Grex Cinema Conference

Item 51: The 2002 Fall movie item

Entered by scott on Wed Sep 25 01:31:02 2002:

165 new of 289 responses total.


#125 of 289 by cmcgee on Mon Oct 28 16:00:36 2002:

Li'l Abner


#126 of 289 by mynxcat on Mon Oct 28 16:06:33 2002:

This response has been erased.



#127 of 289 by remmers on Mon Oct 28 16:51:29 2002:

Re #124 and #125:  Nope, Mxyzptlk is a character in Superman.
He's a mischievous imp from another dimension who makes it over
into our universe from time to time and causes a lot of trouble.
Superman's super powers don't have much effect on him.  The only
way to get rid of Mxyzptlk is to get him to say his name backwards,
which sends him back to his own universe.

There's a character in Li'l Abner vaguely like that; can't
remember the details.


#128 of 289 by edina on Mon Oct 28 18:36:29 2002:

I saw "Death to Smoochy" this weekend.  I liked it.


#129 of 289 by mynxcat on Mon Oct 28 18:37:11 2002:

This response has been erased.



#130 of 289 by krj on Mon Oct 28 19:27:45 2002:

Our Saturday double feature was "Lilo and Stitch" followed by 
"Road to Perdition."  Both were good to excellent; of course there 
are lots of logical things one could poke at in "Lilo," but as an 
animated movie for kids it's vastly better than, say, "The Great 
Mouse Detective," Disney's offering from 1986.   Both films are 
at the second-run Village Theater.


#131 of 289 by anderyn on Mon Oct 28 19:58:43 2002:

I really liked "Lilo and Stitch". Yes, there were logic flaws, but it felt
right.


#132 of 289 by senna on Mon Oct 28 21:52:23 2002:

Perdition at the village?  I should check that out.


#133 of 289 by tod on Mon Oct 28 23:56:46 2002:

This response has been erased.



#134 of 289 by mxyzptlk on Tue Oct 29 13:30:21 2002:

"Nadja" is a great recipe for insomnia.

Have seen the first few minutes of it three times and then the couch
or bed beckons me...


#135 of 289 by edina on Tue Oct 29 16:01:17 2002:

Re 133  Put some windex on it!


#136 of 289 by z0mb13 on Tue Oct 29 16:50:15 2002:

I saw Jackass the movie this weekend.  If any of you like the show (and yes
this is DEFINITELY a prerequisite for going) then I highly highly recommend
it, I don't think I stopped laughing the entire time, except for two parts
which were too disgusting even for me (And I have a pretty high tolerance).
I won't bother giving anything away but you JAckass fans know who you are,
you won't be disappointed.  I have to say though, the last couple CKY movies
were actually better..  maybe if only they had more skating and less pranks,
I dunno...


#137 of 289 by ludaspit on Tue Oct 29 17:58:05 2002:

yea the Jackazz movie was good... i kinda wonder y the fat guy won't fight
back to me he fights back like a girl....


#138 of 289 by fitz on Wed Oct 30 09:35:09 2002:

#127>  Joe Bfstplk, who was the manifestation of misfortune, always had a rain
cloud over his head.  His proximity caused failures in the endeavors of the
other characters and he was as welcome as the Grim Reaper.

I don't think that there was a way to get rd of Joe.


#139 of 289 by remmers on Wed Oct 30 19:22:46 2002:

Oh yes, Joe Bfstplk was the character in Li'l Abner.  Thanks for
the reminder.


#140 of 289 by richard on Tue Nov 5 03:36:43 2002:

STAR WARS EPISODE II Attack of the Clones: The Imax version

This is absolutely awesome to watch in the newly released IMAX version.
Attack of the Clones was not filmed, it was shot digitally, and one of the
benefits of the shooting a film digitally is that it can be done in
different formats.  This movie was shot simultaneously in the IMAX digital
format.  On the huge IMAX screen, the special effects in Attack of the
Clones become more amazing than ever.  I noticed a lot watching it in this
version (details in the effects and the scenes) that are easy to miss in
the regular format.  It is really something to watch on IMAX a film that
is so massively laid out and conceptualized.   This is the first movie
that truly starts to show the future and the potential of the IMAX format.
Even if you've seen this movie more than once, it is a must see to watch
the IMAX version.  


#141 of 289 by mdw on Tue Nov 5 04:07:46 2002:

Is it 3D IMAX?  If there's a movie that was begging to be done in 3D,
this is it.


#142 of 289 by edina on Tue Nov 5 15:18:13 2002:

It's here at the Smithsonian - I've been eyeing it - thanks for the
recomendation.


#143 of 289 by gull on Tue Nov 5 16:06:10 2002:

I saw Apollo 13 at the Henry Ford Museum's IMAX theater.  My impressions
were mixed; the sound was great, but the kinds of close-ups and pans
that work well in a normal movie are dizzying and disorienting in an
IMAX film because the screen is too big to take in all at once.

My advice is if you see one of these IMAX re-releases of a conventional
film, sit as far back as you can.


#144 of 289 by scott on Tue Nov 5 16:53:50 2002:

The IMAX AotC is being discussed over on slashdot (yesterday).


#145 of 289 by krj on Tue Nov 5 19:49:43 2002:

This Star Wars fan is not sure he could stomach sitting through 
ATTACK OF THE CLONES a second time, IMAX or no IMAX.
 
I saw some publicity about the IMAX space station documentary showing
at the Henry Ford Museum, but I didn't get any details about it.
That's the film I'd want to see.


#146 of 289 by gull on Tue Nov 5 21:14:05 2002:

Apparently it was filmed by astronauts on the International Space Station. 
It looked pretty cool from the trailer I saw.


#147 of 289 by aruba on Tue Nov 5 23:28:24 2002:

I'd like to see that too.  Maybe we should have a Grexpedition.


#148 of 289 by bhelliom on Wed Nov 6 21:07:28 2002:

Yes Yes!!


#149 of 289 by richard on Sat Nov 9 05:01:05 2002:

SPIRITED AWAY-- Saw this earlier this evening and it blew me away.  It is
the new movie written and directed by the grand master of Japanimation,
Hayao Miyazaki.  The story of a ten year old girl who gets lost in a
strange and fascinating world full of spirits and ghosts, and through her
adventures learns lessons about herself and the world around her.
Miyazaki, whom Disney animators consider the absolute master of the craft,
came out of retirement to do this movie.  This is a deeply moving story
with some of the best film animation you'll ever see.  The characters are
unforgettable.  The film was released in Japan last year and is already
the top grossing film of all time there.  Its release here was delayed so

Disney could do an english voice track.  "Spirited Away" is easily the
best movie I have seen this year, and it is sure to get consideration for
year-end movie awards, even though is it animated.  Also the music in it
is really beautiful, I even stopped at HMV on the way home and bought the
soundtrack CD.  Go see MIYAZAKI'S SPIRITED AWAY" while it is still in
theaters.  The brilliance of Miyazaki's animation (he hates using
computers and hand paints every frame, needs to be seen on the big
screen!  

This is a classic and will warm your heart. Strongest recommendation
(five stars)


#150 of 289 by richard on Sat Nov 9 06:08:13 2002:

oh yeah and when "Spirited Away" ended and Miyazaki's name came up on the
credits afterwards, the audience in the theater where I saw it tonight 
gave a spontaneous burst of applause.  You don't see that too often 
at movies (unless it is a premiere or the director is present or something)


#151 of 289 by janc on Sat Nov 9 21:57:41 2002:

(A decade or two ago, there was a florishing campus cinema movement on the
UofM campus.  Every night three or four of the campus auditoriums would have
movies running, with admission set at a couple bucks.  Different movies every
night.  A lot of us saw a lot of movies, and got pretty enthusiastic about
them.  In those days it was normal for people to be applauding credits for
actors, directors, producers and screenwriters, including wild cheering for
some.  Did it make sense to be applauding people who weren't there to hear
the applause?  Seemed good to me.  I miss those days a lot.)


#152 of 289 by krj on Mon Nov 11 04:31:36 2002:

CURRENT magazine indicates that there is a new campus film 
group called Projectorhead.  I *think* they show free films on 
Thursdays.
 
resp:145 and surrounding ::  The Henry Ford Museum Imax schedule
can be found at:    http://www.hfmgv.org/imax/showtimes.html

Both the Space Station film and ATTACK OF THE CLONES have 
Imax showings until Christmas; after December 25, THE LION KING 
comes in to take up all showings into April.


#153 of 289 by mynxcat on Mon Nov 11 14:19:47 2002:

This response has been erased.



#154 of 289 by bhelliom on Mon Nov 11 15:18:36 2002:

Really?  Me, the roomie, our men and some friends were going to try to 
see it tomorrow. I suspect it might be as difficult tomorrow as it was 
over the weekend.


#155 of 289 by aruba on Mon Nov 11 15:43:28 2002:

Re #152:  Thanks Ken.  Looks like there's not much to choose from on the
weekends; if we wanted to mount a Grexpedition to see the Space Station
movie it would have to be at 11:20 AM on Saturday or Sunday.  Who would be
interested in one of those times?


#156 of 289 by gull on Mon Nov 11 15:48:21 2002:

I might be able to come if it's Sunday the 17th.  I'm busy all day that
Saturday, and then I'm out of town the weekend after.  December weekends are
still free, though.


#157 of 289 by bo3aday on Mon Nov 11 22:43:12 2002:

shimo
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvvv

respond
?
quit
pass


#158 of 289 by mooncat on Thu Nov 14 21:42:43 2002:

Tuesday saw '8 Mile' with the Bhelliom, Jazz, and two other males, and 
I quite enjoyed it. It easily could have been a very bad movie- but it 
managed not to be. The Rap Battles were entertaining to watch. 

For the record- it is NOT the lifestory of Eminem, nor is it a 'Rags to 
Riches' story. As the Bhelliom put it when we were talking about it- 
this is a turning point movie. And a well-done one at that.


#159 of 289 by polytarp on Thu Nov 14 22:57:02 2002:

WAS IS A PaNMIXIA ?


#160 of 289 by orinoco on Fri Nov 15 01:07:00 2002:

Yeah, I was really impressed by all of the bad movies that 8 Mile turned out
_not_ to be.  In fact, it turned out to be one pretty good movie.


#161 of 289 by gull on Fri Nov 15 01:16:32 2002:

I'm almost tempted to go see 8 Mile.  I would if I didn't dislike Eminem so
strongly.  I don't want to encourage the whiney little homophobe.


#162 of 289 by mcnally on Fri Nov 15 01:33:45 2002:

  Well, it's not like he's sitting around saying "I'm ready to begin 
  Phase Two, if only David Brodbeck would get on board.."  See the movie
  if you want, and don't if you don't.  Your ticket money won't even show
  up as a blip on Eminem's royalty check once it gets through Hollywood's
  accounting..


#163 of 289 by orinoco on Fri Nov 15 02:03:47 2002:

...and, FWIW, his character in the movie is much less whiny than his stage
persona, and much more levelheaded.


#164 of 289 by jiffer on Fri Nov 15 03:50:27 2002:

See, * Mile has to fight with The Tow Towers, and 8 Crazy Nights for me to
see it.  I only permit myself to see one In-Theater Movie per 3 months...

I have heard great things about 8 Mile from many sources so far it seems like
a fair goer.


#165 of 289 by mcnally on Fri Nov 15 05:42:07 2002:

  I'm not all that interested in seeing "8 Mile" but I'd pay money *not*
  to have to see "8 Crazy Nights."  An animated Adam Sandler holiday movie?
  <shudder>


#166 of 289 by void on Fri Nov 15 07:35:30 2002:

   http://www.twotowersprotest.org/index.html


#167 of 289 by other on Fri Nov 15 09:06:32 2002:

The physical limitations of the human body are one of the things that 
makes Adam Sandler's work even remotely tolerable.  Without that 
restraint, as in CG animation, there is no hope.


#168 of 289 by other on Fri Nov 15 09:08:58 2002:

re #166:  Give me a fucking break!  Let's trumpet our victimhood to the 
stars for all eternity, shall we?


#169 of 289 by other on Fri Nov 15 09:19:51 2002:

Oh, and the new Harry Potter movie is a bit over the top in places, but 
very much enjoyable.


#170 of 289 by jep on Fri Nov 15 14:51:08 2002:

Oh my gosh.  They're protesting the movie made before the terrorist 
attacks -- based on a book written 50 years ago -- because of the 
September 11 terrorist attacks.

   We believe that Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema's actions are 
   in fact hate speech. The movie is intentionally being named 
   The Two Towers in order to capitalize on the tragedy of 
   September 11.

I don't believe these people can read.


#171 of 289 by gull on Fri Nov 15 15:02:50 2002:

I'm just in awe of _8 Crazy Nights_.  Think about it -- someone,
actually probably a whole group of people, decided that what the world
really needed was an animated Adam Sandler.  Who are these people, and
are they connected with Al Queda in any way?


#172 of 289 by aruba on Fri Nov 15 15:10:03 2002:

I was struck by the same quote as jep.  I wonder if they really believe
that.  The quote on the home page makes it look like they might just be out
for money.  (More likely they're just hoping for a mention in the media.)


#173 of 289 by jmsaul on Fri Nov 15 19:52:46 2002:

I can't access the "Two Towers" page, but is it possible it's a troll?


#174 of 289 by senna on Sat Nov 16 07:32:04 2002:

I hope so.  That's a pretty outrageous statement.


#175 of 289 by janc on Sat Nov 16 16:19:40 2002:

Looked at the page.  It's not apparantly a parody - nothing resembling a
sense of humor anywhere on it.


#176 of 289 by remmers on Sat Nov 16 17:19:56 2002:

For a good Adam Sandler movie, see "Punch Drunk Love".


#177 of 289 by gelinas on Sat Nov 16 17:37:05 2002:

They are just idiots.  Consider: 

} The Two Towers Protest Organization (  www.twotowersprotest.org ) is
} made up of a group of like minded individuals who were greatly affected
} by the events that transpired on Sept 11th 2001. The owner of this
} website considers himself to be a facilitator for the sentiments which
} have already been expressed by people such as Kevin Klerck who set up
} the two towers petition on petitiononline.com.

The petition is at http://www.petitiononline.com/twotower/


#178 of 289 by other on Sat Nov 16 18:08:12 2002:

This isn't even a blip on the radar except that the severe extent of the 
stupidity involved is excellent fodder for comedy.


#179 of 289 by jmsaul on Sat Nov 16 18:56:32 2002:

Wow.


#180 of 289 by drew on Sat Nov 16 20:03:14 2002:

It's gotta be a put-on.


#181 of 289 by md on Sun Nov 17 01:03:53 2002:

We liked "Frida" somewhat.  It was patched-together looking and a 
little amateurish, but for the most part very enjoyable and 
interesting.  At one point, I turned to my wife and said, "She fucked 
*Trotsky?!?"  Even on the way home, I kept saying, "I just saw Leon 
Trotsky having sex."  Quite jarring, I must say.


#182 of 289 by gelinas on Sun Nov 17 05:05:15 2002:

I just stumbled across a 1993 version of the Three Musketeers.  Oliver Platt
(sometime White House Counsel on West Wing) as Porthos, Charlie Sheen as
Aramis, and Kiefer Sutherland as Athos.  I don't have time to watch it right
now, so I think I'm going to rent it at the next opportunity.


#183 of 289 by tpryan on Sun Nov 17 06:38:18 2002:

        I've never heard of the World Trade Center being reffered to
as The Two Towers.  Twin Towers, maybe, and as I heard later, 11, 
for the two straight blocks in the skyline.


#184 of 289 by russ on Sun Nov 17 07:14:35 2002:

Getting back to movies...

I'm keeping an eye out for "God is Great (and I'm not)" and "The
Secretary".  With a bit of luck I may beat Richard to them by
several weeks just as I did with "Spirited Away".


#185 of 289 by remmers on Sun Nov 17 15:38:28 2002:

"God Is Great..." stars Audrey Tautou of "Amelie" fame.  That alone
may be a good reason for seeing it.

I think the other movie might be titled "Secretary", not "The Secretary".

And I was serious about "Punch Drunk Love" being a good movie, both
despite and because it stars Adam Sandler.  The reason is no doubt that
it was written and directed by the immensely talented Paul Thomas
Anderson ("Boogie Nights", "Magnolia").  If you hurry, you can still
catch it in theaters.


#186 of 289 by gelinas on Sun Nov 17 18:40:44 2002:

I picked up the book _Bad_Behavior_ at the AADL a week or so ago, specifically
because of the review of "Secretary" I heard on WEMU.  Haven't gotten to the
story yet, though.  I should set aside _The_Gilded_Chain_ since I'm only
re-reading the ending a week or so after first reading that book and finish
_Bad_Behavior_.


#187 of 289 by tpryan on Sun Nov 17 19:55:12 2002:

        Considering that a T-Bird is co-staring with James Bond this time, I
might want to catch that one, opening this weekend.


#188 of 289 by russ on Sun Nov 17 22:44:43 2002:

Re #185:  That's my thinking too, and from the promotions it appears
that she's got the same look, so probably the same director.  That
combination is worth a look-see no matter what the film is supposed to be.


#189 of 289 by anderyn on Sun Nov 17 22:47:34 2002:

Enjoyed "Spirited Away" even though most of the folks I went with thought it
was too cute. I liked it a lot. Was on the edge of my seat just awaiting the
next thing.


#190 of 289 by remmers on Mon Nov 18 02:04:08 2002:

Re #185:  Different directors.  "God Is Great..." is directed by Pascale
Bailly.  "Amelie" was directied by Jean-Pierre Jeunet.


#191 of 289 by edina on Mon Nov 18 16:47:18 2002:

I saw "The Transporter" this weekend at the $1 theater.  Oh man.  Jason
Statham is so hot!  The action is fun too.


#192 of 289 by bhelliom on Mon Nov 18 17:34:46 2002:

Russ..."Secretary" was a great ride. :p


#193 of 289 by jazz on Wed Nov 20 14:29:10 2002:

        "The Secretary" was a psychodrama involving a secretary who is
mistreated by her boss, and gets revenge.  "Secretary" is a love story
involving a secretary who is mistreated by her boss, and loves it.


#194 of 289 by scott on Sat Nov 23 01:05:02 2002:

"Standing in the Shadows of Motown" will be coming to the Madstone Theatres
(the recently opened "art house" theatres in Briarwood mall) on the 28th or
thereabouts.


#195 of 289 by hera on Sun Nov 24 07:29:42 2002:

r
I hate your fucking "four times a year" restart. This sucks the balls of an
orangutan. When the fuck do you start the new conference so I don't have to
wade through all this CRAP? (which I have not done, anyway, so Phhhhttt!)


#196 of 289 by md on Sun Nov 24 12:33:55 2002:

Hey, when you're up and about at 2:30 AM, why *not* wade through it?  
You might learn something.


#197 of 289 by rcurl on Sun Nov 24 15:30:38 2002:

She does have a lot to learn about interacting with people. I bet she is
now considered just another asshole in most users' minds. 


#198 of 289 by md on Sun Nov 24 21:55:45 2002:

She told somebody on mnet that she'd join Grex and cause an uproar 
here.  I think that was her stab at it.  Whatever...

We finally rented Mulholland Drive to find out why everyone we know 
hates it so much.  We found out.  We also rented Murder by Numbers, a 
Sandra Bullock vehicle where she plays The Cop With A Tortured Psyche.  
Gettin' tired of that character, but the movie was mostly watchable.  


#199 of 289 by remmers on Sun Nov 24 22:32:09 2002:

Well, "Mulholland Drive" is one of my favorite movies of the last
several years.  Seen it twice, will probably watch it again sometime.

For what it's worth.  You may call me weird if you wish.


#200 of 289 by md on Mon Nov 25 11:23:44 2002:

Hell no.  My "taste" in movies, such as it is, runs to farcical 
comedies and the like.  Listen to him, not me, folks.


#201 of 289 by slynne on Mon Nov 25 18:53:26 2002:

Too late. I hated Mulholland Drive too. 


#202 of 289 by slynne on Mon Nov 25 19:15:16 2002:

But only because I knew you were going to hate it, md. *snort*


#203 of 289 by mynxcat on Mon Nov 25 19:27:18 2002:

This response has been erased.



#204 of 289 by mary on Mon Nov 25 22:45:52 2002:

Liked "Far From Heaven".  The story is secondary to
the flawless 50's style.  


#205 of 289 by lynne on Tue Nov 26 00:17:48 2002:

Harry Potter 2 was okay.  


#206 of 289 by scott on Tue Nov 26 02:49:31 2002:

(How was John Cleese as the new Q?)


#207 of 289 by mynxcat on Tue Nov 26 03:09:13 2002:

This response has been erased.



#208 of 289 by richard on Tue Nov 26 03:32:40 2002:

I liked the new Bond movie, Die Another Day, and thought Halle Berry was
terrific in it.  And so was John Cleese as Q.  

Harry Potter 2 was I thought better than Harry Potter 1.   The addition of
the venerable Shakespearean actor Kennth Branagh was a classy touch


#209 of 289 by remmers on Tue Nov 26 13:19:24 2002:

John Cleese is in "Die Another Day"?  Hm, I haven't seen a Bond movie
since the 1960s, but Cleese's presence almost tempts me to see the new
one.  Probably won't though.


#210 of 289 by aruba on Tue Nov 26 14:32:38 2002:

Cleese is the new Q.


#211 of 289 by lynne on Tue Nov 26 16:12:53 2002:

Yes, but it's such an annoying role to have to watch...although less annoying
than in the book, and he did it well.  Amusingly enough, Clees(e) was in
HP2 as well, as Nearly Headless Nick.


#212 of 289 by richard on Wed Nov 27 03:47:29 2002:

not only is John Clees the new Q, but M is now played by the woman considered
the greatest living british stage actress, Dame Judy Dench (who won the best
supporting actor oscar as Queen Elizabeth in Shakespeare in Love)  Pretty
strong casting there!


#213 of 289 by lynne on Wed Nov 27 04:07:29 2002:

<oops...should have noted that 211 was in response to previous comment about
Kenneth Branagh, not John Clees.  John Clees is divine, even (maybe 
particularly) when the role calls for making an ass of oneself.>


#214 of 289 by mxyzptlk on Thu Nov 28 13:45:04 2002:

I guess I'm the only one who wishes that Helen Mirren would've gotten 
the role of M.  



#215 of 289 by scott on Sun Dec 1 02:42:02 2002:

"Standing in the Shadows of Motown"

Valuable story about the group of studio musicians who made up the "Motown
sound" back in the 60's, but got little or no credit.  It's great to see the
surviving musicians playing, telling stories, etc, but the re-enactments of
various anecdotes with actors got rather annoying.  

Well worth seeing if you don't know the story, and if you do know the story
it's still worth a peek.


#216 of 289 by gelinas on Sun Dec 1 04:07:43 2002:

Saw "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" this afternoon.   I think they
did a better job with this one; it wasn't as disjointed and jumpy.  They left
out some things, as they needed to, but they got the plot complete.  I liked
it.


#217 of 289 by scott on Sun Dec 1 13:57:20 2002:

BTW, the record store shown early in "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" is
actually Encore Records here in Ann Arbor.


#218 of 289 by tpryan on Sun Dec 1 15:39:36 2002:

        I, too liked the 2nd Harry Potter.  He got off to school 
and into his adventure much quicker this time.  Well he could, since
we now know his backstory from the first movie.  Passing of seasons
are just a background change to let you know the story is taking up
much of the school year.


#219 of 289 by anderyn on Mon Dec 2 01:45:54 2002:

Bruce and I liked it quite a bit. The only thing I might have liked was a bit
more of Lockhart's idiocy at school (and I missed his long flowing locks, as
well). What was shown was well-done, but some of the more inane episodes from
teh book were missed.



#220 of 289 by gelinas on Mon Dec 2 01:56:20 2002:

Uuuhh.  Yeah.  The ladies never could get enough of him, could they?


#221 of 289 by other on Mon Dec 2 02:34:10 2002:

Did you stay past the end of the credits?


#222 of 289 by gelinas on Mon Dec 2 02:37:45 2002:

Yes, we did.  There were maybe eight people left in the theater by then.


#223 of 289 by other on Mon Dec 2 02:50:58 2002:

Too bad.  Nice little treat for those who stayed.


#224 of 289 by gelinas on Mon Dec 2 02:55:56 2002:

Yup.


#225 of 289 by mary on Mon Dec 2 12:20:12 2002:

"Solaris"  Way over-acted.  Way, way over-acted.  I would have
laughed but mostly I was busy thinking of how much I wanted to
leave. ;-)


#226 of 289 by scott on Mon Dec 2 14:15:49 2002:

Boy I am glad I saw the original Russian "Solaris" only a few months ago -
now I don't have to bother with the Clooney version.

And if you can live with a couple bad spots on the tape, the downtown A2
library has the Russian version!


#227 of 289 by edina on Mon Dec 2 16:22:05 2002:

Damn it!!  Now I have to go see it again to stay for the end of the credits.

I am currently rereading "Prisoner of Azkaban".  The movie won't be out for
two years and the only people they have committed are the three kids and
Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, though I've heard that Ian MacKellan has committed
to playing Dumbledore (and let's fact it - he'll be great in Goblet of Fire).
I'm thinking Daniel Day Lewis for Professor Lupin.  

Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of fun watching the three kids grow
up?


#228 of 289 by bhelliom on Mon Dec 2 18:12:30 2002:

I have to agree with everything in resp:227....which is a hell of a lot 
easier than retyping it. :p


#229 of 289 by russ on Tue Dec 3 01:34:48 2002:

The jacket in the trailer was a nice touch.


#230 of 289 by edina on Tue Dec 3 14:40:05 2002:

Huh?


#231 of 289 by russ on Wed Dec 4 01:14:32 2002:

Re #230:  At the end of the Harry Potter credits, I meant.  (Sorry.
Context changed during delay between authorship and posting.)


#232 of 289 by anderyn on Wed Dec 4 01:26:27 2002:

Darn. I wanted to wait, but we were on teh end of a row and couldn't stay
against the crowd.


#233 of 289 by janc on Wed Dec 4 02:03:12 2002:

I rented "Arthur Conan Doyle's Lost World".  This is a movie based on
the book that inspired the book that inspired "Jurasic Park."  In other
words, the original dinosaur-surviving-in-the-modern-world adventure. 
This is a 2001 BBC production, originally broadcast in two parts, so it
makes a rather long movie.  I came to it with low expectations, but
ended up enjoying it a lot.  It's definately a PC-ified version of
Doyle's original book.  Two characters were added.  A woman joins the
expedition so that we don't have to spend a whole long movie with
nothing but guys to watch but she's remarkably capable and
self-sufficient and shocks everyone by wearing pants (with a rather
modern form-fitting cut too).  A missionary (Peter Falk) shows up to add
a creationism vs. darwinism debate to the story line.  He's a bit of a
villian, but then again, no, not really.  The expedition is lead by
Professor Challenger, who is rather more mellow than Doyle's version.  A
big game hunter, a skeptical fellow professor, and a reporter round out
the expedition.  And there are, of course, dinosaurs, produced on a
slightly more modest budget than those in "Jurasic Park" but
nevertheless convincing.  What really distinguishes this from "Jurasic
Park" is that the dinosaurs are not the focus of the film.  The people
are - their adventures, their interactions, their development.  There is
actually a plot here, some very able acting, some three dimensional
characters, some thinking about life and morality.  The movie constantly
teeters on the edge of both PC-cliches and adventure story cliches, but
never quite falls into them.  This isn't the greatest movie ever made,
but it's a good solid piece of light, intelligent entertainment.


#234 of 289 by richard on Sun Dec 8 05:18:31 2002:

"Analyze That"--  pretty good.  the script wasn't anything spectacular, but
it is always fun watching Robert DeNiro and Billy Crystal hamming it up.
Not as good as "Analyze This" but watchable
,


#235 of 289 by mcnally on Sun Dec 8 05:25:15 2002:

 I cannot, to this day, recall what ever possessed me to see "Analyze This",
 especially given my general dislike of both Billy Crystal and Robert de Niro,
 but I find the idea that they've made a sequel that's worse than the original
 very disturbing.
  


#236 of 289 by jep on Sun Dec 8 06:42:26 2002:

I went and saw "Die Another Day" this evening, and found it disjointed, 
unbelievable, and disappointing overall.  I wish I'd gone to see 
something else.

I'll be watching a lot of movies this month.  I'll be going to 
see "Harry Potter", "Treasure Planet", and as soon as it comes 
out, "The Two Towers".  I expect all of these will be better than "Die 
Another Day".


#237 of 289 by jiffer on Mon Dec 9 02:54:02 2002:

My parents recently purchased "Harry Potter", it was cute.


#238 of 289 by scott on Mon Dec 9 03:02:03 2002:

I borrowed "Castle Keep" from the library last week.  One of those weird artsy
WWI films from the late 60's, mostly, very cool to watch.  The bit about the
Volkswagon was the funniest part, and there are a fair number of rather
atmospheric parts as well.  Worth seeing, anyway.


#239 of 289 by jep on Mon Dec 9 11:25:15 2002:

The 2nd Harry Potter movie was good, though it was kind of scary in 
spots for 6 year old John.  It was also kind of long for 6 year old 
John; 2 hours, 45 minutes I think.


#240 of 289 by edina on Mon Dec 9 15:39:14 2002:

It was long for 31 year old Brooke too.


#241 of 289 by goose on Mon Dec 9 15:46:22 2002:

I saw "Standing In The Shadows of Motown" this weekend.  Neat movie that
gives some long overdue props to The Funk Brothers, who were the musicians
on almost all the Motown hits.  Ann Arbor's Encore Records makes a cameo
appearance.  It left me wanting to know more about the early days of Motown.


#242 of 289 by aruba on Sat Dec 14 07:18:30 2002:

Went to see Star Trek: Nemesis tonght.  Thumbs up from me - I was very
pleased with it.


#243 of 289 by mcnally on Sat Dec 14 07:21:55 2002:

  Well, at least it's an even-numbered one..  :-)


#244 of 289 by senna on Sat Dec 14 16:24:54 2002:

I'm planning on seeing it sometime this weekend, but I've heard mixed reviews,
many of which are simply apathetic and consider this to be an unspectacular
"more of the same offering."  I'm glad it's worth the trip.


#245 of 289 by anderyn on Sat Dec 14 23:35:42 2002:

It was fun. We went in a Big Group (eight of us altogether) and we all enjoyed
it. Theater (first matinee today at the AMC 20 Livonia) was three quarters
full. 


#246 of 289 by jazz on Sun Dec 15 17:04:37 2002:

        Thumbs down from six of the seven that went to see it.  It wasn't badly
acted, it wasn't badly written, and it wasn't badly paced, but there was
nothing memorable whatsoever about it, and it never rose a shade beyond just
being acceptable.


#247 of 289 by remmers on Sun Dec 15 17:34:38 2002:

So 6 out of 7 find acceptability unacceptable?


#248 of 289 by anderyn on Sun Dec 15 20:10:47 2002:

In our group, two were underwhelmed, but had fun during the viewing. Two were
more impressed. Rhiannon liked it, and Bruce and I both thought it was fun.
I don't know I'd call it spectacular, but I would watch it again. Griffin
thought it was slightly too long. (I did think it was definitely the "Data
and Picard" show, however.)


#249 of 289 by jep on Mon Dec 16 14:13:38 2002:

I took my son and nieces to see "Treasure Planet" while visiting 
Tennessee.  We all liked it very much.

It was the only time in my life that the people I was with were the 
only ones in the theater.  We had a private showing.  I guess the movie 
isn't selling very well.


#250 of 289 by remmers on Mon Dec 16 16:27:56 2002:

That's happened to occasionally, when I've gone to a weekday matinee
showing of a movie that's been playing for a few weeks.  A couple of
times I've been the *only* person in the theater.


#251 of 289 by slynne on Mon Dec 16 16:37:28 2002:

I often go to an early show (11a) on Fridays since I dont work on 
Fridays. I like kind of offbeat movies so a lot of the time, I have the 
theater all to myself. It is cool. 


#252 of 289 by mynxcat on Mon Dec 16 17:37:16 2002:

This response has been erased.



#253 of 289 by bhelliom on Mon Dec 16 17:52:48 2002:

I did like that movie...I thought it would probably be decent, but I 
was still pleasantly surprised.

Say Elizabeth on DVD over the weekend.  The movie was even better than 
I remembered.  I'm thinking this one's a must-own.


#254 of 289 by mynxcat on Mon Dec 16 18:11:59 2002:

This response has been erased.



#255 of 289 by bhelliom on Mon Dec 16 18:14:21 2002:

Haha!

Well it's not one of those movies that's really heart-pounding in 
the "keeps you awake if you're sleepy way". :p


#256 of 289 by mynxcat on Mon Dec 16 18:19:12 2002:

This response has been erased.



#257 of 289 by bhelliom on Mon Dec 16 18:20:51 2002:

/lol/

I guess I'm glad I didn't waste the bucks.  I've heard that about 
Nemesis, too.


#258 of 289 by krj on Mon Dec 16 19:49:38 2002:

ST: NEMESIS:  I'm kind of blah about it.  My ears hurt from too many
space battle sound effects.  Leslie liked it.

My biggest problem with the movie is that there's no interesting 
twists to the set-up.  There's this guy, he's bad, he wants to attack
Earth, the Enterprise crew has to stop him.  The writers wanted to 
set up a nature vs. nurture debate, but I don't think they were 
successful with it.   The Romulan background to the story was 
wasted.   

My second-biggest problem with the movie is that the images are 
way too dark and dim.  My third-biggest problem with the 
movie is that the universe really should not revolve around 
Jean-Luc Picard.  

On the positive side, it's nice to see the Old Gang again; fans of the 
NextGen TV series really do have to go see this one.



#259 of 289 by aruba on Mon Dec 16 20:16:23 2002:

I think they were pressed enough for time as it was - the parts of all the
regulars except Picard and Data are cut down to the point where you would
wonder why they were even there if you didn't know them from the show.  So
I don't know what they would have cut to add interesting setup to the
villain.

Oh wait - they could have cut the dunebuggy chase scene.  But they needed it
for the previews.


#260 of 289 by jep on Mon Dec 16 20:18:14 2002:

I guess I'll go to see it, then.  I liked ST:TNG.

I am eagerly awaiting The Two Towers, which comes out Wednesday.  I 
probably won't see it until the weekend but I'm eagerly awaiting it 
just the same.


#261 of 289 by bhelliom on Mon Dec 16 20:34:34 2002:

I'l second that one, regarding LOTR.


#262 of 289 by drew on Mon Dec 16 20:47:36 2002:

    I traveled a significant portion of 8 Mile the other night. I'm wondering
what's so special about this road that a movie should be named after it...


#263 of 289 by slynne on Mon Dec 16 21:02:12 2002:

Think about what the movie 8 mile is about? It is about a white kid 
looking for acceptance from black peers. There are two things about him 
that make him different. 1) he is white 2) even though he is poor, he 
still lives in the 'burbs. Detroit is a very segregated metro area. 8 
mile is the dividing line between city and suburb. It also divides 
white from black. I am not sure but I would guess that those things 
have something to do with Emimem's choice of title for his movie. 


#264 of 289 by mynxcat on Mon Dec 16 21:06:13 2002:

This response has been erased.



#265 of 289 by bhelliom on Mon Dec 16 21:28:09 2002:

Could it also be because it's a well-known strip in the 313 area?  
Trailers aren't exactly urban dwellings, really.


#266 of 289 by mynxcat on Mon Dec 16 21:58:05 2002:

This response has been erased.



#267 of 289 by slynne on Mon Dec 16 22:08:11 2002:

They have trailer parks in the suburban communities that border 8 mile. 
Not every suburb is rich. In fact, because of sprawl, a there is a lot 
of decay in the "inner tier" suburbs from what I understand. 

313 is the area code for the area south of 8 mile which is mostly the 
City of Detroit. 810 is the area code of the suburbs north of 8 mile. 


#268 of 289 by slynne on Mon Dec 16 22:13:51 2002:

Or rather 810 *was* the area code for all the suburbs north of 8 mile. 
Now they have 248 and 586 which are closer to Detroit and 810 is kind 
of the outlying areas like Flint and Port Huron. 


#269 of 289 by jep on Mon Dec 16 23:02:31 2002:

My niece in Tennessee is a big Eminem fan.  She's excited about the 
prospect of coming up to Michigan next summer because I've promised to 
take her to see the actual 8 Mile Rd.  I know nothing about it at all, 
but I've told her we'll go there.

I can just see me with her, cruising up and down the entire length of 8 
Mile.

I occasionally go for drives at lunch time, and have gotten to 8 Mile 
going down Earhart Rd.  I wonder if she'll be satisfied with that part 
(which is in the country) or whether she'll insist on seeing the 
populated parts.

Someone tell me there's nothing unsafe about driving on 8 Mile; that my 
niece and I aren't going to be bludgeoned or shot at if we visit the 
seedier parts; that I didn't make a stupid promise.


#270 of 289 by mcnally on Mon Dec 16 23:23:36 2002:

  Well, as long as you have a visa from one of the local gangsta lords
  who control that part of the area you should be OK..

  Oh, please..  What is it with the terror that suburbanites have of the
  Detroit area?


#271 of 289 by orinoco on Mon Dec 16 23:29:27 2002:

There is absolutely nothing unsafe about driving on 8 Mile.  In general, it's
safe to drive through the sketchy parts of cities.  You're locked inside a
2-ton metal box, you're surrounded by other drivers who are potential
witnesses, and unless you're in bumper-to-bumper gridlock you can drive away
if someone does try to mess with you -- what's anyone going to do to you?


#272 of 289 by other on Tue Dec 17 00:13:28 2002:

Safe?  Not quite.  There're all these suburbanites in their roadhog 
SUV's...


#273 of 289 by jep on Tue Dec 17 01:29:06 2002:

I am not a suburbanite.  I live in Tecumseh.  I grew up in Eaton 
Rapids, and spent several years in the UP.  What I know of cities, I 
got from watching "Goodfellas" and "The Godfather", and from reading 
the newspaper.  I've never gone to Detroit except to attend a baseball 
game.  I've pretty regularly got lost, and seen some pretty rough 
looking sections of the city.  I don't know if I've seen any parts 
which were rough enough anyone made a movie about growing up in them.


#274 of 289 by other on Tue Dec 17 01:34:12 2002:

Lots of parts of Detroit look just as rough as they did in 1967 when they 
burned down, only more ruinous, and are actually pretty innocuous.


#275 of 289 by senna on Tue Dec 17 02:54:04 2002:

I've been to the seedier parts of most places, and honestly I don't think I've
been under much threat, even when out of my car at night in really nasty
places.  There are just certain ways you do things, I guess, but driving in
Detroit in daylight is certainly not much of a high-risk activity.

I take that back, sort of.  You're at lower risk in the neighborhoods than
you are on the highways. :)


#276 of 289 by gull on Tue Dec 17 03:03:07 2002:

You should be all right.   The bullets go *from* cars and *into* houses, not
the other way around.


#277 of 289 by rcurl on Tue Dec 17 03:09:51 2002:

Just don't look like you are worth anything.


#278 of 289 by tpryan on Tue Dec 17 03:41:48 2002:

re 259:  The dunebuggy sceene.  A must to set up the video game 
"Drive from Argo".


#279 of 289 by tpryan on Tue Dec 17 03:43:32 2002:

        I was going to suggest travel on Pontiac Trail to Eight 
Mile in South Lyon, but you don't get to the scary part of 
South Lyon before you would turn right on 8 mile.


#280 of 289 by mcnally on Tue Dec 17 04:03:44 2002:

 re #275:
 
 > I've been to the seedier parts of most places, and honestly I
 > don't think I've been under much threat, even when out of my
 > car at night in really nasty places. There are just certain
 > ways you do things, I guess, but driving in Detroit in daylight
 > is certainly not much of a high-risk activity.

 Then again, you never want to be completely complacent.  Nothing even
 vaguely threatening has ever happened to me in Detroit but in Ann Arbor
 I had quite the little adventure..


#281 of 289 by bhelliom on Tue Dec 17 05:15:04 2002:

There was a time where you had more to fear from people dropping 
cinderblocks from the overpasses....


#282 of 289 by slynne on Tue Dec 17 15:49:36 2002:

If you drive on 8 mile all the way to Grosse Pointe, you'll be driving 
a long time. If you do that though, you should then take Vernior (which 
I think 8 mile just kind of turns into but it's been nearly 15 years 
since the last time I drove that way) to Lake Shore Drive. Then take 
Lake Shore drive to Detroit where it turns into Jefferson. You'll see 
lots of cool stuff. If you are into urban decay, skip the Pointes and 
take Van Dyke to Jefferson. I didnt recognize all of the shots in the 
movie but I noticed that there were a lot on Jefferson, a *few* on 8 
mile. Some good ones on Chene. 


#283 of 289 by russ on Tue Dec 17 22:24:34 2002:

Re #281:  It was worry enough.  A co-worker of mine was killed by
a cinderblock.  She left behind a husband and an infant son.


#284 of 289 by senna on Wed Dec 18 08:35:52 2002:

#280:  Indeed, it's good to keep that in mind.  There's nothing wrong with
keeping your eyes open, and I take a certain number of precautions when I
travel (for example, leaving valuables visible in my car when I'm staying at
a motel strikes me as unwise), but I don't feel the need to arm myself before
visiting Detroit.



#285 of 289 by senna on Wed Dec 18 08:51:22 2002:

And I think Mike has more sense about this sort of thing than I, so I bow to
his experience.

In the process, I completely missed that this drift was part of the movie
item.  So here we go:

I caught Two Towers tonight, in a typical "midnight of" gathering that brings,
er, interesting people from all four corners of the greater Ann Arbor area.
Typically, there were lots of familiar faces in the crowd, which is not
notable except that "lots of familiar names" is pretty much the feeling I got
from watching this movie.  Beautiful landscapes, impressive action sequences,
and a story that is *loosely* based on Tolkien's book of the same name.  Quite
loosely.  I can accept and even appreciate dramatic license in some
circumstances where the book does not flesh out certain concepts, and Jackson
did a nice job of illustrating some themes that he feels are important to the
story.

However, there are a *substantial* number of departures from the text, and
most of them seem to have no purpose.  They do not clarify parts of the book
that would be obscure on film, and they don't particularly add to the drama.
Some create their own drama, of sorts, but it is cheap and unbecoming.  My
friend and I regularly exchanged confused glances, and at one point in the
middle of the film he quite literally threw his hands in the air and gave up
on trying to understand where the movie was going.

I knew going in that Two Towers would take liberties with the story, but I
wasn't prepared for how many it took or how fundamental some of the changes
were.  I suppose this will make Return of the King interesting, since I no
longer have any idea what's going to happen, but it's bizarre.

Good movie, though.  On its own, it develops some plotlines fairly well and
shows impressive amounts of action.  Certain characters get less focus in this
film than in the first one, but due to the pace of the movie that is
ultimately forgivable.  It's a nice, watchable film, but don't expect it to
be anything that it is not--which is to say, don't expect it to actually be
"The Two Towers" in any sense a reader fo the book would think it to be.

If Jackson could just cut it out with the comic relief characters, we'd be
in good shape for part III.


#286 of 289 by jep on Wed Dec 18 14:18:17 2002:

Senna, how violent is the movie?  My 6 year old wants to see it, but I 
don't want to take him if it's too inappropriate.


#287 of 289 by senna on Wed Dec 18 23:30:26 2002:

It's fairly violent.  Most of it isn't excessively gory, but there are a fair
number of intense battle scenes and one particularly notable scene where the
camera pans past an Orc's head mounted on a stake.  You might want to wait
on it for a while--or see it yourself to make sure you know what to prepare
for.


#288 of 289 by jep on Thu Dec 19 02:10:05 2002:

Yeah, maybe I'll wait for the DVD so I can skip over the parts I don't 
like or that he finds scary.  Thanks.


#289 of 289 by scott on Fri Dec 20 04:26:35 2002:

Saw "The Two Towers" this evening.  Great visuals, although a few effects (the
Orthanc, Saruman's tower in particular) looked rather model-esqe.  I was more
bothered by character problems, both differences from the text
(understandable) and even within the movie inconsistencies.  


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: