239 new of 326 responses total.
DOGMA (B) - Cretinous fun. A sort of live-action Beavis and Butthead movie that tries to take on organized religion. It fails when it tries to take itself seriously, when characters have earnest conversations about religion, theology, eschatology, demonology, etc. The only thing that saves the chatty scenes is the insanity going on in the background. During a conversation with a bishop, for example, we see Silent Bob slapping away the hand of Jay, a truly Buttheadian character who'd been amusing himself by tickling the exposed armpit of a crucifix Jesus. The movie goes neither far out nor in deep, as the poet says, no matter how much it thinks it does, but shallow and obvious can be hilarious when done as well as in this movie. Highly recommended.
That pretty much expresses how I felt about Dogma. I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't think it deserves great homage. :)
Rewatched A FISH CALLED WANDA last night. I forgot how funny this movie is. John Cleese starred and wrote this brilliant comedy. Kevin Cline, Michael Palin and Jamie Lee Curtis were superb.
I never liked that movie. I was dissapointed because the cast was so first rate.
i thought it was funny when i saw it
I had to watch it twice to get it. It is one of my favorites, and the funny thing was that I bought it used sight unseen.
"Gladiator" Went and saw this at the matinee at Briarwood. Probably would have been a bit better on the newer equipment at Goodrich, but I'm not really complaining. It's an epic! Yup, they've finally figured out that all that newfangled digital technology is really good for period films. The visuals are great, and you get a real sense for what Rome in the empire days looked like. The plot? OK, I guess, could have been better. It's a bit long, I thought. The fight scenes were good, but they used this annoying 2 or 3 frame strobe effect for some reason, so it was jerky instead of flowing. Oh well. Still fun to watch, with no lack of blood and even a few rolling heads.
The panoramic CGI was a bit lacking, and they didn't upset modern sensibilities by having all of the statues of Ancient Rome painted in life-like colors, but... it was interesting to see how things might have looked. The plot? I half-jokingly say, "What plot?" It's an action movie. The plot is provided only as a framework (and perhaps as an excuse) for the action scenes. The cinematography of the fight scenes is almost a necessity, when you mix that much cgi with live action -- and then there is the problem that combat with broadswords, when faked, tends to look quite fake if you give the audience an undisturbed view.
The varied speed action sequence may have been very good for suggesting the confusion of wa, war, but, there were a number of things that did bother me. 1. There use of the jerky action made it hard to focus. 2. I would be willing to swear that part of the soundtrack was "borrowed" from an old film. Specifically, "Zulu". Why would the germanic tribes be shouting zulu chants? 3 The first helmet hre picks up looks like something reminiscent of "Dart Mal".
In a photo spread they did in Entertainment Weekly they showed him apparently facing off with a tiger... Did he kill the kitty?
Yes. Poot. (I adore tiggies. I was bummed.) But there were four tiggies in that scene, and he didn't kill any but the one who was on top of him trying to make him into kitty chow.
It seems like realistic combat with broadswords wouldn't be *that* difficult a cinematic feat. I'm no expert in computer editing of fight scenes, but it would be simple enough to make something that looked superficially like a broadsword but with lots of padding. I'd think that touching things up so that it looked a lot more like a broadsword would be within the capabilities of computer graphics programs.
Hmph, I won't be seeing that movie...
Welll, I was surprised. I don't usually do well with violence in movies, but I wasn't squicked by this one. (Of course, I may not have SEEN all of the violence that was there -- strange cinematography screws up my already patchy vision, and I don't see things.) Even the tiger getting offed didn't bug me as much as I had expected. It had flaws -- the costuming and the historical accuracy were definitely off -- but it was a big movie. It worked on the level that it was aiming for, I think.
I don't really mind violence in movies, half the time I find it amusing. But, this is violence against a kitty... I just don't want to see something like that. <shrugs> Call me weird. (then again, look at my login. <Grins> Now does it make sense that I wouldn't want to see violence against cats? Actually... any animal...)
Faked violence against animals is bad, but faked violence against humans is okay?
According to the religious pursuit of freedom of entertainment media, of course it is. Actually, even combat with *realistic* broadswords isn't that difficult to pull off. Well, it is, but that's because it's a challenging art to learn. Stage combat is quite fascinating, really.
re #103- Yup, that pretty much sums it up. <grins> Hey, who said a person's opinions always had to be logical and make sense? Actually... I take part of that back, I hate seeing violence against children as well. But adults? No biggie.
I've never been impressed by stage combat. No matter how close you come to not pulling your shots, it's always easy to see that they are pulled. And there's really no way around it, if you're using "real" weapons. Give me SCA style combat any day. It may not be convincing to see people get hit with a rattan pole, but at least they're really getting hit.
"there i was, wearing five yards of carpet..." :)
So I went to see "Titus". It came out last year, I think, but was apparently released to a fairly limited audience at the time. We saw it at this weird little artsy theatre, so I dont' know if it's playing nationally or not. I'd never read _Titus Andronicus_, but I'd read and seen several other Shakespeare tragedies, so I thought I knew what to expect of this. Wrong. It surprised me with how disturbing and bloody and brutal and well, tragic, it was, even in comparison to others. Don't go see this when you're feeling squeamish. OTOH, it was quite well done, if a bit bizarre in some places. I think the film would have been much improved if the director had cut out a couple of little dream sequence/showing-the-inside-of-the-character's head bits. I have no patience for artsy pretention in films, and these scenes seemed to be full of sound and fury and not much else. There were only a couple of them, though. The director (whose name I can't remember at the moment for some reason) chose to set the film in both ancient *and* modern times. Tony, who I saw it with, found this anachronistic and irritating, so you may too. I really didn't have a problem with it, since both ancient Rome and the modern (actually earlier in this century) world got equal play, so I wasn't left feeling like one was the "real" setting and one an anachronism. They segued fairly fluidly between the two, and used elements of both to tell the story. (Come to think of it, this is artsy pretention, too, but it's the kind I like, so it's okay. ;)) Throughout, the costumes, sets, etc., were quite well done, with a lot of attention to detail. The photography itself was beautiful, too. Anyway, the excellent cast (led by Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange, and including lots of other people I'd never heard of, but who were really, really good) more than made up for the film's weaker spots. Almost none of the characters are really likeable or sympathetic in this story, but the actors made even the most evil ones charismatic and compelling so that the audience was fascinated and had to find out what happened to them. So yeah, I'd recommend this. Go see it on the big screen if at all possible.
Finally viewed the tape of _Wild Things_ (Mary Wilson has a long day and went to sleep early so whats-her-name and I got to watch something other than G rated....). An excellent flick (they sure didn't have tits like that when I was in HS!), plot twist after plot twist. Be sure to view all the credits to get the final plot twists.
I have to second that -- Wild Things was fun.
Re resp:108 - "Titus" played recently at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor; I saw it there. It was directed by Julie Taymor. I think this was her first movie, although she's done a lot of theater work, including the stage version of Disney's "The Lion King". I was very impressed with the production, although it's not, as you say, for the squeamish. It had a certain power; I found it reminiscent in some ways of 1980's slasher films.
I finally saw _The_Sixth_Sense_ last night on DVD. It was an excellent movie. The kid (whose name I forget) deserves an oscar. I loved a lot of the subtlety in the movie. Too bad I saw the movie already knowing the twist at the end. Still, it was an excellent film. Too bad they didn't keep some of the deleted scenes in the movie.
Did you see the director's first film?
No, what is it?
It's on the DVD. He made it when he was around 14. I can't remember the name -- it's very short, but worth checking out if you've already rented the DVD.
Thanks Joe. I'll check it out. I haven't finished looking at all the bonus stuff yet.
I wasn't particularly impressed by Sixth Sense. I thought it was rather slow up until The Twist, which made it somewhat more interesting in retrospect, but it was a long haul for the payoff. I suppose if I had known The Twist to start with, it might have made the movie more interesting, but then the whole exercise would be largely pointless. I've never been much of a fan of "and then he was hit by a truck" endings.
I thought Jacob's Ladder was very compelling for the same reason as The Sixth Sense. The Sixth Sense was far more sedate than the former film.
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 (B+) -- Looking at this movie, you know that someone spent a huge amount of money to entertain you. M:I 2 carries the car chase/explosion/ acrobatic fistfight genre to its ultimate extreme. It's all beautifully done. The plot and the characters never try to be other than their totally preposterous selves. It tries very hard to maintain its PG13 rating by only implying the goriest things, letting them happen offscreen. Definitely worth seeing if you need some harmless escapist fun. MYSTERY, ALASKA (B) -- The box promised "the Rocky of Hockey," and that's just what the movie is. Simpleminded and shamelessly manipulative, but fairly enjoyable.
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II (A-) -- Action, action, action. See also #119 above.
Saw bits and pieces of Armageddon last night. I didn't pay too much attention to the movie, and I didn't see the whole thing (I was on the Event Operations crew for Student Council Movie night, had more important things to do, like find a working projector). Therefore, I won't comment on it, although if the number of people we had in attendance is any indication, it's a terrible movie.
Saw "Shanghai Noon" last night and I highly recommend it. It was very funny, in addition to Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson it has Lucy Liu in it (and she's just wonderful). Fun actions, amusing characters and is all around fun. :)
Saw "Missing Impossible 2" today. Good flick. I think I enjoyed the first one more because the plot was a little more twisted but this one was still pretty good.
Leslie and I saw DINOSAUR last weekend. I liked it a lot, but I'm willing to accept the Disneyesque BAMBI/LION KING plot conventions. Visually, the computer-generated characters are very impressive. I like movies which show me things I haven't seen before, and DINOSAUR is a home run in that category.
MI2 is good escapist fare- lots of action. The girl in the picture is really beautiful, not your typical bleach blonde Bond girl you always see in action pics. Doesnt have much in common with the Mission Impossible TV series though.
Mission Impossible: 2 I went in to this movie not expecting much. Perhaps something James Bond-ish, but with some similarity to the Mission Impossible team concept waved at in MI:I. No such luck. What I got was an ode to Ethan Hunt, super-fixer. Yeah, there was a small team concept, but one guy was a doorman and a helicopter pilot, Luther came back as some laptop whiz, and a love interest that showed some apparent skills early in the movie, but played the innocent waif victim through the rest. Frankly, the guys were just props, and the girl was eye candy that gave Ethan Hunt some emotional dilemma. I found the movie to be totally cartoonish. A venue for Tom Cruise to play a mortal super-hero. There's no real plot twist. They love the face masks that turn one person into someone else and play it to death, completely unrealistically at times. Gunplay and explosions and chase scenes, mostly too long and too super-human. A thin, see-it-coming-a-mile-away plot line where they repeat lines like "Her record will be expunged. Her crimes will be wiped clean." as if the audience has no brain. Fight/chase scenes where you constantly say, "No, he can't do that!", and then they do something else equally inanely super-human in the very next sequence all detract from any thought that this movie has any basis in real human world physics or ability. Purely a foil for Tom Cruise to look the action-hero, make the impossible possible, and drive a movie on pure guts, action, and emotion. No way. It was poorly paced with long drawn out sequences both fast and slow. Lots of weak emotional build-up. Poor stylistic play. Completely improbable long event chains, not just single events. No real plot twists of any value to the movie. All this conspired to suck the escapist enjoyment out of the movie. I read Rex Reed's review before the movie, figuring that he was hunting for Hollywood style in a summer stock film. Actually, he was looking for a movie. What we saw was two hours and 10 minutes of implausibility, and after a while looking for the end of it all. Take a favorite food, pizza for instance. Presume that whatever is delivered, you have to eat it all. Early on, the pizza tastes great, but they just keep delivering more with toppings that are starting to taste funny. Soon, you wish the pizza would stop. You're full and the pizza is tasting worse and worse. But, yet another pizza comes to your door. When will it end? Indeed. That's MI:2
The MI flicks are starting to go the way of the James Bond series. Not much plot, just a venue for more and more spectacular special effects and eye-candy babes. If you think of MI:2 as a realistic depiction of the way intelligence agents actually work in real life, you'll probably be disappointed. If you just relax and enjoy the continuing adventures of SuperTom, you'll probably get a kick out of it. Personally, the rock climbing scene at the beginning just blew me away, so I was disposed to think kindly of the rest of the movie. Also, I have to say that seeing Tom Cruise clumsily wading his way through a traditional Hong-Kong style martial arts fight was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. :)
(She was only particularly beautiful when she SMILED) If anyone saw this week's "Entertainment Weekly" .. look for the picture of her in it. She looks like a total dog.
She was beautiful in that "can I see your ID?" sort of way.
I didn't expect anything more than a John Woo film when I went to see
MI:2, which is to say, a fairly visually impressive film with little emotional
development or plot, and it delivered to my expectations exactly. If you're
not expecting anything else, it's quite an enjoyable ride, and as Steve
pointed out, it has some exceptional stunt sequences.
The plot holes are large enough to drive a double-wide trailer through,
and the characters rely more upon the fact that they're handsome or cute to
get the audience to like them, than they ever do upon their personalities or
development. Er, so?
Didn't Luthor say the laptop had to be fixed, but the it suddenly started working again?
Good news! I saw a commercial today for a feature-length Ardmann claymation movie! This is the guy who did the "Wallace and Gromit" shorts.
I heard something about it on "All Things Considered's" summer movie round-up the other day. They mentioned that it was "from the folks who brought you 'Wallace and Gromit'" -- does that mean Nick Parks specifically or just that it's produced by the Aardman studios? I can't remember the title but it has something to do with chickens.. I really hope that they manage to successfully make the jump from Parks' brilliant animated shorts to a full-length feature..
It's called Chicken Run and it is from Nick Parks' studio. I am a die-hard W&G fan. It's all about Shaun the Sheep.
I'll be passing on "Chicken Run" :) I do want to see "Hollow Man".
I saw the 7 minute trailer for Battlestar Gallatica: The Second Coming at MarCon this past weekend. If they can get things done, this will be good
Was that "Shaun" or "Shorn"? I'm not that good with British accents.
Does the Second Coming also feature a phallic "mothership"? :)
Good Lord - I had no idea someone was bringing back Battlestar Galactica. But - I mean - they got to Earth, right? So what gives?
It's Shaun the Sheep. I should know - I have tons of Shaun stuff hanging around.
They're assuming that Galactica 1980 never happened. After all, who would want to acknowledge that show.
Who wants to acknowledge the original Battlestar Galactica? I saw the theatrical release: it made my head hurt.
I LOVED Battlestar Galactica - I still occasionally watch it on sci-fi on the weekends. I watch it with a Mystery Science Theater mindset.
Battlestar Galactica was a fun show. I still love to watch it at times.
I fondly remember Space:1999. what the hell happened? Oh yeah, we got to the moon with the Apollo missions and everyone lost interest.
Er, space:1999 was made after most of the apollo missions and definitely after the excitement had died down.
I know that, but I figured they were "predicting" the future of Space. :-)
Yeah, it's a shame the moon flew out of orbit last year. ^_^
A friend once crunched through the physics of "Space:1999" and wrote a funny article about it. The key point was that any expenditure of energy which would accelerate the moon on its way to another star wasn't going to leave anybody alive on the moon.
Snuck out of work a little early tonight to make it to the late-matinee showing of Mission:Implausible. I suppose it was entertaining in a way, but if there's any justice in the world it should lead to legislation requiring Hollywood, before releasing and distributing any action movie, to screen it for a test audience of ordinarily intelligent 8-year-olds. If the movie doesn't display at least enough internal consistency for an enthusiastic 8-year-old to describe the plot in a way that makes sense to someone who hasn't seen the movie, then it doesn't get released. Obviously a totally *huge* amount of work, including a phenomenal amount of meticulous attention to detail, goes into the making of a mega-dollar action movie. So why is it that when it comes time to make a big-budget movie, the studios seem to devote far more time to choosing the music that goes on the soundtrack than they do examining the script for any sort of logical consistency? I'm not claiming to want a realistic or true-to-life action film. I'm totally OK with the idea that the whole genre exists to fulfill a need for escapist fantasy. I just want to walk out of the theater without feeling confused and vaguely insulted. Is that *so* much to ask? Within the peculiar but established logic of the action movie universe, Mission:Impossible 2 gets off to a fairly decent plot. The bad guys have stolen something important and the good guys have to resort to highly unusual methods to get it back. So far so good.. About half-way through, though, the logical consistency of Mission:Impossible starts completely disintegrating, even by action-movie standards. Before the end of the movie, long before you can sort out how things got so out of hand, the main characters are running around some sort of bizarre island biotech-storage facilities where white doves flutter artistically through the underground corridors. By the time people start pulling off the rubber face masks and voice-modulators that imbue such magical powers of disguise, you're too bemused to congratulate the hero for the astonishing foresight which led him to pack all of the masks he couldn't have anticipated needing for his commando raid on the island fortress (who'd've known he'd need a mask OF HIMSELF? or does he simply make them on the spot?) In the end, the most annoying thing about Mission:Impossible is the blantantly obvious attention paid to every tiny detail *except* the script. When the filmmaker is sufficiently in control of his medium to give us a shot of flames reflected in the iris and pupil of the villains eye, yet no attempt is made to give the characters an iota of believable motivation, the viewer has to feel like the target of a fair amount of contempt. What really bugs me is that it seems that with just a little bit of effort, an excellent movie could've been made, using the same action sequences, but obeying at least the laws of action movie logic. Even an attempt would have been nice..
Saw the "Director's Cut" (funny notion as the director was 'Alan Smithey' funny if you know what it means) of _Dune_ on the Sci-fi cable channel at the Holiday Inn in Muscatine, Iowa this past weekend. It was campy crap in its theatre debute and at 5 hours long with average of 8 minutes of carefully targeted 'verts per 15 minutes of air time it was campy crap with voice over naration. I cannot even figure out where to begin to slam it. Read the book instead, and if you don't know how to read, go visit the zoo instead or take drugs or slam your head against the wall. At least I didn't pay anything other than for the hotel room to view "The Director's Cut". Its pure unadulterated crap with big time stars -the trailers for the december 2000 remake shown looked much better - go figure. Costumes: Figure out if 'House Atreiades' are Nazis or British, or USMARINE CORPs dress uniforms. Screen Writers: Read the fucking book all the way through. Or at least read a little of it, a little bit of it, try maybe the first 5 pages... Casting: Paul-Muad-dib-Usul is 15 years old in the beginning. THere are actors of that age that can work even though your actor doesn't. Special effects - cheasy 'sam wood' intermixed, either decide you are an A movie or a B movie, don't mix and match.
re #148: The last James Bond movie was exactly the same. I think it's that special effects are getting to be too easy to produce, while well- written scripts are getting harder to write. And on top of that, most people that go to movies like MI2 don't really care about plot.
I agree that viewers don't demand excellent plots, but I think that most still appreciate it when at least a little bit of thought is given to the issue.. Take, for instance, "The Matrix".. Even a little bit of critical examination reveals the fact that the plot is skeletal (at best) and the scenario ludicrous (Okay: even if we grant that the AIs need "bio-energy" to power things, why don't they get it from cows and save themselves a lot of potential trouble?) But "The Matrix" was enjoyable because it paid at least enough lip service to the idea of plot and narrative structure to keep you from being jolted out of your suspended disbelief while watching the movie. Once you walked out of the theater it didn't take long before the illusion of plot, so carefully constructed out of clever pacing and eye candy -- smoke and mirrors, basically -- began to dissipate. But -- and this is the important part -- *while* you were watching you didn't start to shift in your seat or scratch your head at what was going on on-screen.. Mission:Implausible simply asks too much.. Once I've swallowed the idea that Tom Cruise is a super-sophisticated secret agent with nerves of steel and superhuman reflexes, and have accepted that germ warfare researchers are willing to smuggle a deadly virus by injecting it into themselves and then getting on a plane and *hoping* they'll arrive at their destination on time to take the cure, it's unfair to further burden my overtaxed credibility by halfway through the movie having everyone behave like idiots just because it leads to some cool stunts. This movie doesn't just want me to suspend my disbelief, it asks me to vaporize it..
Mike- maybe the bio-energy provided by an occupied mind (occupied by the Matrix, doncha know) was greater than that provided by cows... <grins> Just a, yanno, thought...
I'd think they'd do something like what NASA has researched, using very
primitive bacteria for that purpose. It's the most efficient food, and in
all likelihood far better at producing energy as biomass. Of course, there's
that whole fusion and fission thing ...
I'm not trying to poke holes in "The Matrix".. For what it's worth, my opinion is that the filmmakers of "The Matrix" gave the viewer just enough expository and explanatory mumbo-jumbo to keep things moving along. It wasn't tightly written enough to stand up to analysis after the movie was over, but it was never intended to do so. The point is, that in "The Matrix", or any other successful action movie, the plot is well enough constructed to at least last for two hours or so before simply disintegrating under the weight of its own implausibility. In my opinion this is definitely not true of Mission:Impossible 2, which is the primary flaw which ruined my enjoyment of the movie.
Mike... I'm just teasing. <grins> One of the things I liked was every time it looked like they were going to throw in a 'mandatory love scene' they didn't. <grins>
IMO, plausability does not necessarily a good movie make. Most of the time, I don't really give a damn about plot flaws. Realism and plausability has absolutely no meaning to me when I'm watching a movie. I go purely to be entertained, and neither realism nor plausability of plat affects that entertainment value for me. Thus, I enjoyed Mission Impossible 2
Would you enjoy watching a 90-minute reel of stunts with no connecting plot line? Because that's the way action movies seem to be headed..
They weren't doves - they are pigeons. It's a John Woo thing.
how can they bring back Battlestar Gallactica when Lorne Greene is dead? I mean sheesh! (what are they going to do next, Bonanza: The Movie?)
re 157 - well, some plot is required, and MI2 had a plot. The plot itself wasn't implausible, though many parts of the story were very VERY loosely connected. Hey, porn movies don't have plots, why should action flicks? :)
I thought pigeons _were_ doves.
air-rats
I tend to think of the plots of action movies like MI2 and Bond flicks as "stylized". Yes, they don't stand up to analysis, and yes, they require perhaps inordinate amounts of suspension of disbelief, but there are those who like that sort of thing. And, judging from box office results, they are not few. Personally, I don't see it as being any worse than the stylized plots, characters, animation, etc. one finds in Disney movies.
Saying that it's "stylized" implies that at some point someone made a conscious decision to make it the way it was, rather than it winding up that way because of laziness, incompetence, or some unfortunate convergence of conflicting artistic priorities. Besides, I'm not sure that I agree whether the issue of whether something is done in the style of an action movie and whether or not its plot makes even a little sense as a work of narrative fiction are at all linked. Granted, it seems like a lot of modern filmmakers seem to think they are, and obviously those people spend a much greater portion of their time than I do thinking about action movie issues, but I would argue that the existence of at least moderately plausible films which are still undeniably action movies is a powerful counterargument. I guess what it comes down to is that I don't believe that sometime during scriptwriting (or at any other point in the production) the writer sat down with the director and producer and said something like: "OK, guys, here's the deal.. I can either write you an action movie, *OR* I can write you a movie where the story makes sense. Which will it be?"
Rather, I think at some point the director/editor makes a decision to include something, or drop something else, because of the "cool factor" rather than to advance the story.
There are certainly elements like that in M:I2. For example the only explanation for the otherwise inexplicable birds fluttering around the bio-tech facility is that director John Woo has some gratuitous fixation involving fluttering birds (if you have the temerity to doubt me, punish yourself by watching his previous Hollywood movie, "Face Off", which will amply illustrate Woo's pigeon fetish..) I think, though, that MI:2's problems go much deeper than an expository scene or two left on the [literal or metaphorical] cutting-room floor. Essentially the supposedly super-comptetent characters just make puzzlingly dumb decisions, decisions which are so obviously stupid, even at the time, that the viewer is jolted out of the story. They're like big drum crashes out of rhythm.. I can't conceive of any scenes or chapters that might've been left out that would explain why the characters choose to act as they do. At the same time, though, I probably *could* come up with reasons for them to engage in all of same motorcycle chases, rope stunts, and gun fights they get into. Those reasons would be pretty contrived, but they'd at least keep things moving along.. -- I don't want to beat this to death. Nor do I want to single out M:I2, the problems I'm describing are sadly not unique to this particular film. I just wonder: do even action-movie audiences *really* care so little about plot? Maybe they do -- certainly if there's one thing I'd count on the studios to get right it'd be to understand as much as possible about what brings people into movies, and a zillion dollars of action blockbuster earnings at the box office certainly suggests they know what they're doing. But maybe, just maybe, there's room for both a vestigial plot *and* the usual complement of explosions, harrowing aerobatic stunts, and kung fu.. (yeah, I know.. that *does* sound pretty farfetched..)
Heh. I suppose I should mention that I had to whisper to Leslie tonight: "Stop thinking!" We were watching "Shanghai Noon" at the time... we both thought it was a lot of fun, just don't analyze the plot too much.
I actually thought about following up #166 with a note clarifying that contrary to what one might guess from my recent writings in this item I often really enjoy the totally off-the-wall "plots" of Chinese action movies, perhaps because they rarely even pretend to make sense. Maybe what I object to is when a movie tries to act like it should make sense and simply fails completely..
I concur. Action flicks that attempt to take themselves seriously and fail to be serious are painful to watch. Action movies, or anything else, that looks at itself with a bit of an amused eye, are much more watchable.
i like jackie chan movies... do they show all the out t akes at the end of shanghi noon?
They show several.
Was that "final" scene really a biotech facility? I don't think so. It looked like some kind of old castle that they chose as a meeting place. The pigeons would not be exactly out of place there.
i gave up on action movies years ago because they have no plots. the last one i saw (was dragged to, having nothing better to do with my $7.50 that day) was "true lies." yuk. nobody could understand why i hated it. then when i explained that i prefer movies with intelligible plots and a cast capable of *ACTING*, the people i was with were incredulous. apparently, action movies are a genre whose subtleties, if there are any, i am incapable of grasping. or maybe it's just that i can recognize the difference between suspension of disbelief and a plot which lacks internal consistency.
re #172: I'm not sure how many underground castles Australia has, but the number of them with DNA-analysis tools must be pretty low, wouldn't you think?
Does Australia have *any* castles (above or below ground?)
No idea - it's top secret I imagine (=
They looked like they were in some kind of dungeon, too me, with "portable" DNS-analysis tools. Didn't you notice that the tool they used was sitting on a fairly plain looking table and there was no other "equipment" in the room nor any noticeable storage cupboards or anything like that. I contest that it was not any kind of Biotech facility.
I'm going to have to concede your point -- it was not a biotech facility.. My guess is that it was a movie set, and not a particularly thoroughly thought-out one.. Other things I'd like to know: what were all of those gas cylinders doing there? Were they there just in case Tom Cruise or McGyver launched a commando raid on the place? And what is the facility used for when it's not hosting negotiations with bio-weapon terrorists? It seems like the personnel costs in security alone would make it a white elephant if you weren't storing some sort of bio-weapon or similarly crucial object there. Certainly the corporation might've been better advised to use some of those security to protect their main facilities, which both the M:I team *and* the villains had simply waltzed into not 24 hours before.. But then it's probably pretty hard to staff a place with the sort of ask-no-questions security guards who will give up their lives to protect the property of a company that's getting ready to kill millions of their fellow countrymen, especially in today's hot job market.. ;-p
Dru, I hated "True Lies" too, and, if I'm reading what you wrote
correctly, we hated it for the same reasons. I'm not really sure what the
difference is between a good mindless action film and a bad mindless action
film - it could be the sensible kinetic and visual language behind a good
mindless action film which is enough to defray the logical understanding of
the rational language of the plot until after it's over, or it could just be
that it's pretty and the soundtrack matches the action of the characters, to
lull the audience into a trance.
I don't particularly like True Lies. They put Arnold into a movie, added pyrotechnics, and expected it to work. It didn't, so they included Jamie Lee Curtis and lingerie. Apparently, deadlines prevented them from making it good...
I actually liked "True Lies" except for the creepily sadistic part where Arnold is psychologically torturing Jamie Lee.. But that was enough to kill the pacing of the movie and introduce issues that distracted greatly from the entertainment value of seeing things get "blowed up real good."
Mike, in MI:2 they mentioned that the castle in question was a storage facility. IFO also liked "True Lies" despite my aversion to Arnold.
I liked True Lies myself. When we went down to the keys a few years back, I saw the "bridge" that was blown up. They actually did blow up that bridge. Of course, it had been replaced by a new bridge which was magically erased from the shots.
We rented "Galaxy Quest" over the weekend. I didn't like it much. Tim Allen did a pretty good impression of William Shatner as a has-been actor touring conventions for his long-dead science fiction show. The action of the movie was pretty cheesy, though.
I think it was... no... I KNOW it was supposed to be horribly cheesy. <grins> Now if they had tried to be serious I don't think I would have liked it... but this was a spoof of several different things, it was intended to drip with cheese.
Re #184: John, I suspect Galaxy Quest may be the kind of comedy that benefits greatly from an audience. I saw it in a theater and loved it.
I wouldn't say I "loved" it, but I enjoyed it for what it was -- a light-hearted spoof of a target that's ripe for spoofing..
BTW, for those of us who are dim of wit, exactly when and what movie is Grex sponsoring? I'm thinking about attending.
"Galaxy Quest". Top of the Park, Sunday, July 9.
I'm there.
Galaxy Quest was great! I loved Sigourney Weaver going on about what the computer was saying. It cracked me up.
<grins and nods to Brooke> And the engineer guy! "yeah... just an FYI..."
I saw a couple of movies last night. BEING JOHN MALKOVICH: This movie was incredible. Even though people told me about some of the movie, nothing prepared me for what I saw. Wow. FREE ENTERPRISE: Fun movie. It was good. I liked the constant SF movie references and, of course, Shatner sings.
TWINE - Wow. Sophie Marceau has a really beautiful face.
Have I yet mentioned that I like almost every movie that John Cusack has been in? "High Fidelity" being the most recent.
My new laptop has a DVD drive, so we rented the DVD version of The Abyss the other night. It's great. Not only does it look and sound great on DVD (even watched on a 15-inch laptop screen), but the disk contains a lot more stuff. It has both the original version and the director's cut, and you can watch subtitles which tell you throughout how the special effects were created, as they appear. But then there's a whole other section which contains slide shows explaining different aspects of the production in depth. I went through the one on the pseudopod sequence. It took me about a half an hour. It included all the original storyboards for the sequence, and a description of all the steps the graphics guys went through to create it. (It took them 8 months to do a 3-minute piece.) Really, really interesting.
I'm curious as to the reasons that those who liked Being John
Malkovitch liked it - everyone that I've discussed the movie with was
thoroughly disappointed, even if they hadn't read the reviews or heard any
of the hype surrounding the film.
I loved it. Very funny! As to why... I dunno. The willingness to take truly odd plot twists? The acting?
<pokes John> You obviously didn't discuss it with me. <grins>
I wasn't disappointed by "Being John Malkovich." I frequently wondered how big the hit of acid was that the writer dropped to produce such an idea. We also paused the movie several times to go "What the Fuck?". I give it an A for originality - and A for acting. But I can't say that I liked it. By the way, Cameron Diaz deserved an Oscar for it - not Catherine Keener. She was amazing.
re #200: I think the problem was that people didn't even realize that that *was* Cameron Diaz. She's nearly unrecognizable if you're looking for someone who looks like her other roles.. re #197: I liked it because it was an original and pretty surreal farce peppered with bizarre sight jokes that it didn't get too heavy to enjoy.
I came out of Being John Malkovich thinking, "wow, that was weird..." It kept me thinking about it for quite a while.
I found Dogma more chalenging than John Malkovich. Again, I reference the dropped acid.
I really wasn't impressed with the oddities in _Malkovitch_ - they
weren't fully developed and didn't seem to exist for any purpose outside of
seeming odd and artsy.
I found "Malkovitch" clever and playful and unpredictable. That's quiet an enjoyable trio of attributes.
(I'm looking forward to the impending arrival of "Dogma" which I recently ordered from Amazon)
Dogma is a very funny film that inspired a pretty good religion discussion between Gary and myself.
I was rather impressed with the way it tackled religion. Honestly, I didn't feel it plastered it as much as people thought (though there were moments.) I still prefer Clerks, though.
yeah I exactly looked at it as "Kevin Smith on religion" from pretty much the beginning. Didn't know much about it other than who wrote and directed it. I want the jay and silent bob action figures for my birthday. Hear that everyone?? <hint, hint>
"Timecode" is amazing film. Mike Figgis takes an accomplished cast, four cameras, a loose script where the actors are encouraged to improvise, and two hours of real time and makes four movies which all play on the screen at one time, weaving in and out of each other, making perfect sense. Each movie is done is one shot. The screen is divided into quadrants with a film in each corner. I especially enjoyed the part where he makes fun of himself and the effort. Highly recommended. ****
I second the recommendation for "Time Code". In addition to what Mary said, I'll mention the great stereo soundtrack (the directionality is very helpful for keeping the four threads straight) and the creative use of earth tremors as a synchronization device. In the acting department, special congratulations are due Jeanne Tripplehorn, who is onscreen continuously almost the entire time. Talk about a sustained performance. Hitchcock did something vaguely similar with "Rope" in the 1940's, where he tried to make the movie seem as though it were one continuous take, but due to limitations of film technology he had to fake it. With digital cameras, the real thing is now possible. For the benefit of Ann Arborites -- "Time Code" is playing for a few more days at the Michigan Theater. Re "Malkovitch" -- I like it a lot. Also, like others, I didn't realize that Cameron Diaz was in it until the credits. She had a big part, too.
I rented girl interrupted and being john malkovitch last night. Watched girl interrupted. Loved it, made me cry. Have to save Malkovitch for julie, cause she pouted when I told her that I rented it without her.
GLADIATOR-- I saw this at the Loews Astor Plaza in Times Square, which is one of the largest screens in the country and where many films have their world premiers. This is the sort of movie you must see on the largest screen possible. Small theater screens and videotapes wont do it justice. The special effects are really amazing-- blows the battle scenes in Ben Hur away. The performances really stand out too-- Russell Crowe gives a major star performance and is going to be in a lot more films. And also Joaquin Phoenix as the son of Marcus Aurelius who oozes evil-- you know you are watching a good villian performance when the audience cheers loudly when he gets whats coming to him in the end. And of course, Marcus Aurelius the emperor, is played in a small but crucial part by one of my favorite actors, Richard Harris (who played Arthur in Camelot) The film is predictable but the special effects make it worth while. Again see this on a big screen
I can't decide wether or not I liked "Being john malkovitch" or not. I think I need to watch it again before I make my mind up.
I liked Russell Crowe in "LA Confidential". He gave an awesome performance. I'm looking forward to seeing "Gladiator". Can't wait for Fantasia 2K to get to the theatres. It won't be like like the IMAX showing, but still should be awesome. I loved the music, esp Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance, The Pines of Rome and Rhapsody in Blue, which is one of my all time favorite classical pieces. On another note, I've started a list of "Movie Picks" showing on TCM. I usually go through the monthly schedule and pick out what I like. The list for June can be seen @ http://www.cyberspace.org/~omni/tcmjun.htm I love old movies. ;)
Re: Gladiator (A) This is solid entertainment and I support the earlier praise in resp 213. Each frame of this film is beautiful in color, lighting and composition. I think that an Academy award will go to Mathieson for the cinematography. I think that Gladiator has not diminished Ben Hur's acclaim, however. I'm too sleepy at the moment to even know why. nuts.
resp:214 i've seen it 3 times and i love it, although it doesn't stay "fresh" for repeat viewings. i'd say it's got 14 more viewings left before i'm done with. i'm a sucker for magical realism, cusack, and, above all, john malkovitch, so i really dug it.
what's the movie about the art forger? The russel crowne affair?
http://us.imdb.com/Plot?0155267
no browser hunny
Adrienne and I watched "Say Anything" this evening on some random movie channel (FXM, maybe). She'd never seen it before. I had. It's still enjoyable.
My favorite John Cusack movie is still "Better Off Dead", even though I lose five IQ points every time I watch it.. I want my two dollars!
resp:220 the thomas crown affair jes, about stealing aht i didn't see it.
There was art forgery in The Thomas Crowm Affair. "Better Off Dead" is great! I have to watch it again soon.
There are some movies you just have to put your brain in neutral and enjoy the ride. Better Off Dead is one of them. I like the 2 Japanese guys. One speaks no english and the other talks like Howard Cosell. I liked Cusak in The Grifters. He did a good job in that one.
"The Thomas Crown Affair" with Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo was silly escapist fun. The original version with Steve McQueen we found pretty boring.
Better Off Dead is one of my favorite movies of all time.
It's a classic, I love it.
I have a special place in my heart for "The Sure Thing", though I'm sure it would seem juvenile if I watched it today.
The Thomas Crowne Affair is one of my favorite moives and one of the first movies I bought on DVD. It's a very sensual movie.
The original or the remake?
The remake. I thought PIerce Brosnan was great - as was Rene Russo.
peirce brosnan is the next george hamilton.
You're just jealous. You want to be that smooth. George Hamilton? I think not.
but what about that gawdawful tan? ewww creepy
they share a booth.
On my first scan through #232, I missed an important "was" and instead read:
"Pierce Brosnan was great - as Renee Russo."
I couldn't help thinking: Boy, I'll bet that *is* a "very sensual movie."
rotfl...
On the floor with joe. . .
Now *that's* an image...
You know, it's not like I am all that naieve and stuff - but I seem to be great typing stuff that when I read it, I go, "Oh shit - how oocq can that possibly be?" I meant that I was laughing with Joe.
I knew what you meant.
I just saw Fight Club tonight. One word: f%*%ing brilliant.
That's two words.
fight club is cinnematic genus
<grins> I started watching Fight Club on Sunday (liked very much) need to finish watching it though...
oh god anne, you know what you're missing, dontcha?
You're all violating the first rule: DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB!
<laughs> Carla- no I don't, I hate it when people tell me what happens in a movie before I see it. ;) I do plan to watch the rest tonight. <grins>
Wel I wasn't going to do that. :) but just by watching the ammount that you did, you should be aware of what you are misisng.
The first first rule of Cock Club is not to talk about Cock club, The Second Rule of Cock Club is not to talk about Cock Club. Saw that on The Daily Show last night.
Saw Fight Club again tonight. I have to own this movie.
i hear the fight club dvd is really good, it has a whole extra disc of extras and outtakes
Yeah, that second disc has a lotof neat stuff on it.
Okay, so I finished watching it... and just wow...
I believe it's about time to found a religion on that movie.
The "Fight Club" DVD was Roger Ebert's "Video Pick of the Week" this week. He gave thumbs down to the movie but thumbs up to the DVD.
the best out-take on the dvd is rupert/chloe. the first time i saw this flic it was a choice made for lack of anything better, and to get some laffs out of it while killing time; i'd seen only one preview and the impression i took away from that was that _fight_club_ was an updated redaction of something like _bloodsport_. gee was i stunned.
Yeah, I had no idea what the movie was really about until I saw it. Someof the best movies I've seen don't reveal what the movie's about in the trailers.
and too many trailers reveal too much about the movie their trying to entice me into, good or not. i suspect that movie directors usually have little control over the advertising.
Yeah, I always think T2 would've been MUCH better if I didn't know Ah-nold was the good guy. The movie would've had a really neat twist if we didn't know that from the trailers.
Good point
I've seen some great trailers which turned out to consist of every good scene in the movie.
there's a new super deluxe dvd of T2 coming out (they shot so much extra footage that you could make another movie, alternate beginnings, endings and .etc-- the deluxe T2 dvd promises to include all versions of the movie and all alternate scenes and running commentary tracks of Cameron and Schwarzenegger among other things)
I would like to see DVD's which give that treatment to the older classic movies, to the extent possible. For example, a DVD with both the released and recently-discovered "original" version of the Bogart/Bacall "Big Sleep".
they do that with older films...the dvd re-release of the original "Dracula" with Bela Lugosi featured restored version of both that film *and* the spanish version filmed at the same time on the same sets with spanish actors. the spanish version was filmed at night and the english lugosi version in the daytime. The "Big Slee'" DVD features not only the Bogart/Bacall film but the little scene alternate version theyfilmed at the same time and didnt use (same actors, slightly different script and scenes)
there's a dvd of truffaut's _love at 20_, which is the 25 minute long 2nd part of the 'antoine doinel cycle', consisting all-in-all of 5 flics, the first of which is _the 400 blows_. sorry -- _antoine & collette_ is the second movie. it was part of a longer movie called _love at 20_ by several new wave directors. it can't be obtained on vhs because the size of the film stock for _love at 20_ is wider than normal. i saw it at the dia theater once and they had to open the curtains an extra 5 feet on each side to show it. that movie alone is the only reason i'll have to get a dvd player until vhs is rendered obsolete. i dread the idea of having to convert my entire vhs collection to dvd.
yeah but lelande, with a dvd, you can play themovie on your computer and watch it in one window while you are in grex party in the other!
As long as you're not using Linux.. Because that would be illegal and wrong..
Re #269: Just out of curiosity, why?
I was mockingly referring to the ongoing saga of the DVD Content Control Authority's court battle to suppress the "DeCSS" program, a freeware utility for Linux which can decode DVD content and save it in a viewable format, allowing Linux users to watch DVDs on their machines. The MPAA claims that because DeCSS unscrambles the broken encryption on the DVDs, that it is an illegal piracy tool which is outlawed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Supposedly there are commercial DVD players being written for Linux that are licensed by the DVD content control authorities, but I don't think any of them have hit the market yet. People who are interested in learning more about the issue are encouraged to read the voluminous writings on the subject on various free-software web pages (most of which can be found through links in stories on Slashdot, http://slashdot.org ) or to begin an item on it in one of the more technology-oriented cfs.. I don't want to hijack the Agora movie item..
(I don't either, but I have to say that the DMCA is terrible.)
Re #266: I'll have to track down the "Big Sleep" DVD then. The reason the original version was never released was that Lauren Bacall's agent threatened to sue if her part wasn't made bigger and more glamorous. So they went back and reshot some scenes and filmed additional scenes. This held up release for over a year. And to keep the film to two-hour length they cut out some scenes, including a crucial long one that tied together loose ends and explained what was going on. So I figure that if I see the original version, maybe finally I'll understand the plot.
Adrienne and I watched "Dogma" last night. Excellent. Loved it. Most of it was very amusing. It amused me that God was portrayed as an all-powerful bimbo, and that just about every character from Kevin Smith's other 3 flicks was in this - even the video store clerk from "Clerks" had a very very small part in the beginning. So did the other Clerk, I think. I was kinda bummed that Joey Lauren Adams didn't make an appearance <sighs wistfully>
I wanted to see more of the satanic hockey zombies, but otherwise thought the movie was decent. Not great, but decent..
It really pissed me off that Alanis was god.... ugh, she irks me.
Just watched "The Birds." This is a good weekend to watch AMC.
I thought the American Motor Company went broke or something.
American Motors went the way of Hudson, Packard and Stupidbaker. (I feel it is my task in life to consistently diss those shitty little cars from South Bend. They killed Packard.)
i'd suggest adopting a new task lest you consign yourself to conversational oblivion...
Actually, American Motors was taken over by Chrysler, which has been taken over by Daimler Benz.
which will be taken over by King Foods...
which will be bought my Time-Warner.
which will be acquired by the new Seagram's/SBC Communications partnership
Saw tonight:
"Rules of Engagement" -- (C+) No surprises in this military coutroom
drama, except perhaps the performances phoned in by Tommy Lee Jones
and Samuel L. Jackson, both of whom can do better. I won't go off on
another implausibility rant, but I will say that sensible plotting is
a lot more important to a movie that's not going to have any car chases
and the writers would have done well to have considered that. I will
also admit that I'm looking forward to the time, not long from now,
when military dramas set in the present day will no longer be able to
feature characters who suffer from Vietnam flashbacks..
"Mission to Mars" -- (unratable) I may have thought that "Rules of
Engagement" didn't feature the two leads' best performances, but I
wouldn't have said, either, that they were their worst. There's nothing
stopping me from saying that about "Mission to Mars", though. Terrible
script, numbing performances, and a monstrously intrusive and annoying
sountrack are the substantial downsides here. Unintended humor is the
only upside, but things were so laughable that I nevertheless managed
to enjoy the movie at least enough not to be bitter about two hours of
my life that are now gone forever..
Has anyone seen "Chicken Run" yet?
Nope, but I've seen the HBO special on the making of it. Worth seeing. They show how they animate the characters. Trays and trays of plasticine(?) chicken mouths in different positions.
I just read Dave Stein's review from the stilyagi mailing list. He says it's a hoot!, worth seeing.
Saw 2 good flix tonight: Rear Window- What else? 4 stars. Hitchcock didn't make dogs. I never saw this one before and all I can say is OH MY GOD. The movie is completely awesome, even for being made in the early 50's. You know the story, so it is pointless to recap it here, but the last half hour was so intense, I wouldn't have left the house if it was on fire. I was on the edge of my seat, paralyzed with fear that something really bad would happen to Jimmy Stewart. Fortunatly, I had the presence of mind to record it from AMC. Hitchcock, when you're speaking about movies, is God. The cast was great: Jimmy Stewart, Thelma Ritter, and Grace Kelly, not to mention Raymond Burr. Then on TCM came: Father of the Bride-4 stars In my opinion, Spencer Tracy never made a bad film. He was very funny as the Dad Who Paid For The Wedding. You had to start feeling bad for the guy when all the bills begin rolling in, then the bride decides she can't possibly get married, and from there it only gets worse. Soon, it is time for the main event and... I won't spoil the ending. An excellent cast: Elizabeth Taylor and Russ Tamblyn, as well as Spencer Tracy. Can't wait to see "Father's Little Dividend" which is the sequel. Another very funny wedding movie was "Betsy's Wedding" which borrowed a bit from FOTB. I'm getting to like old movies. :)
hot damn . . . got 'crumb' and 'rope' and a documentary on dietrich bonhoeffer on tape.
Re Dogma: Joey Lauren Adams was supposed to be in the movie, but becasue the movies was financed heavier, Kevin Smith lost some control - she was supposed to play Linda Fiorentino's part.
I finally saw "Gone with the Wind" yesterday. I'd never watched it all the way through. I also finished the book yesterday. As my wife said, the movie was over-acted. There was no subtlety; if you were supposed to think "Scarlett is self-absorbed", the movie banged you on the head several times and shouted at you "Self absorbed!!!" As anyone could tell you, it was very long. It was probably the most faithful reproduction of a book I've ever seen in a movie. Many things were left out of the movie, but almost nothing was added or changed. I thought it was a great movie. I don't know how it could have been improved in any way. I guess there's no point in saying much. If you're interested, you've seen this movie 100 times. If you don't know about it, it's because you want it that way.
Re Dogma: Some of the financing could have been spent on a good script doctor, in my opinion. A promising start and a few clever bits, but the thing became insufferably talky after a while and went on much too long.
That's probably a fair criticism.. re #288: Actually, Hitchcock made a number of films which are mediocre at best.. They're just generally swept under the rug whenever his films are discussed..
re: gwtw - my gawd what an overblown, over acted cornball flick. every actor in it chews the scenary. from "superman" on the steps of tara to rhett butler who cares more about how he stands visa vis the camera than how he "acts." far more entertaining is the pbs documentary "the making of gwtw."
<i'm a sucker. i liked the book and movie>
me too, iggy, me too
GWTW is great, but not something I'd want to watch repeatedly.
the 39 steps still kick ass. can't swallow dogma, or any other kevin smith movies -- the problem, for the most part, is the color. kevin smith can't keep his colors under control. his flics (except clerks, course, cuz it's black & white, which he obviously has better control over) come off like sloppily thrown together crayon drawings. he has no respect for shade, no respect for shadows and darkness, he has no evident interest in blank space -- just busy busy busy color color color, no symmetry, no decent portraiture, no motherlovin feng shui. i watched 'mallrats' 7 times because jason lee is a doggone funny boy. but the movie was still an acrylic array of crap. is it because smith grew up so close to comics that he can't direct anything but contrived spunk? every time i go into a comic store these days i have to put up with his cartoons everywhere. he wrote daredevil for a while, and a really good story at that, with really long, slow, sometimes pathetically dull dialogue. i wish he'd stick to movies rather than contribute to the quickening decline in the quality of comic books. i bet tim burton thinks he's an asshole, and signed him up to write the superman script just so burton could reject it. tim burton isn't the greatest director in the world, but, christ, at least he knows how to deal with something as basic as COLOR.
(by making everything a murky grey and claiming it's "artistically moody"?)
I liked GWTW, although it was a bit too long. There are a number of fine performances given by: Jane Darwell, Clark Gable, Butterfly McQueen, and Hattie McDaniel. I particularly liked Olivia DeHavilland's role. I have always like Ms DeHavilland. Ok the movie is cheesy, but it does tell a good story.
resp:299 i know it may be more work than you're willing to take on, but if you can manage to think about more than 'sleepy hollow' you might be able to contribute to discussion rather than muck it up. i used burton as an example because he's recent, well-known, and has extraordinary control over the pallette of his flix. most of the time his movies have a synthetic look to them: very plastic as in edward scissorhands' suburban setting, the miniature model town in beetlejuice, the hokey alien invasion in mars attacks, etc. etc. yadda yadda. maybe one can criticize burton for always employing such an artificial look to his movies, but since burton seems to strive for said artificial look in accordance with the characters and the places in which they exist in the movies, without trying to pull wool over the audience-eye, it wouldn't be criticism, it would be a matter of difference in aesthetic opinion. a buddy of mine is severely anti-formalist, so he'd fall into the bracket of cats that despise burton for this reason (and others); beyond aesthetic difference, it's impressive stuff that he does with his colors. then look at kevin smith, who also has very unrealistic arrays of colors, but i get the feeling that smith doesn't want his colors to look unrealistic, but that he wants his scenes and characters to look authentic, real, real-life-like. so he uses generic shirts, unprovocative lighting, and striaghtforward camera-angles. metatron and what's-her-name drink tequila in a mexican restaurant: i saw only one angle of this mexican restaurant, making it seem very much like a stage dressed up to be the quintessential small mexican restaurant. snore. snore. boy ain't no FENG SHUI, that be fo damn shur.
Kevin Smith is arguably influenced by four-colour layout comics,
though, and in accordance with that theory, his not-quite-real colour schemes,
staging, and dialogue, make considerably more sense. He's also directing on
a very small budget, unlike Burton, and the combined budgets of all of the
Kevin Smith films put together wouldn't begin to approach the special effects
budgets of one Burton film.
My beef with Burton is that he's a one-trick pony. His ideas were
fresh and creative in Beetlejuice, but by the time Edward Scissorhands rolled
out, the "Burton feel" was beginning to get a bit dated. Sleepy Hollow
deviated enough from the traditional "Burton feel" that I didn't mind it at
all, but it was still obviously a Burton film.
omni . . Rear Window . . that was Raymond Burr!
sheesh I wasn't paying attention.
Yes the Hitchcock mass showing on AMC is irresistable . .
I made the mistake of watching The Birds in it's entirety.
Their entirety. The Great Gasoline Accident is
still great, but I found myself being very critical
of much of the film, e.g., the superficial romance that
is the premise for the leading lady's visit to
Bodega Bay. Yes I was just pecking it apart, I've
seen it too many times.
I've always wanted to visit Bodega Bay.
So since then I've just watched chance segments. A bit
of Miss Froy in The Lady Vanishes. The very end of
Suspicion. The climax of Rear Window. The light and
shadow, shadow, shadow, let's colorize it all and
erase all the shadows.
I think the problem with the superficial romance in The Birds wasn't that it was superficial but rather that the actors weren't up to making the audience forget that. Rod Taylor and Tippi Hedren were no substitute for Cary Grant and Grace Kelly.
Believable rumor has it that Hitchcock's interest was not primarily in Tippie Hedren's acting skills..
I've seen enough Perry Mason to know that it was Raymond Burr. He did a great job, nonetheless. Didja see Hitchcock in Dial M For Murder and The Birds? He's easy to spot in The Birds, but you have to be closely watching to see him in Dial M.
what did billy joe throw off the tallahatchie bridge?
Omni is right about Burr. And Hitch's trademark was to sneak a cameo appearance in all his movies, so keep an eye out next time . . . .
re #308: not quite all, but most anyway.. my favorite was the "appearance" in 'Lifeboat'
Was that one a dead body?
Hard to believe but there were huge protests about GWTW when it came out because when Clark Gable leaves at the end, he tells Scarlett, "Frankly my dear, I dont give a damn" A four letter word in a movie?!?! The studio wanted to change that last line to "frankly my dear, I dont care" or something weaker. Gable, to his credit, absolutely insisted that line stay in as is, and almost quit over it.
Frankly, I don't give a damn
i remember when you couldn't say pregnant or bathroom on tv.
re #310: Not a body, no.. If I recall correctly, one of the characters is reading a newspaper that has somehow survived the shipwreck and Hitchcock's image appears in an advertisement for some sort of weight loss method.
Hedren has aged well (surgically enhanced no doubt).
The best thing is to let people look for themselves. I've yet to see him in Psycho, and Rear Window.
resp:303 it doesn't take much money to make good colors, even when influenced by comicdom's classic flatness. by the time he was making movies most good comics had either improved their color schemes or stuck w/ black & white, and long, long before then, when he was still shaving with an abrasive washcloth, comics had much better use of flat color schemes, beginning over in europe. it might be better argued that he learned how to be a director from watching gap and mcdonalds commercials.
I have seen him in Psycho, but I missed him this time. I did spot him in Rear Window. We saw him in one or two of the others, but I've forgotten the details. Re the "romance" in The Birds: There wasn't one. Mother and former girlfriend *assumed* there was a romance.
Are we assuming that we share an
unambiguous definition of "romance"?
Probably. She visited Bodega Bay because she was a practical joker with no reason to limit herself. 'Twould be interesting to know what was in the original note, the one she destroyed when replacing it with a note to the sister.
Where was he in Rear Window? I watched it really close and still must have missed it.
Early in the film he can be seen in one of the apartment windows, doing some repair work or something.
are there any hitch movies where he makes his sole appearance anywhere beyond 'early in the film'? i understand he tried to get the tradition out of the way quickly so viewers wouldn't spend the whole movie searching for him while ignoring the flic.
Actually, he was visiting the piano player. I heard that he moved his appearances to earlier in the films after people started looking for him.
i just saw an episode of the simpsons where they did a brief sendup of 'the birds'. homer lisa and bart walked into a daycare to get maggie, and all the babies were sucking pacifiers in an eerie way. tons of them. like they were ready to attack and just waiting to be provoked. after homer grabbed maggie, he slowly backed out of the daycare and shut the door. alfred hitchcock made a cameo walking a dog outside.
(It was the Ayn Rand Daycare Center, if I remember correctly.)
You have several choices: