appears to one of the 
kids in a vision, and warns him about earth's impending doom.  

Another theme that runs throuigh the movie is that Saddam Hussein,
who died after being eaten by a pack of wild boars, has gone to hell
and is now Satan's gay lover.  The two of them are seen bitching at
each other like a stereotypical pair of queens.  

The movie is an old-fashioned musical.  When Satan finally tells 
Saddam it's over, Saddam sings his big number, "I Can Change."

Highly recommended.


#54 of 348 by mary on Wed Jul 7 20:49:46 1999:

Hey, I was all pumped to see "The Red Violin" tonight but
you make this sound so enticing.  


#55 of 348 by gull on Wed Jul 7 21:08:54 1999:

I saw South Park last night.  I laughed really hard, though I was sort of
embarassed at myself for finding it so funny...


#56 of 348 by jiffer on Wed Jul 7 21:22:38 1999:

AHHH!  I forgot about The Red Violin!!!!!!


#57 of 348 by jep on Thu Jul 8 01:10:24 1999:

I had to look up 'coprophagia'.  (Among dogs, it's the problem of them
eating their own feces.  http://www.erinet.com/ghost/coprophagia.htm_


#58 of 348 by jep on Thu Jul 8 01:10:37 1999:

)


#59 of 348 by bru on Thu Jul 8 01:34:58 1999:

The problem I have with Wild, Wild, West is that this is not James West.

Why did they have to use the name James West.  Why couldn't he have been
Richard west, son of James West in the 1890 instead of the 1860's.  I could
have bought that!  And why did the villian have to be Mr. Loveless.


#60 of 348 by mary on Thu Jul 8 13:25:50 1999:

"The Red Violin" didn't quite live up to its reviews but it
had it's moments.  There was one scene where a brilliant 
violinist both infatuated with himself and his lover finds
himself stroking the neck of his violin, which is draped over
his naked body, covering his genitals.  I'm sorry, but at that
moment I'd was wishing I had indeed done "Southpark".  I don't
think we were supposed to be laughing aloud.

For anyone who did see "Violin", a question.  In that last
scene, did he have possession of the fake or the real Red?
What do you think?  John and I disagree.


#61 of 348 by drewmike on Thu Jul 8 14:37:28 1999:

My father was terribly offended by "The Red Violin". Mostly he felt
disappointed that he'd surrendered two hours and whatever of his life and
gotten that little payoff.


#62 of 348 by tpryan on Thu Jul 8 22:18:09 1999:

        The Red Violin Diaries?  Coming to Showtime!


#63 of 348 by coyote on Fri Jul 9 01:33:11 1999:

I thought that the story to Red Violin was interesting in concept, especially
how it jumped around between various time periods, but there were definitely
some sections that I liked more than others.  I liked the section set in
Maoist China the most (probably because I read a book not too long ago about
the Cultural Revolution), despite some inaccuracies.  Example: when the female
revolutionary defends the music teacher by saying he teaches traditional
Chinese music... Traditional music was included in the "Four Olds" (Old
Culture, I believe), and would have been denounced as well as Western music.
It was very interesting to note that the China section truly was filmed in
Shanghai.  I wonder how the film-maker got the permission to do that, since
it didn't show Communist China in a particularly positive light....  The music
to the movie was quite good, in my opinion.  Re 60: (Spoiler follows,
for those who intend to see the movie)  At first, I thought he had taken the
real violin, as that would have prevented that one violinist from buying it
and would have continued the tradition of the violin's wild and wacky
adventures.  However, he never would have been able to tell his daughter what
he had, and it seems that he'd feel a little guilty for stealing a
multi-million dollar instrument.  So, I'm not sure whether he ended up with
the copy or the original, but I tend to think it was the original.


#64 of 348 by mary on Fri Jul 9 02:12:03 1999:

I felt he took the copy for his daughter.  He was indeed seduced by the
idea of possessing the original but the more his thoughts turned to home,
thinking of his daughter, talking to his wife, the saner he got. 



#65 of 348 by eubeleus on Sat Jul 10 16:14:33 1999:

Sounds like amusical version of "The Yellow Rolls Royce"...



#66 of 348 by aaron on Sun Jul 11 09:04:27 1999:

The Thief (Russia, 1997) (A-) - An interesting tale, in which a six-year-old
boy becomes increasingly devoted to his mother's poorly chosen boyfriend,
an abusive, amoral thief. It's Russian. Do I need to add, "With tragic
consequences"? Strangely, this film makes me wonder if modern Russia is
not more in tune with what inspires the criminal mind, and what might
cause a child to do bad things, than modern America.

The General's Daughter (B-) - There are aspects to this film which are
quite good, and others which are more problematic. An undercover military
cop (finishing up an assignment, designed to give us some standard "police
movie" action scenes in an otherwise non-standard police movie) is brought
into the investigation of the apparent rape and murder of a young woman,
and soon discovers that nothing is as it appears. Some interesting premises,
but some whoppingly huge plot holes. The film is active enough that you
don't have to think about the various plot defects and weaknesses, but not
so fast that you won't, if you are so inclined. It's also a film that had
to tack on a moralistic final sequence, which does not seem consistent with
the rest of the film (which seems to have a distinct lack of moral focus
beyond, "get the bad guy(s), whoever they are) -- it isn't particularly
clear if the film was trying to convey a message about women in the military,
or if its undertone of "they don't belong in combat roles" was unintended.
Other than the ending, which seemed contrived, the film was relatively
obvious, and was frequently cliched. It is not appropriate for people who
will be disturbed by sexual violence.

Arlington Road (C+) - This might have ranked a higher grade had I not seen
the previews. This film spends a considerable amount of time on character
development and a developing tension between the lead male characters, which
is spoiled by the teaser. The film then turns to its action sequences, which
are adequate, but its climax and ending reminded me of "The Game" --
completely implausible in the real world. In "The Game," a bottomless pit
of money was supposedly used, in conjunction with an extraordinarily thorough
psychological profile, to anticipate and manipulate the lead character's
every move. In "Arlington Road," we are just to assume that events and
actions that are inherently unpredictable where in fact precisely predicted
well in advance. Arlington Road's attempts to convey a strong political
message about domestic terrorism and governmental responsibility, but its
preachings are heavy-handed, and its contrived ending dilutes its impact.
Look for a fictionalized "Ruby Ridge", where the family is cuter, more
law-abiding, and blatantly wronged by the government. Look for a
(perhaps too thinly) fictionalized account of the Oklahoma City Boming,
where McVeigh is transformed into something of a grown-up boy scout. If
you believed "Conspiracy Theory," and you thought "The Game" was entirely
plausible, this film is for you.


#67 of 348 by mary on Sun Jul 11 11:53:52 1999:

Today is the last day for the Ann Arbor Theater.  The new metro-plex
will be opening next Wednesday.  John and I went to see "Arlington
Road" yesterday and I think we tend to agree with Aaron's review.
But see it anyhow, today, and say good-bye to a nice, accessible
and comfortable movie house.  I'll miss it.


#68 of 348 by johnnie on Tue Jul 13 14:00:44 1999:

The Ann Arbor Theater is closing?  Does this mean that the local market 
for the film genre(s) it specializes in has dried up, or that the 
ultra-plexes are now showing this sort of film and providing unbeatable 
competition?  When I last lived in Ann Arbor, the AAT was the only place 
showing small/independent/foreign films on a daily basis.  Or, by "new 
metro-plex", do you mean that the AAT has divided itself into ten 
theatres of seven seats each?


#69 of 348 by md on Tue Jul 13 15:28:25 1999:

I saw a feature just last night on the Independent
film Channel about the AA Film Festival, which is
managed as a labor of love by a local hairdresser.
I think they said the films were shown at the AAT.
Is that true?  Are they out on the street now?  That
would be a great loss.


#70 of 348 by mcnally on Tue Jul 13 17:10:42 1999:

  The public screenings of the Ann Arbor Film Festival are at the
  Michigan Theater, not the Ann Arbor Theater.

  I have no idea where the many, many preliminary screenings (for the
  festival committee to choose which films will be shown) occur..


#71 of 348 by krj on Tue Jul 13 18:06:00 1999:

The Ann Arbor Theater was doomed once it abandoned the serving of 
real butter on its popcorn.
 
Johnnie, the foreign/indie film business now pretty much goes to 
the Michigan Theater, and to the State Theatre.  (I believe I saw a 
note somewhere that the Michigan is now running the State Theatre's 
two screens.)  The owners of the Ann Arbor Theatre have built a 
megaplex on the western fringes of Ann Arbor; if it has a more 
pleasant ambience than the Showcase, we'll probably become 
regular customers there, since that's the side of town we live on.
(We hate the Showcase.  It's the only movie theatre in the area with 
armed security guards, and the theatre does something to piss us off 
every time we go -- usually herding us around like cattle.)
 
Press coverage reports that the owners of the new mega-plex 
promise to keep bringing in some indie/art/foreign films.

Indie American films seem to be doing decently right now, but 
the USA market for foreign films has declined drastically.
I assume this , like the repertory film circuit, is 
a casualty of the VCR.


#72 of 348 by jiffer on Tue Jul 13 20:27:28 1999:

I think the name of the new Theater is 'Quality 16'.  I was driving the 
long way home the other day and saw it.  Nifty keen to see movies right 
out of work.


#73 of 348 by scg on Tue Jul 13 21:07:31 1999:

I remember seeing lots of neat stuff at the Ann Arbor Theater when I was
younger.  I haven't been there for years, largely because when they've been
showing stuff I wanted to see lately, I usually didn't get around to going
to see it until after it had stopped showing.  When I heard that it was
closing I kept meaning to go there one last time, but I never got around to
it, figuring that I could always go the next week.  The theater's last day,
which was announced in the Ann Arbor News that morning, conflicted with the
last night of this year's TOP, and TOP won out.

I do enjoy going to the Michigan, in part because of the archetecture, in part
because of the stuff they show, and in large part because I can walk to it
from home.  Having another theater I could walk to close seems sad to me, but
I suppose by not having gone to that theater in several years, I'm part of
the problem that kept it from staying open.

Apparrently the owner of the Ann Arbor Theater was trying to sell it to
somebody who would keep operating it as a movie theater after he decided to
build his megaplex, but wasn't able to find a buyer.


#74 of 348 by richard on Tue Jul 13 22:29:21 1999:

A2 needs a theater like Film Forum in New York.  Film Forum is a small
non-profit three screen multiplex in Greenwich Village that is owned and
operated by its patrons, similar to grex.  Yearly memberships are sold to
to pay the rent on the theater, and those who buy memberships get
get discounted theater tickets, plus get to help decide what films are
are shown. The ticket takers, popcorn and soda vendors are all volunteer
members.  They show mostly independent films and revivals, and film
festivals.  This month they were showing an Erich Von Stroheim film
festival featuring the classic german silent film, "Greed"  I like the
place, its  a refreshing change from the monolithic Cineplex Odeon 18's of
the world.


#75 of 348 by jiffer on Tue Jul 13 22:58:08 1999:

Actually, A2 sort of does.  It is a not-for-profit theater biult inthe 1920's
and usually shows a veriety of non-mainstream films. But the Ann Arbor Theater
is just as special as the Michigan Theater (The Michigan Theater is the
not-for-profit)


#76 of 348 by mcnally on Wed Jul 14 00:52:08 1999:

  Ann Arbor also used to have a thriving film club scene, with groups like
  the Cinema Guild, the Ann Arbor Film Co-op, and several others showing
  classic, foreign, indie, and art films in campu auditoriums.  The last
  vestiges of these groups linger (the Cinema Guild still shows stuff) but
  it's not like it was when I first came to Ann Arbor:  at that time there
  were typically four or more non-mainstream films being shown on campus on
  any Friday or Saturday evening during the academic year.  

  Ken's theory about the VCR killing local film diversity probably applies
  much better to the campus film groups.


#77 of 348 by tpryan on Wed Jul 14 01:18:06 1999:

        Any mainstream movie that made it to those campus film groups had first
available showings at about the time the video was being released.  I guess
the industry already had a business model for secondary markets.


#78 of 348 by bookworm on Wed Jul 14 04:20:16 1999:

Jon and I saw "wild wild west".  It was hilarious.

Sorry, I'm not much of a movie critic.  So far I've loved nearly every 
movie I ever went to see in the theatre.


#79 of 348 by omni on Wed Jul 14 04:42:04 1999:

  Someone should buy the old Ann Arbor Theatre, because if not we're going
to have an urban sprawl like Detroit has, only ours will be toward the west.
I noticed while coming home from Chelsea the other day how much Jackson is
being built up. It sounds like most people are abandoning downtown Ann Arbor.


#80 of 348 by scg on Wed Jul 14 06:34:37 1999:

Ann Arbor's also sprawling pretty heavily to the South, along the Ann Arbor
Saline road corridor, as well as out State Street.


#81 of 348 by drewmike on Wed Jul 14 07:50:19 1999:

Before I started going to U of M, the campus film group scene was still going
along moderately well, but by my second year, it was downright anemic.
M-Flicks decided not to compete with the VCR at all, and started mostly
showing sneak previews. This meant, though, that the films started becoming
more major-studio, with more corporate logos being tacked onto the promo
materials.


#82 of 348 by senna on Wed Jul 14 14:51:40 1999:

Jackson Road is Scio Township's only commercial corridor, and Scio 
Township plans to keep it that way.  I don't believe Pittsfield has any 
such restrictions, however.


#83 of 348 by krj on Wed Jul 14 19:20:30 1999:

resp:79 :: My recollection is that the site of the Ann Arbor Theater was 
slated to become more downtown condominium housing.   So the closing 
of the theatre doesn't really reflect a flight from the city.
 
The New York Times had a piece (yesterday?) on how consumers are flocking
to the new stadium-seating megaplexes, and the older "shoebox" 
multiplexes like Briarwood (and to some degree the Ann Arbor)
are now a drag on exhibitor profits.


#84 of 348 by md on Wed Jul 14 20:04:46 1999:

I hear the government is taking some of the
stadium-seating chains to court under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.  The stadium 
seats are mostly inaccessible to wheelchair-
bound customers, so they have to use the
level-floor seats down in front, which can't be
a fun experience.


#85 of 348 by scg on Wed Jul 14 21:19:16 1999:

The stadium seating theaters I've seen have often had the entrances to the
theaters somewhere in the middle of the seats, and have had some slots for
wheelchairs on a flat area at that point.  They're probably not the best seats
in the house, but it doesn't look awful.


#86 of 348 by richard on Wed Jul 14 21:24:01 1999:

"GODS AND MONSTERS"-- movie about the last days of James Whale, the openly
gay director of "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein" among others.
Ian McKellan plays Whale as an ill, deeply depressed, ouvertly sexual old
man living his last days in seclusion in the 1950's.  Brendan Fraser plays
this young stud who mows his lawn for him, and lets Whale draw him.
McKellan and Fraser talk about their lives and develop a bond, though much
to McKellan/Whale's regret, Fraser is heterosexual.  Its a movie about
loneliness and the need for friendship, and draws a parallell between
Whale and the Frankenstein monster, who in the movie is shown constantly
searching for companionship and affection and acceptance.  The monster
never finds such in the movie; Whale however does or did in his life, but
was sadly unable to realize it.  Good movie.  *** 1/2 (three and a half
stars...good video rental)


#87 of 348 by tpryan on Wed Jul 14 22:04:49 1999:

        I recall some old 'flashlight' movie theatres.  You know, 10 seats
wide, fourty seats deep.


#88 of 348 by senna on Thu Jul 15 00:34:42 1999:

I concur with Steve.  The stadium seating theaters I've seen have been 
wheelchair accessible.  In addition, Showcase has an additional 
handicap accessible entrance at the top of its theaters.  


#89 of 348 by mcnally on Thu Jul 15 04:38:25 1999:

  Yes, most of the "stadium seating" theaters I've seen have had much
  better accomodations for wheelchair-bound moviegoers than other theaters
  I've seen.  Not sure how they compare for people with disabilities that
  don't require wheelchairs.  I'm sure they must somehow offend someone --
  everything does..


#90 of 348 by scg on Thu Jul 15 04:53:47 1999:

I'm assuming the wheelchair accomodations in newer theaters are partly a
function of the age of the theater (theater designers are presumably much more
aware of the usefulness of such accomodations now than they were in the past),
and partly because having the seats that steep means it's possible to have
a level area large enough for a wheelchair, and still not have it interfere
with the view from the rest of the seats.  Thinking back to the multiplexes
built 10 or 15 years ago, which the steadily sloping floors and fairly densely
packed seats, I'm not sure where a wheelchair could have parked easily.


#91 of 348 by md on Thu Jul 15 11:14:53 1999:

Here's a web news item about it:

"After seven months of unsuccessful negotiations, 
the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has 
filed suit in the United States District Court in 
Los Angeles against American Multi-Cinema, Inc. and 
AMC Entertainment for failing to provide stadium-
style seating for individuals whose disabilities 
prevent them from climbing stairs. Title III of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 USCA ''12181 
et seq.) requires places of public accommodation to 
provide equal access, service, and quality of goods 
to individuals with disabilities as are provided to 
members of the general public.

"Most of AMC's theaters contain the popular stadium-
style seats which are located on stepped 18-inch 
risers and provide an unobstructed view of the movie 
screen over the persons seated ahead. In all but a 
few AMC theaters, wheelchair seating is located in 
the front section of the theater, which does not 
provide the same unobstructed view. The DOJ alleges 
that, by placing almost all wheelchair seating in the 
front section, access to the better, stadium-style 
seats is denied to individuals whose disabilities 
prevent them from climbing stairs. In addition to 
requiring the availability of wheelchair seating, 
the ADA also requires that those wheelchair seating 
locations provide comparable lines of sight. In most 
of AMC's stadium-style theaters, the lines of sight 
for wheelchair seating are not comparable because they 
are much closer to the screen with inferior viewing 
angles.

"In addition to seeking civil penalties and damages for 
individuals with disabilities who have patronized AMC 
theaters, the DOJ seeks an order to compel AMC to build 
new theaters in compliance with the ADA and to require 
AMC to modify existing structures as necessary for ADA 
compliance."


#92 of 348 by other on Thu Jul 15 13:15:23 1999:

They could install relatively low profile 'chair lifts' which run along the
stairs...

Jim, the growth of the Jackson area is not in the least an indication that
people are fleeing downtown Ann Arbor, it is *exactly* the opposite.

The development rate of downtown Ann Arbor is constrained by ordinance, and
the available office space, as reported in the June Observer, is filled
almost (but not quite) to capacity.


#93 of 348 by mcnally on Thu Jul 15 16:08:57 1999:

  re #91:  sigh.. 

  you can't offer wheelchair users seating near the front (bottom) of the
  theater.  obviously you can't just put the theater entrance at the back (top)
  either -- then you're giving them seats which are too far from the screen.

  similarly, it's not fair, either to put the wheelchair spots at the sides,
  along the aisles.  some people prefer to sit in the center and it's not fair
  to deny wheelchair users the same access as "temporarily abled" people get.

  and let us not forget blind users.  they can't see these "moving pictures"
  at all.  fairness dictates that we shouldn't offer sighted users a better
  movie experience than blind users..

  you get the picture.  perhaps I'm exaggerating the case slightly, but 
  possibly not by much.  I earnestly agree with what I *think* was the
  original goal of the Americans With Disabilities Act.  It's a good thing
  for society to make whatever minor accomodations it can to help the
  disabled, but it's wrong to expect the law to be able to make everything
  equal for everyone.  
 
  does anyone else but me expect Diana Moon Glampers to file an amicus curiae
  brief in this case?



#94 of 348 by void on Thu Jul 15 16:32:01 1999:

   geez..."harrison bergeron," anyone?


#95 of 348 by johnnie on Thu Jul 15 20:19:44 1999:

Well, it's more than just the seating area issue, I suspect.  A year or 
two ago in the Toledo area, a stadium-seating theater was built (by AMC, 
I believe) that didn't even have the handicap-accessible basics, such as 
front entrance ramps or wide bathroom stalls until the authorities came 
down hard, and said features were put in *after* the place opened.  
Which is to say that AMC seems not to be putting much effort or thought 
at all into the needs of the handicapped.  Would it be so difficult to 
put in a couple of ramps and a few removable seats a dozen rows up?


#96 of 348 by mcnally on Thu Jul 15 20:46:02 1999:

  Given the pitch of the typical "stadium" theater, it might well be
  very difficult to put in a ramp useful for wheelchairs.

  If AMC is really building new theaters without any accomodations for
  handicapped access then that's clearly a Bad Thing.  Requiring wheelchair
  accessible bathrooms, however, is not the same as mandating that the
  wheelchair accessible seating be placed so that it has an optimal view
  angle.


#97 of 348 by senna on Fri Jul 16 05:25:16 1999:

Quality 16:

This looks like more of a cookie cutter corporate budget model than a 
lavish spare-no-expense theater in the tradition of Showcase.  
Everything seems to be about half the size, except the price.  The price 
is only one dollar or fifty cents cheaper, depending on what day it is. 
 This is not to say that it's a bad complex.  The lobby is clean and 
funnels traffic well.  Decoration will presumably touch up the sparse 
interior a bit, and I anticipate the large screen mounted in the most 
accessible corner to shortly be filled with previews or show listings or 
both.

The movie experience, watching the Matrix, left something to be desired. 
 Hardly surprising, given the age of the film and the unfamiliarity of 
the employees.  The main problems involved a periodic appearance of a 
vertical string on the screen, and a problem dimming the house lights 
in time for the show.  Nothing huge.  The theaters are substantially 
smaller than Showcase's and remind me of chain stadia I've seen in other 
large cities.  Seats are acceptably comfortable and the view from the 
back is good.  I believe that this was the smallest theater in the 
complex, so I'll have to check out one of their first run houses soon.

It's a nice place, and a good alternative to Showcase.  I think United 
Artists is getting priced out of the business.  


#98 of 348 by scg on Fri Jul 16 05:36:01 1999:

How was the wheelchair accessability? ;)

I've only been in an AMC theater once.  Now that I think about it, we may have
entered from the very front of the theater, rather than the middle of the
theater like they do in Showcase, so the wheelchair accessability would have
been considerably worse, but I don't really remember clearly what it looked
like.


#99 of 348 by jazz on Fri Jul 16 16:46:40 1999:

        Yeah, is there wheelchair access to the light bulbs abovehead?


#100 of 348 by gull on Fri Jul 16 20:50:19 1999:

Re #97:  The 'vertical string' was probably a scratch on the film.  It
probably was on the print when they got it, if my short experience working
at a theater was any guide.  A lot of places don't clean their projector
every day like they should, and dust gets drawn into the film gate and
scratches the film as it goes past.  THat's why the film often looks like
crap by the time second run theaters get it.


#101 of 348 by happyboy on Fri Jul 16 22:53:28 1999:

man...cripples really piss me off.


#102 of 348 by mary on Sun Jul 18 12:10:30 1999:

"Run Lola Run" is a German film that takes "What if..." and tells
a story three ways.  It's fresh and clever and the soundtrack is
absolutely right.  Unless you simply can't deal with subtitles
don't miss this one.  It's at the Michigan through the 25th.


#103 of 348 by richard on Sun Jul 18 22:19:16 1999:

EYES WIDE SHUT-- The last film of master filmmaker Stanley Kubrick, about
a wealthy New York doctor (Tom Cruise) whose adulterous fantasies lead him
to a brief experience with the sexual underworld.  Nicole Kidman play's
Cruise's wife (and since she IS his wife in real life, you cant fault the
casting)  This is about the search for intimacy in a world where it doesnt
seem to exsist.  Its a really dense film which one needs to see more than
once (every scene is filled with imagery-- Kubrick filmed each scene
dozens if not hundreds of times over more than two years)  

This is not a film many of you might enjoy, as it is dark, perverse and
kinky.  I think it is a great film with one quite obvious flaw-- the
central character (Cruise) has a credibility issue-- if you are married to
Nicole Kidman why would you possibly cheat?  

A worthy if intriguing end to Kubrick's career....(four stars) highly
recommended only if you feel comfortable with such provocative subject
matter.


#104 of 348 by senna on Mon Jul 19 00:59:47 1999:

Actually, richard, one of the great parts of the film is deciding what it's
about, and I think you may have gotten it wrong.  But that's the beauty of
the film.  I, personally, found Cruise's ccharacter quite credible.  His
motive is not sexual boredom when he plays with temptation.  He's consumed
with jealousy.  Or maybe it's *not* jealousy. :)  


#105 of 348 by drewmike on Mon Jul 19 11:49:38 1999:

I haven't seen it, so temper my opinions with that knowledge, but, yes,
Richard, I *can* fault the casting! Why would you want to watch a married
couple making out? It's like, okay, yeah, that's probably their "kids at
Grandma's" routine, but so what? Now a married couple fighting? Yes sir!


#106 of 348 by jep on Mon Jul 19 13:15:00 1999:

I heard the exact point in #105 made, on an editorial on NPR's evening
news program, "All Things Considered".  It is a silly viewpoint.


#107 of 348 by aaron on Mon Jul 19 16:59:18 1999:

re #104: I think he has it wrong as well, but not because the film has any
         great or deep meaning. I think, in many ways, its biggest weakness
         is that it lacks a great or deep meaning. It is just a movie --
         a pretty one, sure. But not particularly meaningful or memorable.


#108 of 348 by richard on Mon Jul 19 22:19:08 1999:

well if I have it wrong, offer  your opinion


#109 of 348 by aaron on Mon Jul 19 23:33:55 1999:

I will share my opinion after more people have viewed the film. Do you
understand the concept of the "spoiler"?


#110 of 348 by senna on Tue Jul 20 02:18:05 1999:

This is a film I would have enjoyed considerably less if I knew what was 
going on before I saw it.  


#111 of 348 by senna on Tue Jul 20 02:18:55 1999:

If I had known, not if I knew.  I can grammar patrol myself to death.


#112 of 348 by richard on Tue Jul 20 23:20:37 1999:

you can talk about the themes of a movie without giving away plot 
details--  senna said he didnt agree with my impression of what the 
movie was about thematically, but didnt offer an alternate opinion.


#113 of 348 by hhsrat on Tue Jul 20 23:30:12 1999:

A few questions for anyone who's been to the Quality 16:

1) How do the food prices compare to the other theaters in town?
2) Coke or Pepsi?
3) (most important) Are there cup holders on the seats?


#114 of 348 by bru on Wed Jul 21 02:43:36 1999:

I have no interest in seeing the film.


#115 of 348 by md on Wed Jul 21 11:41:36 1999:

If you mean Eyes Wide Shut, me neither.

According to IMDb, Jack Valenti is saying that
the MPAA probably screwed up by giving the
South Park movie an R rather than an NC-17,
so if you've been putting off taking your
kids to see it you might want to hurry.
The two young men responsible for this
masterpiece were on the Dennis Miller show
last week, where Miller told them he thought
the movie was the most subversive thing he'd
seen in a long time.  They admitted, only
half-jokingly, that their goal was to bring
down the MPAA.  


#116 of 348 by mary on Wed Jul 21 12:10:02 1999:

Regarding Quality 16 theater - I can't comment on the refreshments as I
didn't have any, but I like the theater.  The lobby is twice maybe three
times the size of the Ann Arbor, the refreshment stand is also small (buts
looks efficient), and the auditorium I was in was fairly perfect, with
comfortable seats, rows wider than deeper, a big screen and great sound.
This was one one of the smallest rooms they have, no doubt (Lake Placid),
so maybe all spaces won't seem so pleasant. 

Yes, there are cup holders and wide, soft, somewhat rockable seats.  $4.75
for a Sunday matinee. 

"Lake Placid" is camp fun.  It was worth the 85 minutes just to 
hear *Betty White* say, "If I were a man I'd tell you to suck my dick."


#117 of 348 by omni on Wed Jul 21 13:39:58 1999:

  But how is the popcorn? Oil, or Butter? The one nice thing about the Ann
Arbor was that they actually used real butter on the popcorn.

  Me, I think I'd rather spend an extra $20 for a movie package on cable, and
be able to be comfortable, have real butter on my air popped corn, and of
course access to the fridge. You can't do that at a multiplex. The only thing
I can see that I'm losing is the chance to get herded like a cow, and possibly
get my pocket picked. 

  And the best thing about watching movies at home? You can sit there in your
underwear and no one will toss you out for doing so.


#118 of 348 by md on Wed Jul 21 14:24:01 1999:

Recent purchase: 

A spiffy new tape of WAR OF THE WORLDS (B) -- This was 
the first science fiction movie to show aliens and their 
machinery as truly alien. No men in rubber suits here. The 
war machines, which the designers modeled after manta rays 
and cobras, are sleek, strange objects, and the sound effects 
curdled my blood the first time I heard them. The movie is 
flawed with period cliches -- the cartoon Mexican, the piously 
sappy minister, the wide-eyed screaming bimbo -- which you 
have to think the director could've avoided.  Some of the 
dialog is stilted.  The scene where the minister walks slowly 
toward one of the Martian machines holding up his bible and 
intoning the 23rd psalm, and is promptly fried by the machine's 
heat weapon, brings me close to blasphemous giggles every 
time I see it.  And of course the writers throw H.G. Wells's novel 
to the ground and dance on it (no great loss, in my opinion). 
But none of his matters next to the astonishing battle scenes. 
This movie is the paradigm for all the others that followed. 
A must-see.


#119 of 348 by gull on Wed Jul 21 14:54:34 1999:

Re #117:  I don't know.  Some movies are much better on the big screen.  And
I *hate* panned & scanned films.


#120 of 348 by scott on Wed Jul 21 19:13:00 1999:

Over the weekend I saw two movies:

South Park:   Extremely funny, assuming you aren't easily offended.

The Red Violin:  Cool, but a bit hokey and overly dramatic.


#121 of 348 by richard on Thu Jul 22 21:42:54 1999:

I rented the DVD of Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining"--  it is
excellent of course, but unfortunately is the pan and scan version
(most DVD's are the widescreen versions naturally)  Any videophile
would want the widescreen version, which makes me wonder what the
DVD folks were thinking.  The "making of" documentary directed by
Kubrick's wife is excelleng though.

Also rented the DVD of "Pride of the Yankees" with Gary Cooper, and
discovered the DVD is the *colorized* version.  Egads!  Of course I
refused to watch that, as noone with any respect for the original vision
of a film director, would watch a butchered colorized version of their
film.  Why, when a company is putting together an expensive digitalized
dvd version of a classic film, would they use a colorized print instead of
the original black and white?  Sheesh.



#122 of 348 by jazz on Thu Jul 22 22:43:51 1999:

        I used to be violently against colorization until I saw an interview
with Ted Turner wherein Ted pointed out that colorization can be undone by
the viewer by simply turning down the "color" knob or slider on their TV.


#123 of 348 by mary on Fri Jul 23 00:39:55 1999:

I enjoyed "Eyes Wide Shut".


#124 of 348 by tpryan on Fri Jul 23 03:28:30 1999:

        I would think that turning the color down on a colorized movie would
get you the B&W version of the colorized movie.  There could be difference
in shadow and light, as the new color would not always translate to the
original grayscale.


#125 of 348 by gull on Fri Jul 23 03:42:57 1999:

Re #121:  They don't have any choice...if the rights to the print are owned
by the company that colorized it, they may well have been forced to use the
colorized version.


#126 of 348 by drewmike on Fri Jul 23 15:26:49 1999:

While it's possible to add colorization at the film level, if the colorization
is being done for home video, it's done at the video stage. As a result, there
aren't many colorized "prints" around.
 
And yes, tpryan, when you turn down the color on a colorized movie, you get
the black and white version of the colorized movie. Which is the black and
white movie. (If you were to make a copy of a color film onto black and white
stock, then there could be differences, because different black and white
stocks have different color sensitivity. But colorization only affects the
chroma, not the luminance.)

In fact, it's often the case that when a film is colorized, a new
film-to-video transfer is struck, and these often can be better than the
transfers that had been available before.


#127 of 348 by remmers on Fri Jul 23 16:14:42 1999:

I read somewhere recently that the colorization fad is pretty much dead,
and I'm inclined to think it's true. When I'm channel surfing I seldom
run into a colorized film these days. A few years ago I came across them
a lot. I for one do not miss them.

I found "Eyes Wide Shut" to be an engrossing, fascinating film,
masterfully executed. Much of the fun was trying to figure out where it
was headed. In the end, I wasn't disappointed. And the title is perfect.

We saw "Eyes Wide Shut" at the new Quality 16. I like the theater. Has
an intimate feel to it that you don't often find in a multiplex.
Comfortable stadium seating, nice big screen, excellent sound.


#128 of 348 by drewmike on Fri Jul 23 17:20:11 1999:

True enough: nowadays I really only see colorization on the pre-color episodes
of "Gilligan's Island", "The Beverly Hillbillies", etc. I'd be willing to
construct an argument that the artificial color harms the believability of
the greater Text, but that's going to have to be later.


#129 of 348 by omni on Fri Jul 23 19:41:43 1999:

  I saw all but the first 30 minutes of "Full Metal Jacket" on cable the other
nite. I was shocked, horrified, amazed, engrossed and repulsed. I intend to
tape it, and watch it more closely the next time around. The guy who played
the D.I gave an excellent performance, well over the top. 

This is a must see-must rent-must record.

4 stars. The repeat will be on Encore, 9:45pm on Monday.


#130 of 348 by bdh1 on Sat Jul 24 02:18:16 1999:

Agree, a must see.  Oddly enough the 'actor' that portrayed "Gunnery
Sgt. Hartman" was no actor, but was in fact originally hired merely as a
'technical advisor'.  He was retired at the time.  Prior to his
retirement he worked as - you guessed it, a USMC "DI".  Art->Life
indeed.

I use the audio of "What is your major malfunction, numbnuts" as one of
the Winblows error 'sounds' and "Good night, ladies" as the shutdown
sound.  (I use "Good morning viet-nam" of Robin Williams as the startup
sound.)

R. Lee has appeared in many other roles since. all characterized by his
ernest attention to detail of the part - you don't get the sense that he
is in fact acting.  He is in fact not. One dimensional perhaps - one
wonders how he would play a 'love scene' but the fact remains, he is a
very good actor.


#131 of 348 by bdh1 on Sat Jul 24 02:23:08 1999:

Locally (Chicagoland) he is noted for having his sound clips used on a
local radio station's 'talk radio' show and his 'cameo' appearance on a
recent live broadcast.  (The after hours 'pub crawl' he and the two
radio personalities went on is apparently 'of legend'.)


#132 of 348 by md on Sun Jul 25 18:14:15 1999:

DROP DEAD GORGEOUS (C) -- I'm not sure what to
make of this movie.  As various reviewers have pointed
out, the culture it's supposed to be satirizing doesn't
exist except possibly in the imagiations of people who
don't know any better, so in that sense it has the
juvenile appeal that movies like Dr Strangelove have.
But despite that, it's a black comedy with some very
funny moments.  I'd recommend it to anyone who thinks
they might enjoy the spectacle of a beauty pageant
contestant dancing with a giant papier-mache crucifix
to the tune of "I Will Follow Him."  I laughed out loud
in a couple of spots.  I guess the folks in Minnesota
don't think it's so funny.


#133 of 348 by remmers on Mon Jul 26 01:26:56 1999:

THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE (D) -- Well-engineered special effects, I
guess, but the otherwise it's a sloppily-written mess. Several talented
actors are wasted in this one. You'd do better to rent the earlier
version from 1963, called "The Haunting".


#134 of 348 by mooncat on Mon Jul 26 02:18:26 1999:

Just got back from seeing "The Haunting" and I agree with Remmers
review.  The special effects were fabulous, but the story needed 
some work... John (jazz) and I agreed that it should have ended
rather differently then it did (I won't tell you how we thought it
should end, rather spoils the movie).



#135 of 348 by md on Mon Jul 26 10:17:36 1999:

LAKE PLACID (C+) -- Decent special effects and a
funny appearance by Betty White.  Mediocre story,
however.  It tries hard to be a comedy, with an
assortment of eccentrics and a slyly budding 
romance between the two main "serious" characters, 
but that part of it struggles and fails.  


#136 of 348 by md on Mon Aug 2 02:22:17 1999:

DEEP BLUE SEA (B+) -- The mindless ferocity of
sharks is such a great subject for movies that it's a 
shame the best one was the first one.  The variation
this movie tries out involves some genetic alterations
that make the sharks intelligent instead of mindless.
What elevates the movie is its sense of humor.  The
characters are all cliches, and the fun lies in seeing
them torn sadistically to shreds.  If that sounds 
cruel, all I can say is you had to be there.  There's
also suspense, of the "How the hell are we going to 
get out of this one?" variety, some excellent effects, 
and a fine performance by Samuel L. Jackson, who seems
to get cast in these things (Sphere, Jurasic Park).
The climax of his inspiring speech to the other
characters sets the tone for the rest of the movie.


#137 of 348 by md on Mon Aug 2 02:23:18 1999:

I mean, "Jurassic."  Like it matters.


#138 of 348 by md on Mon Aug 2 02:43:09 1999:

Saw SOUTH PARK: BIGGER, LONGER AND UNCUT again
with my son, who wanted to see it again and can't
get in without an adult.  I was glad I went.  
This movie bristles with thorns.  Anywhere you 
touch it, there's something sharp enough to draw 
blood.  But just as behind such superficially 
"warm" movies as It's a Wonderful Life there 
sometimes lurks a cold manipulative contempt for 
the audience, South Park's prickly exterior masks 
a fun-loving creative impulse that deeply respects 
the audience and invites us to join its subversive 
cause.  The movie assumes that you are intelligent, 
that you aren't fooled by the pious crap that issues 
from the mouths of politicians and power-tripping 
"morality" crusaders, and that you might enjoy 
participating in the noble effort to lace their food 
with laxatives and lock all the bathroom doors. 
10 out of 10.


#139 of 348 by md on Mon Aug 2 03:05:39 1999:

Recent rental:

HILARY AND JACKIE (D) -- Based on a self-serving
and, by many accounts, inaccurate book by the
attention-starved brother and sister of cellist
Jacqueline du Pre.  It was excruciatingly
embarrassing watching actress Emily Watson trying
to replicate du Pre's performance style.  And
what on earth was the point of showing du Pre
losing bladder control and, in the end, spazzing
hideously out?  To show us that MS is a horrible
way to die?  Duh.  The movie almost seems to
relish the indignities and agonies the disease
inflicted on du Pres.  You feel dirty after watching
it.  Not even the soundtrack snippets of du Pres
performing the Elgar cello concerto made it
bearable.  It was nice to see Nyree Dawn Porter
again, as Dame Margot Fonteyn.  I haven't seen 
much of her since The Forsyte Saga on PBS, if
anyone remembers that.


#140 of 348 by bru on Mon Aug 2 04:15:53 1999:

THE IRON GIANT

Good movie.  good insite into th bounds of prejudice and fear.

WILD< WILD< WEST  Only saw this becaus e it was free after watching the iron
giant.  I am very glad to say it is probably worth what we paid to see it.


#141 of 348 by anderyn on Mon Aug 2 18:39:24 1999:

Naaah, it wasn't really worth that much, dear. (Wild Wild West, that is.)
But The Iron Giant was FAN-tastic. Six thumbs up from the PRices. (Bruce,
Rhiannon, and moi.)


#142 of 348 by drewmike on Wed Aug 4 13:32:54 1999:

If depraved filth is what you want to see, rent one of those porno tapes.
But if you want to see a towering, final artistic statement by a major
director, then could I have the porno tape?


#143 of 348 by other on Wed Aug 4 14:05:06 1999:

huh?!


#144 of 348 by drewmike on Wed Aug 4 14:58:01 1999:

The Onion critique of "Eyes Wide Shut".


#145 of 348 by md on Fri Aug 6 18:14:10 1999:

THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (C) -- Slightly nerve-
wracking in a few places, but hardly "the scariest 
movie since The Exorcist."  The scariest part was
when the camera was looking up the nose of this
sobbing girl and I was cringing in fear that we'd
see a slimy booger drip out of it.  As it turned
out . . . nope, that would be a spoiler, I can't
tell you what happened.


#146 of 348 by richard on Fri Aug 6 21:38:41 1999:

The "Blair Witch Project" was made for $6,000 and made $28 million just
in its first weekend-- should highest profit to expense ratio of any
move in history.  Its per theater numbers exceeded (yes exceeded) that
of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace to set a new record.  Film must have
something going for it.


#147 of 348 by cconroy on Fri Aug 6 22:12:25 1999:

I've heard several accounts of people getting nauseous from watching 
"Blair Witch".  Apparently the "homemade" footage is really jerky and 
generally hard to watch.  You might want to take some dramamine before 
seeing this film.


#148 of 348 by mcnally on Fri Aug 6 22:15:43 1999:

  re #146:
  based on its success, plans are already in the works for a "Blair Witch"
  prequel which will feature a computer-generated, pseudo-Jamaican character..
  aieeeeeeee!!


#149 of 348 by mooncat on Sat Aug 7 00:07:46 1999:

Pseudo-Jamaican? <giggles> Are they going for a Tituba of Salem idea,
or a Jar Jar Binks idea?



#150 of 348 by bdh1 on Sat Aug 7 04:15:41 1999:

re#146: I believe it was made for $60,000 not $6,000.


#151 of 348 by mcnally on Sat Aug 7 05:08:19 1999:

  Seen over the past few weeks at Fox Village, the local 2nd-run theater..

    Election - B
    Warped comedy about a high-school student council election gone bad
    and the neurotic teacher (Matthew Broderick) who gets caught in the
    middle.  Reese Witherspoon is skin-crawlingly convincing as the 
    obsessive over-achiever for whom Failure Is Not an Option.

    Notting Hill - B+
    When I got to the front of the line at the box office tonight, I
    still hadn't decided what I wanted to see -- it was a toss up between 
    "Notting Hill" and "The Mummy."  I settled on "Notting Hill" under the
    rationale that any film starring both Hugh Grant *and* Julia Roberts
    had to be much scarier than Brendan Fraser being ravaged by the undead.
    What I got was an enjoyable romantic comedy which neatly exceeded my
    cynically low expectations up until the necessarily sappy and neatly-
    resolved happy ending.  Definitely not a timeless classic, but noticably
    better than the usual fare in this cookie-cutter category..


#152 of 348 by mooncat on Sat Aug 7 16:58:26 1999:

Saw "Mystery Men" last night, and I give it two very enthusiastic thumbs
up.  It's NOT your usual super-hero movie, and is damn funny. This is
a must see. :)



#153 of 348 by gull on Sat Aug 7 19:35:59 1999:

I saw it last night, and loved it too.  Funniest movie I've seen in a while.
:>


#154 of 348 by mooncat on Sat Aug 7 22:41:31 1999:

yup yup. :)



#155 of 348 by gull on Sun Aug 8 00:44:58 1999:

Incidentally, if you like "The Tick," you'll probably love this movie.  The
villains, in particular, are very Tick-esque.


#156 of 348 by md on Sun Aug 8 01:46:35 1999:

I liked it, too, but I thought it dragged a bit
whenever Janine Garolfalo wasn't in the scene.
She is one funny chick.


#157 of 348 by jazz on Sun Aug 8 11:44:37 1999:

        Jeanine really made the movie, despite what the reviewers have said
about the other characters.  Without her presence it would've been entirely
forgettable.


#158 of 348 by md on Sun Aug 8 11:57:26 1999:

[Her first name is spelled "Janeane."  
My mistake.]


#159 of 348 by shf on Sun Aug 8 13:07:56 1999:

I also liked Mystery Men. I disagree that the other characters weren't funny.
I thought Ben Stiller's Mr. Furious was hilarious.  Reubens I couldn't even
look at but not because I thought he was funny, he just made me ill in that
makeup.  Casanova Frankenstein was also good, and I just like William Macy
in anything ever since "Fargo".  And as far as "the Sphinx" goes, I believe
he wasn't listed in the credits, which if true, and he is who I think he is,
is funnier still.


#160 of 348 by jazz on Sun Aug 8 13:12:02 1999:

This response has been erased.



#161 of 348 by senna on Sun Aug 8 13:15:08 1999:

As I believe has been discussed elsewhere, Studi has quite a performance 
in Last of the Mohicans.


#162 of 348 by jazz on Sun Aug 8 13:30:50 1999:

        Inaccurate information in #160;  Wes Studi was in Last of the Mohicans.


#163 of 348 by shf on Sun Aug 8 13:32:42 1999:

Ah ok, if Studi was teh Sphinx it wasn't so funny:)


#164 of 348 by jazz on Sun Aug 8 13:41:09 1999:

        Who did you think it was, out of curiosity?


#165 of 348 by shf on Sun Aug 8 13:53:39 1999:

Jay Silverheels, which would have made "who was that masked man?" an
appropriate question to ask:)


#166 of 348 by md on Sun Aug 8 14:07:39 1999:

Is Jay Silverheels still alive??


#167 of 348 by bruin on Sun Aug 8 15:44:25 1999:

RE #166 Jay Silverheels went to the Happy Hunting Ground sometime in the late
1970's or early 1980's (don't remember the exact day of his death).


#168 of 348 by shf on Sun Aug 8 16:45:45 1999:

oh:)


#169 of 348 by anderyn on Mon Aug 9 00:44:59 1999:

SAw Mystery Men. Was okay. STill like the Iron Giant better.


#170 of 348 by md on Mon Aug 9 03:03:57 1999:

DICK (A-) - Offers a wonderfully zany series of
mock-explanations for the big news stories of
Nixon's second term.  You'd think it wouldn't 
make much sense to someone who was born almost 
ten years after Nixon resigned and who hasn't 
reached that era yet in school, and yet my son 
laughed himself silly over it, owing mainly to 
the endearingly goofy protagonists, a pair of 
highschool girls.  The actresses playing the two
girls are first-rate.  Highly recommended.


#171 of 348 by void on Mon Aug 9 04:34:14 1999:

   saw "mystery men" friday night.  it did have its funny moments and
some good lines.  paul reubens' character was entirely unnecessary.
even so, the movie reminded me of what my circle of friends could be if our
neuroses and psychoses were just a little more pronounced.

   saw "the blair witch project" on saturday.  i didn't find it to be
the seat-grippingly terrifying movie that some people have.  even so,
there are some images from it (and what those images made me think of)
which are going to stay with me for a long time.  the movie was
interesting in some other ways, too.  i thought it was a pretty good
demonstration of how urbanized some people have become and what can
happen when people are taught that the needs of the individual outweigh
the needs of the group.  it seems to be a step in the right direction
for the horror-movie genre, as well...maybe, just maybe, the days of
the blood-soaked slasher series are over and horror movies which
encourage audiences to think and to supply the scariest bits themselves
will have a resurgence.


#172 of 348 by aruba on Mon Aug 9 15:15:19 1999:

I saw THe Mummy at the Fox yesterday.  It was worth about $1.50.


#173 of 348 by drewmike on Mon Aug 9 15:29:04 1999:

Do a "Facts of Life" parody and call it "The Blair Warner Project"?


#174 of 348 by mooncat on Mon Aug 9 18:59:24 1999:

Mark- what show were you at?  Ashke (formerly sun) and I were there
yesterday at the 4:15 showing.  Personally, I really like that movie,
it's horribly cheesy- but it *knows* it's cheese and plays it up.



#175 of 348 by otaking on Mon Aug 9 19:15:09 1999:

I saw Inspector Gadget last Friday. It was a fun movie. It covered all of the
old standards of the cartoon show, except for the obligatory scene in each
TV episode where Chief Quimby gives Gadget his assignment. (Chief Quimby does
appear in the film, played by Dabney Coleman.) It was a silly stupid film,
but not as silly or as stupid as George of the Jungle. I give it a B+.


#176 of 348 by aruba on Mon Aug 9 19:38:29 1999:

Re #174: I was at the 4:15 show too - down near the front on the right.  Sorry
I missed you!


#177 of 348 by mooncat on Mon Aug 9 20:35:35 1999:

Heh, askhe and I were probably very near you then. <laughs> Although, we
arrived just in time to miss most of the previews... (We intended to
see "Matrix" but were too late)



#178 of 348 by richard on Mon Aug 9 21:43:35 1999:

re: way back there...Jay "Tonto" Silverheels died back in the late 70's
(maybe 1979?) One of the pallbearers was his real-life best friend
Clayton Moore, who of course played the Lone Ranger along side his Tonto
for years first on radio and then on television.  


#179 of 348 by bruin on Mon Aug 9 22:44:17 1999:

RE #178 I believe that Clayton Moore played The Lone Ranger exclusively on
television.  But, of course, I may be wrong on that.


#180 of 348 by md on Mon Aug 9 23:07:26 1999:

Brace Beemer was the radio Ranger.


#181 of 348 by richard on Mon Aug 9 23:59:40 1999:

Brace Beemer was the first radio Ranger....or actually the second...Clayton
Moore was the Lone Ranger on the radio during the 40's.  John Hart played
the LR on TV first, but was replaced by Clayton Moore for most of the tv
series run as well.

Jay Silverheels was of course, always Tonto


#182 of 348 by md on Tue Aug 10 01:39:08 1999:

I bow to your superior Lone Ranger knowledge.
I used to listen to TLR on the radio when I
was a kid, but it wasn't until I moved to
this area that I learned that the show was
broadcast from Detroit.


#183 of 348 by i on Tue Aug 10 02:09:45 1999:

But who played Silver?


#184 of 348 by jazz on Tue Aug 10 04:05:32 1999:

        You folks know what "tonto" and "kemo sabe" mean, right?


#185 of 348 by omni on Tue Aug 10 04:44:08 1999:

 And while were doing Lone Ranger stuff:

  The Lone Ranger was produced live on WXYZ radio, from Detroit. The same
company would also go on to produce The Green Hornet. WXYZ was located in the
old Maccabees building on Woodward. The Maccabees is now known as the Detroit
Public Schools Center. There still is a radio station, and it is known as
WDET. And lastly, a man named Rube Weiss, who died a few years ago did the
introduction to the Lone Ranger. Even though he is gone, Rube can still be
heard on the Guardian Alarm TV commercials.


#186 of 348 by mcnally on Tue Aug 10 17:05:26 1999:

  I also saw "Mystery Men" over the weekend and also thought it was really
  funny, though I might qualify that with "if you like superhero stories or
  enjoy movies whose basic joke is playing with the 'rules' of a genre.."
  Whatever -- I thoroughly enjoyed it, even after paying Showcases's 
  amazing $8 ticket price, which is usually enough to sour me on even a
  really good movie..


#187 of 348 by bru on Tue Aug 10 21:11:09 1999:

I did like mystery men, tho they could have lost the spleen, there was enough
conflict in the other characters that we could have lost him.  It played on
the spacialization of the character traits very well, and the screwups were
great.  Thats Specialization up there, by the by.


#188 of 348 by richard on Tue Aug 10 21:52:54 1999:

You know the Green Hornet was supposed to be the great great grandson
of the Lone Ranger or something like that...they have the same last name


#189 of 348 by md on Tue Aug 10 23:50:25 1999:

Get out of here.


#190 of 348 by other on Wed Aug 11 06:30:11 1999:

just saw the matrix.  wow.  i've had dreams like that, but not nearly so
stylish.


#191 of 348 by aaron on Wed Aug 11 13:17:50 1999:

re #188: What was the Lone Ranger's last name?


#192 of 348 by otaking on Wed Aug 11 14:17:39 1999:

Re #187: I think the Spleen was a necessary character. Having someone with
a super poewr noone wanted nearby was a great twist on the superhero genre.


#193 of 348 by anderyn on Wed Aug 11 18:26:42 1999:

Saw "Entrapment" last night at Fox Village. Definitely a fun movie, but
a bit too scary for us height-scardy-cats!


#194 of 348 by remmers on Wed Aug 11 21:42:52 1999:

Try watching it at 13,000 feet sometime.


#195 of 348 by janc on Wed Aug 11 22:53:59 1999:

Rather low for an airplane.  Are you suggesting climbing a peak in the
rockies to watch it?


#196 of 348 by anderyn on Thu Aug 12 02:11:03 1999:

I haven't been in a airplane in over twenty years -- and I'm never 
climbing a peak. 


#197 of 348 by remmers on Thu Aug 12 12:44:02 1999:

Forget my figure in resp:194 - how high do airplanes fly these days? In
any case, "Entrapment" was shown on an airborne 747 on which I was a
passenger a few days ago. I paid only sporadic attention to the movie;
general impression is that it's a rather cookie-cutter Hollywood
romantic thriller.


#198 of 348 by aruba on Thu Aug 12 13:28:14 1999:

I think 30,000 feet is pretty typical.

Carol and I saw Notting Hill at the Fox last night.  I liked it a whole lot.
Very funny and very romantic.


#199 of 348 by gull on Thu Aug 12 14:48:13 1999:

I think anything from 30,000 to 50,000 is typical for a 747.  25,000 or less
for short commuter flights on things like ATR turboprops.  Under 12,000 for
non-turbocharged general aviation aircraft like Cessna Skylanes and Piper
Cherokees.  (Friend of mine whose wife is an ATC says they refer to that
level as 'indian country' because of all the Piper aircraft.)


#200 of 348 by richard on Thu Aug 12 21:57:58 1999:

#199...I believe the Lone Ranger and Green Hornet's characters last name
was Reed...both shows owned by radio station, and Green Hornet was a
spinoff meant to be something likea modern day LR.  

Both shows had great theme songs...the Lone Ranger was of course Wagner,
and Green Hornet was Stravinsky's Flight of the Bumblebee.


#201 of 348 by aaron on Fri Aug 13 00:07:28 1999:

I mean it, Richard -- who was that masked man? I wish I knew his name.


#202 of 348 by bruin on Fri Aug 13 01:59:23 1999:

RE #200 I believe that the "Lone Ranger" theme was the "William Tell Overture"
by Rossini.


#203 of 348 by remmers on Fri Aug 13 02:43:37 1999:

Right - Rossini, not Wagner.


#204 of 348 by omni on Fri Aug 13 04:40:53 1999:

  A question: Did the Green Hornet play poker with Bee cards?

<I'm not expecting an answer>


#205 of 348 by bdh1 on Fri Aug 13 05:33:13 1999:

His sidekick was none other than Bruce Lee (born and raised in
Oakland,CA) (who was allergic to 'pot' and is why he died.)


#206 of 348 by aaron on Fri Aug 13 13:24:28 1999:

Bruce Lee played Tonto? ;)


#207 of 348 by bruin on Fri Aug 13 20:59:07 1999:

RE #206 Bruce Lee played Kato (The Green Hornet's sidekick on the 1966-67 TV
series).


#208 of 348 by richard on Fri Aug 13 23:17:58 1999:

Actually rumors have always held that Bruce Lee was killed by the 
chinese mafia for some dark, sinister reasons.

There are also conspiracy theories about the death of Lee's son Brandon 
Lee, who died in the most bizzarre way on the set of the movie "The 
Crow"  Lee was filming a scene for the movie, where his Crow character 
gets shot.  He was supposed to be shot with a gun that had blanks in it, 
so his charater would appear to have been shot and killed.  However, the 
prop gun mysteriously had a *real* bullet in it and Lee was *really* 
killed. An actual murder captured on film for the big screen.  The 
conpsiracy theorists think it was his dad's old enemies in the chinese 
mafia who pulled this off.


#209 of 348 by bdh1 on Sat Aug 14 04:23:46 1999:

re#208:  There are other 'legends' about Bruce Lee's death, that he was
killed for revealing secret arcane teachings, etc.

The fact is he was allergic to some compound in marijuana/hashish/hemp.
He had been previously warned about it and had at least one and perhaps
more prior allergic reactions.  Each allergic reaction is more severe
than the prior and in the fatal case his brain swelled and of course the
skull is rather inflexible.  There was nothing to be done, and he died. 
From pot.


#210 of 348 by otter on Sat Aug 14 14:11:05 1999:

It is my understanding that Brandon Lee was killed by a poorly constructed
squib rather than an improperly loaded gun.


#211 of 348 by jazz on Sat Aug 14 14:21:23 1999:

        I'm assuming here you mean the pyrotechnic charge, and not a short
piece of satire.  If it were possible to kill with the latter, Swift would've
been a mass murderer many times over.


#212 of 348 by mooncat on Sat Aug 14 18:44:08 1999:

Brandon Lee was not killed by a real bullet... I think I still have all
the articles that were written in connection to "The Crow" and his death
at my parents house... I could find them...  There were also several other
mishaps on the set.



#213 of 348 by otaking on Sun Aug 15 21:00:07 1999:

I rented several movies recently. Here's some mini-reviews.

Trainspotting: Once I got past the thicker Scottish accents, I really enjoyed
this movie. I'm not sure what else I can say about this. A-

Wax: or the Discovery of Television Among the Bees: What started out as a
weird psuedo-documentary turned very quickly into a trip full of video effects
and a rambling monologue. I love bizarre movies, but the narration almost made
me fall asleep. I had to stop the film and come back to it later. The plot
was incoherent at times. It was a good effort, but too taxing to watch. C-

Marquis: This was like watching the cast of _Meet the Feebles_ do a period
piece. The movie is set months before the storming of the Bastille in
pre-Revolutionary France. The Marquis de Sade interacts with his literay
characters. He even talks to himself, in a way that just has to be seen. Oh,
I forgot to mention that all of the characters (except for Colin) are
animorphic animals. The French have a very weird sense of humor. A

Touch of Evil: It's now my favorite Orson Welles movie. Watch it. You won't
be disappointed. Try to find the Director's Cut, if possible. A+


#214 of 348 by md on Sun Aug 15 21:04:00 1999:

Saw BOWFINGER (C) today.  Didn't like it much
except when Eddie Murphy was in the shot.  Many
old stale Hollywood in-jokes.


#215 of 348 by omni on Mon Aug 16 07:32:03 1999:

  Touch of Evil was on cable a few months ago. I was lucid enough to record
it. I agree, it was stupendous.


#216 of 348 by aaron on Mon Aug 16 15:05:38 1999:

The Sixth Sense (B+) - It helps to avoid the teasers and advance information
about this film (although it is not as necessary as with "Arlington Road.")
The film does a good job building tension and suspense, even if you have
seen the teasers, but it will be better if you don't. The genre, technically,
is "thriller." A psychologist (Bruce Willis) treats a boy (Haley Joel
Osment) who is suffering from severe anxiety, social withdrawal, and some
disturbing behavior, and finds out a lot more than he had bargained for.
The film's title is suggestive of the origin and nature of the boy's
disturbance, and that's probably all you should know going in. Willis and
Osment do a good job with their roles, and build a respectable intensity,
something that too few self-described "thrillers" manage to do.



#217 of 348 by jazz on Mon Aug 16 15:34:06 1999:

        I was impressed by the staging and the amount of time the movie spent
in developing it's characters;  I really could empathize with both of the
protagonists.


#218 of 348 by mcnally on Mon Aug 16 17:07:05 1999:

  "Touch of Evil" is a reasonably good film, and there are many technical
  achievements in it that make film geeks drool (such as the long shot at
  the beginning, following the car..) but I, at least, didn't find it 
  enjoyable enough to warrant an "A+" rating..  I'm impressed with the
  technical artistry of the film, and some of the performances are quite
  good, but it's not a film I'll return to again and again..


#219 of 348 by md on Mon Aug 16 18:52:59 1999:

Recent rentals:

ELIZABETH (B+) -- I'm a sucker for any historic
drama.  This one is better than most, thanks mainly
to the acting of Cate Blanchett, who seems to have
perfected her 'tude by watching Glenda Jackson in 
the old "Elizabeth R" TV series.  French cinebabe
Fanny Ardant is hot in a brief appearance as Mary 
of Guise.  The over-all atmosphere and the final 
scenes of this movie are cribbed straight from 
Godfather I, however.  I almost expected to see
Fat Clemenza show up and plug Norfolk in his bed.

SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (A) -- I'm a sucker for any 
historic drama.  This isn't awfully historic, but
it does deal with some real people, and is filled
with English Lit. major in-jokes.  (My favorite one 
is John Webster portrayed as a boy whose favorite 
parts of the plays are the violent death scenes.)  
There's a too-sweet love story in there, too, plus 
Gwyneth Paltrow, if you like her.


#220 of 348 by cassia on Mon Aug 16 19:50:30 1999:

As to remarks of the Spleen being superfluous in Mystery Men:
in the appearances of the Mystery Men in various numbers of
Flaming Carrot Comics, the Spleen was generally useless, cowardly,
and - if memory serves - had no superpowers at all, but simply
(for some unexplained reason) had a radioactive spleen.  He was
a foil to the others, who were generally ready for a fight; usually
hid when there was a battle and then boasted afterward.  There were
a couple Mystery Men left out of the movie...  I guess the Garofalo
character replaced Mystic Hand.


#221 of 348 by jazz on Mon Aug 16 20:30:14 1999:

        "The Bowler" was a *great* caracter though.


#222 of 348 by otaking on Mon Aug 16 21:39:13 1999:

I hoped that Screwball would make an appearance in Mystrey Men, if only so
I could watch him play with his pet shoelace.


#223 of 348 by mary on Mon Aug 16 22:44:28 1999:

I *really* liked "Sixth Sense".  ****
I agree with Aaron that knowing almost nothing about it 
would be a good thing here.


#224 of 348 by senna on Tue Aug 17 00:00:40 1999:

I hadn't planned on seeing sixth sense, so I felt that hearing the 
ending wouldn't mean much.  As it turned out, I now wish I could see it 
without that information, but that's okay.  I knew what I was getting 
into.  I was *highly* impressed with what I heard, based on what I knew. 
 


#225 of 348 by jazz on Tue Aug 17 04:08:03 1999:

        
        See it.  Even if you know where the road's going, the ride's well
worth it.


#226 of 348 by aaron on Tue Aug 17 17:15:08 1999:

Not to mention that Haley Joel Osment gives one of the most memorable
performances by a child actor in recent memory.


#227 of 348 by janc on Thu Aug 19 03:38:34 1999:

I watched Godzilla because it was renting for 99 cents.  Having arrived
with very low expectations, I didn't find them entirely met.  Special
effects were fine.  Liked the way that they failed to anthromorphize
Godzilla - he is treated as a big fierce animal, not a sapient being.
Interestingly, because he is treated that way, he becomes somewhat
sympathetic and you can feel sad for him when he is killed.  I think
it's a bit of 90's think - it's kind of sad to kill the last of a
species (barring sequels) even if it's not exactly a species you want
visiting your backyard.  The hero and heroine were a pair of dewy-eyed
Brady-bunch escapees, but that's consistant with the human characters in
all the original films, and makes a nice contrast to the monster.  And
they had fun pitting New York City against Godzilla.  The final duel
between Godzilla and a yellow cab driven by a foreigner was fun from
that point of view.  Chrysler Building, subways, fish markets, Madison
Square Gardens, Holland Tunnel, and the Brooklyn bridge all figure
promently into the movie.  Interesting that they left out the Empire
State Building, the World Trade Center (except for a reference to the
bombings) and the Statue of Liberty.  Anyway, it wasn't great, but it
was enjoyable for me.


#228 of 348 by remmers on Thu Aug 19 23:15:40 1999:

Didja notice how the mayor and his assistant were named Siskel and
Ebert?


#229 of 348 by tpryan on Fri Aug 20 01:36:25 1999:

        Oh my God!  They killed Godzilla.  Those bastards!


#230 of 348 by charcat on Fri Aug 20 06:17:35 1999:

I just watched Fail Safe and Dr Strangelove in a row.   yikel!


#231 of 348 by otter on Sat Aug 21 13:48:01 1999:

Where the heck did you find _Fail Safe_? I've wanted Kenn to see it for years
and can never find it!


#232 of 348 by shf on Sat Aug 21 17:24:49 1999:

Where all obscure videos hide: Liberty St:)


#233 of 348 by aaron on Sat Aug 21 22:50:17 1999:

The Thomas Crown Affair - C+ - It is cute, which might make up for the fact
that the plot is not credible, but it is *entirely* predictable. The only
think I did not predict was how lame the ending was going to be. They do
an amazing job with some of the sets, however, such as the museum sets (no
part of the film was shot inside a real museum).


#234 of 348 by otaking on Sun Aug 22 17:42:27 1999:

Why is _Fail Safe_ an obscure video? Was it because it came out the same year
as _Dr. Strangelove_?


#235 of 348 by don on Mon Aug 23 03:09:00 1999:

Universal Soldier: The Return (B-) is a sequel to the original. The
computer running the unisols (reanimated dead supersoldier) goes FUBAR,
moves into a human body, and directs the unisols to wreak havok in the
military base in which they are situated. It's Jean Claude van Damme's job
to stop them. The storyline doesn't go smoothly (Damme's sweethart seemed
to be stuck into the story, and there wasn't a good transition from the
original), although there was a bit of humor in there (people getting
bashed in some funny ways), and the sound (Heavy rock music for all the
fight scenes) and graphics were pretty good. Basically, if you have a DVD,
50" projection screen, and a really good sound system, you won't care for
one minute that the story's bad. Though this movie has one scene which
made half the theatre yuck out, you can take your teenagers with you
(exept for the fact that there's around five minutes of off-and-on (mostly
on) frontal nudity (strip club), so that's a great time for the teen to
get a refill on popcorn). Anyway, unless you go to a theatre with really
good DTS Surround sound, wait for the DVD.


#236 of 348 by charcat on Mon Aug 23 04:18:56 1999:

I got both fail safe and dr strangelove from amazon.com. Failsafe was only
8.99  I.ve already got my order in for yellow submarine in. to be rerelised
next month.


#237 of 348 by jep on Mon Aug 23 13:08:27 1999:

We saw "The Blair Witch Project" at the new theater on Jackson Rd.
on Saturday.  I was not impressed at all; it seemed to me like 2 hours 
of a home movie, with very little plot and not much of interest from the 
characters.  My wife liked it pretty well; she called it "post-modern".

Interestingly, we read an article in the AA News on Saturday, saying 
that people over 35 don't like it as much as those under 35.  I'm over 
that age, and she's under.

We weren't too impressed by the new theater, either.  Andrea didn't like 
the smaller theater; she said she just prefers larger ones.  I thought 
it was okay.  Smaller theaters ought to mean a smaller chance of 
someone behind you using his popcorn to compete with the audio level of 
the movie.  (Though perhaps less likely, we were treated to this 
experience on Saturday.)  

I liked one thing: at 8:00 pm on a Saturday, there were *no lines* at 
the concession stand, and the line for getting a ticket moved very 
quickly.

Neither of us liked the tiny parking lot.


#238 of 348 by aaron on Mon Aug 23 14:50:40 1999:

Actually, it seems that a smaller theater could increase the odds of
somebody eating popcorn while sitting behind you -- in a larger theater,
assuming similar traffic, the odds are greater that there won't be
someone behind you at all. Of course, there are a lot of variables to
consider.


#239 of 348 by don on Mon Aug 23 17:28:22 1999:

However, a larger theatre will have a larger clientele.... therefore, the
proportions for filled-seats-to-empty-seats and
jackass-filled-seats-to-normalpeople-filled-seats will be the same. Ergo, you
have the same chance of someone screwing around with the popcorn behind you.


#240 of 348 by aaron on Mon Aug 23 19:00:15 1999:

Which is why I specified similar traffic. As I said, there are a lot of
variables to consider.


#241 of 348 by mcnally on Tue Aug 24 04:17:36 1999:

  In any case it hasn't been my experience that theater patronage is
  generally proportional to theater size..  


#242 of 348 by remmers on Tue Aug 24 17:49:24 1999:

Right. This is because nature abhors a vacuum but not an empty theater.


#243 of 348 by don on Tue Aug 24 23:43:20 1999:

My experience is that at theatres with different-sized screens, a bigger
screen meant a more popular movie, ergo more patronage, ergo proportionality.


#244 of 348 by mcnally on Wed Aug 25 00:56:00 1999:

  Within the same theater megaplex, no doubt the management tries to
  balance just as you say..  Once you get outside the confines of a
  single megaplex, though, the relationship doesn't hold.  In this
  area, where large-capacity old-style theaters like the Michigan
  show independent and 'art' films, there's probably a negative
  correlation between theater capacity and theater patronage..


#245 of 348 by scg on Wed Aug 25 03:09:13 1999:

Even in the bigger theaters, they have a set number of theaters of various
sizes.  It costs more to build large theaters.  It may cost moderately more
to operate them, due to cleaning costs, but I'm guessing that part isn't too
significant in the grand scheme of things.  Therefore, once they've built the
capacity, much of the expense directly related to capacity has been taken care
of, and they then need to start bringing in money to pay their construction
and operations costs.

To maximize income, they need capacity to hold as many people as want to see
the most popular movies during peak hours.  There may be a lot of people
wanting to see the popular movies, and there may be several popular movies
out at once.  It is therefore to the megaplex's advantage to build a number
of very large theaters.  They also build some small theaters, not because off
peak crowds are small, but because there will always be some movies that don't
draw big crowds even during peak times.  

Now, let's say it's an off-peak time, or a time of year when the studios 
aren't releasing many really popular movies.  The theater has all these 
large theaters sitting there, but crowds that aren't big enough to fill them. 
The theater has a choice: leave the large theaters sitting empty and make no 
money from them, or show movies in them anyway, and make some money.  Which 
are they going to choose?


#246 of 348 by bdh1 on Wed Aug 25 05:49:04 1999:

_Sixth Sense_ - a definate 'do'.  Try not to hear anything about it
before you see it.  Whats-her-name and I were both fortunate in not
knowing anything about it other that her nephiew said to do it.  Both of
us were extremely and pleasantly surprised by it.  The acting is superb,
all the major characters deliver outstandingly.  (Bruce Willis has two
kinds of movies, one where he actually works, and one where he kinda
floats jokingly through the script while collecting green beer coupons -
this is most definately the former.)

_Bowfinger_ - a definate 'do'.  Not in the same class, but still well
done none-the-less.  There are a lot of 'hollywood inside jokes' that do
not detract from the film if you don't 'get' them and add to your
enjoyment of it if you do (especially when you know who Steve Martin's
most recent sex partner was).


#247 of 348 by remmers on Wed Aug 25 11:25:47 1999:

I liked "Sixth Sense" quite a bit and agree that the less you know about
the plot going in, the better. I'll say a little bit about the style,
though. The movie takes chances that Hollywood films don't often take -
very leisurely pace, many quiet moments. "Sixth Sense" is a big hit
(number one at the box office for two weeks in a row), so the approach
seems to be working with audiences. We saw it in a fairly crowded
theater, and during the quiet moments, the audience was absolutely
silent; you could've heard a pin drop.


#248 of 348 by jazz on Wed Aug 25 12:20:42 1999:

        I was impressed that such an intelligent film did so well at the box
office.


#249 of 348 by don on Wed Aug 25 13:45:30 1999:

I take it you're a connoisseur of movies like Dumb & Dumber and Romy &
Michelle's High School Reunion?


#250 of 348 by mcnally on Wed Aug 25 16:57:30 1999:

  I didn't see "Dumb and Dumber" but I'll stick up for "Romy and Michelle's
  High School Reunion"  It wasn't "Hamlet", but then it didn't set out to be..


#251 of 348 by gull on Wed Aug 25 19:09:49 1999:

Re #245: The Cinema 5 in Houghton seems to have a different strategy.  All
their theaters are quite small (it's crammed into one end of the Copper
Country Mall.)  Really big films, they show in more than one theater for a
while.

The same company owns the Lode, which was a classic "huge" theater until
they divided it up into three smaller ones.  They also own the Pic, which is
still huge, probably because they didn't want to put that kind of money into
it.


#252 of 348 by cassia on Thu Aug 26 22:39:15 1999:

As to Dumb & Dumber and Romy & Michele - it's true that D&D was asine,
but it did have a few funny moments - yet you must admit that it 
succeeded where Forrest Gump failed.  Romy & Michele was , yes it
was, a good picture.  You must have a heart of stone to not laugh
when as they watch "Pretty Woman" and cry when they won't let
Julia Roberts shop in the stores on Rodeo Drive.


#253 of 348 by scg on Fri Aug 27 03:48:54 1999:

I finally saw American Pie, which was hillarious.  Lots of mentions of Ann
Arbor too (talked about in terms of future plans -- it didn't actually take
place here).

This was also my first trip to the Quality 16 theater out on Jackson Road.
Compared to the grandeur of the other new multiplexes I've been in, it was
extremely pretty small and very understated.  The theater we were in was tiny,
although I'm assuming they probably have some bigger theaters somewhere.  I
haven't made up my mind about the theater yet.


#254 of 348 by richard on Fri Aug 27 22:03:43 1999:

Video/DVD  recommendation-- just bought the new DVD edition of the
Universal  films 1933 classic "Frankenstein", with Boris Karloff.  The DVD
features a terrific new, completely restored and uncut version of the
original film (somebody found the master print, which is great since the
film has been edited and cutup so many times over the years as its played
on tv).  Also features an alternate soundtrack you can play over the movie
with that film historian from American Movie Classics (I forget his name)
which is really fascinating.  As well as a full length documentary on the
making of the Frankenstein movies showing many cool clips, like Karloff
having his monster makeup applied .etc  And an extensive photo archive,
showing stills and posters and publicity material for the movie.  There;s
an old frankenstein cartoon on there and the movie trailer and
cast/director biographies and production notes and other stuff.  This DVD
package gives the proper treatment a great and cool old movie deserves.
It is the first of what is gokng to be a series of DVD's of the old
Universal 1930's horror classics (like Bride of Frankenstein, INvisible
Man, Dracula, Wolf Man .etc) I cant wait...




#255 of 348 by bru on Mon Aug 30 14:07:58 1999:

In spite of bad reviews, we all found The 13th Warrior to be an excellent
movie.

Thats four thimbs up.

I am begining to think the reviewers in this country are full of something
other than gray matter.  The historical setting is accurate, teh equipment
and clothing set well with the times.  One of us had a quibble with one of
the pieces of armor, but it was a very rough version of what would have been
seen in a later period.  My only quibble is that there were too many of the
enemy for what they were supposed to be at that time.

The comeraderie between the warrior, th way they worked as a group, the combat
techniques, and the encampments were all very well done and as you would
expect them to be in early midevil times.  (post mohhamed)

Go.  Enjoy!


#256 of 348 by aaron on Mon Aug 30 17:03:48 1999:

The 13th Warrior - D+

The vikings are pretty cool, but they are secondary characters in a poorly
plotted, poorly acted film. As Bruce suggests, the "massive enemy" is so
contrived, it is impossible to take it seriously. There are some interesting
"myth versus reality" aspects, but not much else in the movie is
particularly interesting. I have heard that this film had a $100 million
budget, yet the CGI boating scenes are *that* cheesy?

Run away! Run away!

(And now we bring this exercise in contrasts to a close. ;)


#257 of 348 by drewmike on Mon Aug 30 17:42:32 1999:

Yeah: Adam Herz was from Grand Rapids (referred to as Great Falls in the
movie) and went to U-M. It makes sense that Stifler's Mom would have a cabin
on Lake Michigan. What makes less sense is that Stifler would have a
prescription filled from a pharmacy that had a 517 area code.


#258 of 348 by anderyn on Tue Aug 31 00:00:03 1999:

Hhm. I gave "The Thirteenth Warrior" a high B plus, or four stars, or an
eight. I don't give out that many eights. I think this is the second in two
years. Maybe it's all those months I spent translating Beowulf from the 
Anglo-Saxon, maybe it's the fact that most of the historical details were
spot on, maybe it's that I'm a gamer and look for different things in my
movies -- like a plausible fight, a very plausible level of action, things
like that -- but I didn't see any real problems with it, on the acting or
on the script level. (Oh. Yeah. I read "eaters of the dead" a few years
back, so I also knew that the enemy was supposed to be who they were, and
what the conceit of the movie/book was. But no one else who watched it with
me knew, and they all enjoyed it, too. The movie is about a thousand times
better realized tha the book.)


#259 of 348 by katie on Tue Aug 31 06:07:41 1999:

very much enjoyed "The Red Violin."


#260 of 348 by richard on Tue Aug 31 23:14:25 1999:

new movies in production item--  word is that United Artists has bribed
Sylvester Stallone with many millions of dollars to make Rocky VI--
thats right- coming to a theater near you next christmas, Rocky Balboa
now age 53 or so comes out of retirement with new manager Mr. T to win
back the heavyweight title. Movie will parallell the real life comeback of
George Foreman.  

It sounds like Im making this up, but Im not.  Rocky VI.  I guess the real
question will be who dies in this one (one Rocky character dies in each
sequel) Will it be Adrian, or Paulie or Mr. T or Rocky Jr.?


#261 of 348 by aaron on Tue Aug 31 23:50:04 1999:

Movie will parallel George Foreman... So, a somewhat genial but dimwitted
Rocky, carrying about eighty extra pounds, and his ten children (boys and
girls, all named Rocky), will fight as a heavyweight (because Stallone
would be such a convincing heavyweight), and... wait -- didn't Foreman
retire again, long before he had a chance to contend for the title? Maybe
it will be like Rocky II, and Rocky will try to work his damaged brain up
to the point when he can stammer through the lines for a commercial.


#262 of 348 by other on Wed Sep 1 01:10:48 1999:

_better than chocolate_

quite possibly the most entirely entertaining movie i can remember.
rated "one of the five best lesbian movies," it is a love story with a 
fairly standard gay/lesbian issue (telling the parents), but it remains 
pleasantly free of cliche' and has some nice twists.  really nicely 
shot, intelligently written, funny, etc.  and a really creative and 
beautiful love scene, too.

you don't have to be a lesbian to enjoy it, either.


#263 of 348 by mary on Wed Sep 1 12:28:22 1999:

"Autumn Tale" is a charming story of a woman in mid-life who 
has almost convinced herself that she is isn't up to the effort
of finding love in a long term relationship.  In comes her
best friends, who feel otherwise.  This isn't a Hollywood screenplay
which goes for laughs but rather for honest dialogue, played
with a light touch.  Highly recommended.  French subtitled.


#264 of 348 by remmers on Wed Sep 1 13:07:30 1999:

I second the recommendation for "Autumn Tale".  It's yet another winner
in the series of witty comedies of manners and morals that director Eric
Rohmer has been turning out for thirty years.


#265 of 348 by richard on Wed Sep 1 21:44:23 1999:

"54"-- movie about the famous New York 70's disco, "Studio 54", with Mike
Myers as 54's egomaniacal owner, Steve Rubell.  Myers is really good in
what is a dramatic, non-comedy, role.  Ryan Philippe is a naive New Jersey
pretty boy that Myers/Rubell picks out of the line in front of the club
and makes a busboy and later bartender.  This film has some script
problems but is in general a pretty good chronicle of the 70's disco craze
and the era of Studio 54 (the world's most famous disco at the height of
the disco craze)  *** (three out of four stars, not a great film but ok)

"EDTV"  Matthew Mconaughey as a guy named Ed whose life becomes chronicled
on a 24hour cable channel.  This also had script problems, and Mconaughey
was the wrong person for the lead.  His part should have gone to Woody
Harrelson who played his brother in thefilm.   Also the ending was too
contrived.  Pretty funny though.  Truman Show was much better.  ** 1/2
stars


#266 of 348 by arabella on Thu Sep 2 01:16:43 1999:

"The Governess" ****  A really engrossing and heartbreaking
film starring Minnie Driver as a Victorian era Jewish woman
from London who hides her heritage, taking a Christian name
and becoming a governess in Scotland in order to help support
her family after her father is murdered.  She falls in love
with her employer, while his son falls in love with her.
Lots of erotic scenes of passion, and a couple of glimpses of
full frontal male nudity (in case that sort of thing bothers
you -- it didn't bother me in context...  it wasn't flagrant).



#267 of 348 by md on Thu Sep 2 11:43:07 1999:

I wasn't crazy about 54 (B-).  The expensive-looking 
set wasn't very convincing.  Also, Neve Campbell's 
character seemed hackneyed -- the weary, "I bet you 
think this is glamorous," actress who finds coffee and 
conversation at a simple diner more rewarding than drugs 
and dancing at fabulous "Studio," as everyone called it
(wouldn't've made a very good title, though).  Mike
Myers' sustained impression of Steve Rubell was . . .
impressive.  The director had a lot of fun with Neve 
Campbell's face, as directors always do.

Speaking of faces, my daughter brought home a movie
called CANDYMAN (C), which seems be about Virginia 
Madsen's face more than anything else.  The camera is
*always* focused in on it -- smiling, weeping, angry, 
swooning, left profile, right profile, full-face.  It's 
a nice face, but jeez.  Madsen bears up under the camera's
scrutiny quite well and does a convincing job with her 
role.  The title character's monotone recitations of the 
silly lines he's given, which perfectly matches the 
tediously droning score (by Philip Glass, of all people), 
makes you almost glad he was stung to death by bees in his 
former life.  There were a few jump-out-at-you moments that 
were more startling than scary.  You can see the surprise 
ending coming, but it's still pretty cool.  My kids both 
gave Candyman a "B," so I'm sure it has its admirers.


#268 of 348 by scott on Sun Sep 5 01:50:13 1999:

"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"

I'll give it a B, but with the caveat that you can't watch this movie sober
and gain any enjoyment at all.  Knowing the text helps, I think (I know it
quite well), but being somewhat impaired helps quite a bit more.  But with
that taken care of, it *does* do a pretty good job of carrying the tone of
the book.  Even the more reflective part about the 60's culture is in there,
which I was pleasantly suprised to find.

"Waiting for Guffman"

Hmm, another B.  It's sort of the Spinal Tap of local theatre.  Quite funny,
but seemed a hair long to me even at it's less than 2 hour length.


#269 of 348 by coyote on Sun Sep 5 02:03:45 1999:

Saw "Run Lola Run" at the State Theater, and really enjoyed it.  It was a very
unique and creative film, unlike anything I've seen before (which probably
isn't saying much -- I'm not much of a moviegoer).  I won't reveal much 
about the film, except that the plot is essentially that the flame-haired
Lola must obtain 100,000 marks (or was it 500,000?) within 20 minutes in
order to save her boyfriend's life.  Upon seeing a preview for this movie
at the Michigan theater, I really had no interest in seeing it, but upon
the high recommendation from two friends I decided to give it a try, and
found it to be quite worthwhile.  It's a fast-paced film, and one of my
friends said that she felt like everything was moving really slowly
after she came out of the theater.  The film is in German with subtitles
and runs a bit less than two hours, despite all the action taking place
within 20 minutes.


#270 of 348 by headdoc on Sun Sep 5 02:14:01 1999:

Jerry and I just returned from "The Thomas Crown Affair" which we both truly
enjoyed.  Thought it was fun and sexy and Rene Russo is one of the most
attractive woman I have seen.


#271 of 348 by otaking on Sun Sep 5 06:52:33 1999:

I saw Ed TV last night. It was enjoyable, but too long. Some of the subplots
just dragged on too long. Although it was more realistic than The Truman Show,
it wasn't as fun to watch. I actually found it harder to suspend my disbelief
with this film than The Truman Show. C-


#272 of 348 by tpryan on Sun Sep 5 13:21:22 1999:

        I saw Bullworth last night.  Didn't know it was such an 
attitude adjustment' movie.


#273 of 348 by md on Mon Sep 6 15:37:34 1999:

THE SIXTH SENSE (C) -- Pretty lame.  It's one of
those movies in which several key characters would
have to be stupid, or laughably inattentive, to 
behave the way they do, and in which the director 
repeatedly has to cut away from certain scenes and 
move hastily on, in the hope that we won't notice.  
Cheap trick.  There were a couple of well-executed 
startles, which are always fun, and the drizzly 
autumnal atmosphere was just right.  Bruce Willis 
is his usual smirky self.  The little boy is very 
good.  The "surprise" was figured out in the
following order, according to the people involved: 
my 15-year-old-son (the movie maven in the family), 
right after the opening sequence; myself, about 15 
minutes in; my wife, a couple of scenes before the 
truth comes out at the end; my 13-year-old daughter, 
when we explained it to her on the way out to the car.


#274 of 348 by scott on Mon Sep 6 20:38:34 1999:

"13th Warrior"

Entertainingly gory.

Would have been a really kickass Xena episode.  Oh wait, I think it was on
last year's season.


#275 of 348 by scott on Mon Sep 6 23:43:58 1999:

Ah, now I remember.  I think 3rd season Xena, "The Horde".  They came back
in a later episode, livingh in a cave!

After some reflection, I'd have to say that "13th Warrior" was pretty badly
done.  But it, like Star Trek movies with even numbers, was at least quite
fun to watch.


#276 of 348 by scott on Mon Sep 6 23:49:43 1999:

Whoops, make that 2nd season Xena.  Episode was called "The Price".  The bad
guys were called The Horde, and were wonderfully over the top barbarian (with
bones in their noses, no less).

(can you tell I'm bored?)

(info courtesy www.whoosh.org)


#277 of 348 by mary on Tue Sep 7 00:24:37 1999:

"The Astronaut's Wife".  Both lead characters had the same cool
haircut.  That's the best thing I can say about this movie.


#278 of 348 by senna on Tue Sep 7 04:34:06 1999:

<steve cracks up laughing>


#279 of 348 by richard on Tue Sep 7 21:51:05 1999:

"SIXTH SENSE"-- I thought this was really pretty good, with a great
performance by 8-year old Haley Joel Osment as the kid (he's the early
favorite according to Variety for the best supporting actor oscar-- what
kind of acceptance speech does an 8 year old give anyway) who is tormented
by ghosts and visions.  Bruce Willis is also excellent as the
psychologist.  The ending caught me off-guard and now I want to re-watch
the whole film.  Its a very complex movie, and well-made  ***1/2 (3.5
stars)


#280 of 348 by bdh1 on Wed Sep 8 06:42:44 1999:

re#279: Indeed. I saw it a couple weeks ago and am still telling folks
to do it.  Excellent do.

On the airplane I watched some film "The Letter" or something like that
just to kill time.  Kate Capshaw, Blythe Danner, and some others, it was
actually quite good.  I wished that it was dubbed in mandarin so Nai-Nai
could enjoy it as it was one of those sort of universal sorta films that
I think will so well in no matter what foreign market it shows in.  As
it turns out it was directed by a chinese person I think.  Instead,
nai-nai slept most of the way back to chicagoland.


#281 of 348 by shf on Wed Sep 8 10:20:46 1999:

I also liked Sixth Sense. There's another movie from a few years ago which
is very similar and also done much better.  Can't tell what it is without
giving away a lot of the plot of SS.


#282 of 348 by mary on Fri Sep 10 11:37:46 1999:

Last night John and I went to see The Muse, at Quality 16.  Have
I mentioned before I really like that theater?  

Albert Brooks, who directed and co-wrote the screenplay, reminds me a
whole lot of Woody Allen, if Allen lived in southern California but still
didn't get much sun. So this movie was great fun.  I'm especially fond
what he did with the cleverly placed cameo roles.

***



#283 of 348 by remmers on Fri Sep 10 12:22:31 1999:

The bit with Martin Scorsese is a classic.


#284 of 348 by jazz on Fri Sep 10 15:45:38 1999:

        The Quality 16 lacks in one critical area - popcorn.  Their popcorn
isn't so much bad, as it is tasteless.


#285 of 348 by mary on Fri Sep 10 18:01:50 1999:

We brought our own.


#286 of 348 by shf on Fri Sep 10 23:20:16 1999:

At Quality 16 I asked for salt for my popcorn. The droid behind the counter
said there was some "somewhere". And when there wasn't any salt to be found,
he he told my kids there was something wrong with me for wanting salt in the
first place:) Not that there was anything wrong with him being a tree sloth.


#287 of 348 by mary on Fri Sep 10 23:30:11 1999:

Hey, I've been wanting to see South Park ever since Mr. Delizia reviewed
it here, a month or so ago.  So I went to the cheap show today and had
great fun.  Writing Satan as the most sympathetic character in the story
was a nice touch. 

I waited through the credits to the very end.  I so wanted it to be
dedicated to Lenny. 



#288 of 348 by other on Sat Sep 11 00:05:43 1999:

bruce?


#289 of 348 by scott on Sat Sep 11 00:05:54 1999:

(I especially enjoyed Satan's big song, "Up There")


#290 of 348 by otaking on Sat Sep 11 02:47:00 1999:

I loved the Terrance and Phillip song at the beginning. For some strange
reason, I never made the connection between T&P and the adopted Canadian baby
until I saw the film. It was only then that I realized that all Canadians are
drawn with the same style. I don't know how I missed that before.


#291 of 348 by mooncat on Sat Sep 11 05:11:03 1999:

Saw  "Stigmata" tonight with Jazz ans Clees.  Wow, that was a very cool
movie, and the soundtrack was great.  I was most impressed. Although, it's
being billed as a horror movie, but it wasn't really scary. I highly
reccomend this movie.



#292 of 348 by mary on Sat Sep 11 13:50:12 1999:

Bruce.


#293 of 348 by jazz on Sat Sep 11 14:57:32 1999:

        It was the historical touches that prevented the pissant in me from
being annoyed - the stigmata were in the right places, and the mysterious
quotes were really from the Gospel of St. Thomas of the Nag Hammadi
collection of early writings.  Very spooky effect.


#294 of 348 by md on Mon Sep 13 12:21:56 1999:

What movie featured the following cast: Gillian 
Anderson, Ellen Burstyn, Sean Connery, Anthony 
Edwards, Angelina Jolie, Jay Mohr, Ryan Phillippe, 
Dennis Quaid, Gena Rowlands, Jon Stewart, Madeleine 
Stowe?  It's called PLAYING BY HEART (A).  It's a 
collection of short stories with a common theme that 
share a common ending.  The stories are all well-
written and beautifully directed.  The strongest of
the stories is about a pair of star-crossed lovers,
played by Phillipe and Jolie, who go together like
butter and toast.  Highly recommended.  


#295 of 348 by md on Mon Sep 13 12:30:44 1999:

Kids insisted we catch STIGMATA (C) yesterday.
It almost put them to sleep.  Pokey, unscary.
Uncreepy, even.  Gabriel Byrne, as an angsty
priest, and Patricia Arquette, as Saint Frankie,
valiantly try and make something of all the 
nonsense.  It's worth seeing for them, but that's 
about it.  Someone described Stigmata as "MTV meets 
The Exorcist."  Close.  Portia de Rossi, who plays 
Nell on TV's Emmy-winning Ally McBeal, has a 
miniscule role.


#296 of 348 by glex on Mon Sep 13 12:57:01 1999:

If you can ,  talk  to me ,please.


#297 of 348 by void on Mon Sep 13 18:11:10 1999:

(i still wonder why someone would name their child "door.")


#298 of 348 by md on Mon Sep 13 19:04:22 1999:

:-)  They didn't.  She was born Mandy Rodgers, 
changed her name when she was 12 and started 
modeling.  

"Portia" is an old Roman name, but the noun 
"portia" doesn't exist.  There is a masculine noun 
"portio," meaning "part."  If you felt like it, you 
could posit the existence of a feminine form 
"portia," indicating that Miss de Rossi is a "piece." 
("Nomen," the Latin word for "name," also means 
"noun," so we may be on to something.)


#299 of 348 by aaron on Mon Sep 13 20:00:49 1999:

I guess it beats Kevin Kline's query about the name, from "A Fish Called
Wanda".


#300 of 348 by aruba on Mon Sep 13 20:20:14 1999:

When people tell Arsenio Hall that "Arsenio" is an unusual name for a black 
man, he says "It means Leroy in Latin".


#301 of 348 by md on Mon Sep 13 21:31:02 1999:

Forgot to mention: "ostium" is "door."
"Portus" is "port."  Now, write that
100 times.


#302 of 348 by omni on Tue Sep 14 05:45:23 1999:

  Portia is an Uranian Moon. Along with Desdemona, Cressida, Opelia, Juliet,
Puck and Ariel, just to mention a few.


#303 of 348 by scott on Tue Sep 14 11:19:58 1999:

Rented John Boorman's "Excalibur" last night.  Still a cool movie, but those
knights were pretty tough characters to be wearing their full plate armor all
the time like that.  They didn't even take it off to have sex!


#304 of 348 by aruba on Tue Sep 14 14:11:23 1999:

Yeah, that's what I remember about that movie, all right.


#305 of 348 by remmers on Tue Sep 14 16:42:35 1999:

Now you know how turtles and armadillos feel.


#306 of 348 by mary on Tue Sep 14 20:37:57 1999:

Good about practicing safe sex?


#307 of 348 by richard on Tue Sep 14 22:18:53 1999:

'YELLOW SUBMARINE'--  They have just re-released a fully restored and
beautiful looking new version of one of my alltime favorite movies, the
Beatles "Yellow Submarine"  This was the first movie I can ever recal
seeing (my dad took me to see it at theater in 1968 when it came out, I
was almost five I think)  This was back when the Beatles were like
supergods and I remember loud screaming of girls when the cartoon versions
of John, Paul, George,  and Ringo were introduced on screen.  The Beatles
are recruited by Sgt. Pepper to be in his Lonely Hearts Club Band and
travel to Pepperland aboard the  Yellow Submarine to save the world from
the Blue Meanies.  The psychedelic animation and the interspersing of live
action and animated shots is really something in this.  And of course the
music including many Beatles classics, like "All You need is Love". "When
Im 64", "Nowhere Man", and a personal favorite, the title song, "Yellow
Submarine"  This is a true 60's classic.  The DVD has the widescreen
version, a making of documentary, plus you can index by song and just play
your favorites.  **** (four stars...buy it, its a keeper!)



#308 of 348 by tpryan on Tue Sep 14 23:13:00 1999:

        Also The Matrix has come out on DVD today.  Some say it is the
movie that will drive people to buying DVD players.


#309 of 348 by senna on Wed Sep 15 00:00:13 1999:

MATRIX ON DVD?  WHERE ARE MY SHOES?

I am serious closing agora *now* and buying this.  


#310 of 348 by omni on Wed Sep 15 05:56:33 1999:

  Don't forget about Uncle Albert. 


#311 of 348 by bdh1 on Wed Sep 15 07:04:33 1999:

View "hidden" response.



#312 of 348 by jazz on Wed Sep 15 18:53:30 1999:

        Got Matrix?

        I also loved "It's all too much", which is a masterpiece of
odered-seeming chaos, and appears only in _Yellow Submarine_ and it's
soundtrack, insofar as I've seen.


#313 of 348 by richard on Wed Sep 15 22:20:33 1999:

Its been reported of course that Keanu Reeves has signed to film not one
but two Matrix sequels back to back next year.  They are to be filmed late
this year at the same time with the thought (and this is an interesting
idea) to release both Matrix II and III at the same time.  This way
theater owners can play with your minds by not telling you which movie you
are seeing until you are in the theater, or they can switch the endings
around.  


#314 of 348 by remmers on Thu Sep 16 01:53:26 1999:

Hm, I will probably stay home so that they can't play with my money.


#315 of 348 by mcnally on Thu Sep 16 02:42:56 1999:

  Robert Zemeckis did something like that for the filming of 
  "Back to the Future" II and III (filmed them at the same time
  and then released them almost simultaneously..)


#316 of 348 by senna on Thu Sep 16 03:17:41 1999:

Not for another week.  However, I had some computer shopping which that 
prompted me to do.  


#317 of 348 by aruba on Thu Sep 16 05:51:47 1999:

Re #315: There were about 6 months between the release dates of BTF II and
III (11/22/89 and 5/25/90, according to the IMDB).


#318 of 348 by charcat on Mon Sep 20 06:11:05 1999:

my copy of yellow sub. came in the mail to my door from amazon :)   the sound
os great,  good surround sound,   oh, the pictures were good too  :)
,


#319 of 348 by md on Mon Sep 20 13:46:15 1999:

MICKEY BLUE EYES (C) - A hearty laugh or two, but
that's about all, despite the nice cast.  The
story and pacing don't sustain your interest.  The
directing seemed off the mark in many places: thirty
minutes in, it suddenly dawns on you what the movie's 
been trying, clumsily, to make think this or that 
character is supposed to be like.  Hugh Grant is not
at his best.

200 CIGARETTES (B) - Something I read or heard put
me off about this movie when it was showing in the
theaters.  It definitely has its moments, though, if
not its audience.  It resembles a '90s teen party 
flick in some ways -- think Can't Hardly Wait -- 
but the characters are mostly early '80s 20-somethings.
Several separate stories intertwine and converge.
Funny in places, touching in places, some stories work,
others fail.  It's one of those movies you keep on 
recasting it in your head, which is not a good sign.


#320 of 348 by otaking on Mon Sep 20 15:57:00 1999:

ZARDOZ (C-) - I only rate this bad movie this high because it was a fun bad
movie.The plot was very confusing at times. Sean Connery probably regretted
starring in this one. Then again, maybe he liked running around in a red
loincloth throughout the whole film.


#321 of 348 by flem on Mon Sep 20 17:40:41 1999:

re resp:267  I had an amusing few seconds, thinking you were saying 
that Philip Glass was stung to death by bees in a former life.  It 
would explain a lot.  :)  


#322 of 348 by other on Tue Sep 21 00:18:19 1999:

i loved zardoz.  great late-night swill!


#323 of 348 by bdh1 on Tue Sep 21 05:45:35 1999:

re#320&322: Yeah.  _Zardoz_ was way too kewl.  And if you ever thought
about it rather meaningful as well.  I especially liked the use of the
7th symphony as well as other classical music in the score. 


#324 of 348 by kevco on Tue Sep 21 14:58:04 1999:

Ugh.  My friend has Zardoz on video and he loves it.  We watched it one
night after the bar.  Even with a mild buzz I can't say I enjoyed it. 
And I usually would go for that sorta thing.


#325 of 348 by cassia on Tue Sep 21 17:41:40 1999:

I think that Zardoz is not really a movie to enjoy,
but something more like a rite of passage.

Since we are talking of such old films, am I the only
person on earth who LIKED "Hudson Hawk" and "Big Times
in Little China"?


#326 of 348 by mcnally on Tue Sep 21 17:57:23 1999:

  No..


#327 of 348 by flem on Tue Sep 21 18:16:51 1999:

When I saw Hudson Hawk for the first time, in the theaters, I didn't 
like it at all.  I saw most of it again recently on late night cable, 
and loved it.


#328 of 348 by aruba on Tue Sep 21 19:20:38 1999:

That's "Big Trouble in Little China", and it's become one of my all-time
favorite movies.  "Now I'm gonna tell you about an accident, and I don't wanna
hear 'Act of God'."


#329 of 348 by mooncat on Tue Sep 21 19:46:40 1999:

Cassia- you're not alone.  I liked "Hudson Hawk" when I saw it in the
theater, and I really really like "Big Trouble in Little China."
Although, in the last big fight scene- try counting how many knives
Kurt Russell's character pulls out of his boot... It's amusing.



#330 of 348 by otaking on Tue Sep 21 19:51:48 1999:

I liked Hudson Hawk when I watched it with a group of friends. As bad as it
was, Richard Grant played the role he was born to play.

I love "Big Trouble in Little China" and watch it whenever it's on. I just
love how the movie plays with the macho hero stereotype. Too bad they never
made the sequel.


#331 of 348 by cconroy on Tue Sep 21 20:54:38 1999:

Just saw "Strange Days" for the first time.  (It came out in '95, and I 
had meant to see it then but never got around to it.)  *Very* cool.  
Great story, with action, sci-fi, suspense and a little bit of romance 
all rolled into one.  The ending was a little predictable, but by that 
point I had become so engrossed in the story that it didn't matter.  
It takes place roughly three months from now, during the last two days 
of 1999, which makes it all the more realistic.  It's certainly worth 
renting, and I wouldn't have felt at all disappointed had I paid to see 
it in a theater.



#332 of 348 by mcnally on Tue Sep 21 22:09:13 1999:

  I would agree that "Strange Days" is a good movie.  Realistic, though?
  Perhaps in comparison to "1984" or "Space: 1999", or other specifically
  time-stamped future scenarios..  Our world is substantially less 
  screwed up than the one portrayed in the movie..



#333 of 348 by otaking on Wed Sep 22 12:37:26 1999:

Yeah, and those Sony Discmans that record our memories will be out any day
now.

"Space: 1999" did get one thing right. We're very dependent on computers to
the point that a lot of people would be afraid to work without them. It hasn't
reached the point that when a computer says it requires a human decision,
there's a collective thought of "We're screwed!" I've known some people who
kind of forget that not everyone has e-mail though. :)


#334 of 348 by jazz on Wed Sep 22 18:34:05 1999:

        It's pass-the-buck-itis.  Most people look for reasons to avoid work,
rather than what they need to do, and having computers down is a wonderful
excuse which sounds plausible enough for them to pass on to coworkers,
employers, and customers.


#335 of 348 by otaking on Wed Sep 22 20:18:00 1999:

My favorite "pass-the-buck-itis" was when a co-worker called and requested
some info. The personon the other end said, "Sorry, our fax lady is out right
now. We can't fax anything until she returns." How hard can it be to fax
something? If you can use a phone and a document feeder on a copier, you can
use a fax machine.


#336 of 348 by jiffer on Wed Sep 22 21:15:33 1999:

but you don't understand.... sales people are only able to so certain
things... other things in life they have no clue.  They would get their tie
stuck in the fax machine and die!


#337 of 348 by mary on Wed Sep 22 22:27:27 1999:

"Lulu on the Bridge" is an interesting rental which I enjoyed a whole lot. 
It's written and directed by Paul Auster (who also did "Smoke") and stars
Harvey Keitel, Mira Sorvino and Willem Dafoe.  Where did this little gem
come from?  I don't think it played anywhere in Ann Arbor, or maybe it
did, and I missed it. 

It's another that will play much better the less you know
about the plot.  Just let it unfold.  Send me mail once you've seen
it.  I'd like to compare takes on the ending.


#338 of 348 by md on Thu Sep 23 15:21:54 1999:

George C. Scott has died.


#339 of 348 by remmers on Thu Sep 23 16:14:54 1999:

Geez, really?  That's sad.  A great actor.  He was fairly old but
was still practicing his craft within the last few months.  Seems
to me I just saw him as the William Jennings Bryan-like character
in the made-for-cable version of "Inherit the Wind".


#340 of 348 by jazz on Thu Sep 23 16:34:21 1999:

        Saw _Better than Chocolate_ last night.

        My first thought was, that if you were looking to it to be a political
commentary, it'd be a failure.  It dashes all sorts of stereotypes about
lesbians and transgenders, but then proceeds to stereotype all skinheads as
violent racists and downplays the rejection of bisexual folk by both the gay
and straight communities.  

        My second thought was, if you don't think of it as political commentary
and just accept it as a romantic comedy, it's easily one of the best romantic
comedies I've seen in years, since _Overnight Delivery_, and easily as
intelligent as _Love and Human Remains_.

        So if you're looking for political commentary, skip it.  If you're
turned off by transgenderism, homosexuality, or the free speech folks, skip
it.  If you're looking for an intelligent and honest modern love story told
as a comedy, then you'd do well to track it down at one of the local
independent theatres.


#341 of 348 by otaking on Thu Sep 23 18:00:09 1999:

George C. Scott passed away? Looks like I'll be watching Patton and They Might
Be Giants, my favorite Scott movies.


#342 of 348 by jiffer on Thu Sep 23 18:16:40 1999:

It is actually pushes as a "Romantic Comedy for Lesbians" - About Better than
Chocolate


#343 of 348 by drewmike on Thu Sep 23 18:50:17 1999:

Also passed away...
 
Pop icon Madonna is mourning the sudden, unexpected loss of her darling,
irrepressible, three-year-old British accent.


#344 of 348 by mooncat on Thu Sep 23 19:06:59 1999:

I saw "Better Than Chocolate" and I agree that as a political statement
it's a flop, but I liked seeing it as a romantic comedy.  It seems to me that
if a lesbian film can be seen as simply a romantic comedy and not a 
statement then  it's becoming more mainstream, more 'normal' for such
movies to be out there.  Which, I think, is a good thing.



#345 of 348 by glenda on Thu Sep 23 19:49:23 1999:

Re: 339, since when is 71 terribly old?


#346 of 348 by richard on Thu Sep 23 21:50:29 1999:

George C. Scott was a great actor-- my favorite was in the "Hustler" where
plays this slimy hustler who takes control of pool shark Paul Newman's
career and teaches him what it *really* means to hustle, the price you
really have to pay.

He won best supporting actor for that but turned it down, and also turned
down the best actor award for Patton, because he doesnt/didnt believe you
can compare dramatic performances.


#347 of 348 by albaugh on Fri Sep 24 00:08:05 1999:

Stop the presses:  I definitely agree w/ richard re: "The Hustler".


#348 of 348 by omni on Fri Sep 24 08:35:05 1999:

  So watch The Hustler, and The Color of Money back to back if you have the
time. I loved The Hustler. Great film, great cast, and great acting.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: