Grex Cinema Conference

Item 31: Grex goes to the movies!

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

175 new of 348 responses total.


#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: