304 new of 327 responses total.
That happens fairly often, actually.
Re Two Towers: I can accept a fair amount of adaption, so things like the more densely interleaved storylines didn't bother me a bit. Other stuff, like the Rohirrim (mentioned in the movie also as the "horse lords") not having very many horses drove me nuts. There were a few neat things for those who'd read the books thoroughly, like the statue at Helms Deep - a warrior with a big hammer, therefore he'd be Helm Hammerhand, although nobody said anything about it.
Enough about The Two Towers already! :) Silvia and I just got back from seeing Catch Me If You Can. It's quite a good story. At one point, it really did have me on the edge of my seat. It also made me want to find out about what really happened.
I haven't read the books, and I didn't feel like I had any trouble keeping track of the cuts between storylines.
Just got back from seeing "The Two Towers" and my personal opinion is that the film drags almost as much as the book does. And while I would not consider myself a story purist, I thought that the plot alterations added little or nothing to the film (so far as I could see -- I'll allow for the unlikely possibility that some of them might have been setting up for necessary alterations in part three of the story) and found myself in agreement with most of the previous objections from folks who may be more invested than I am in adherence to the original story. In particular I thought the transformation of Gimli into a comic-relief character didn't add anything worthwhile, the fake-death scene for Aragorn was bafflingly unnecessary, and Legolas' shield-riding scene just looked like an embarrassingly prominent video-game tie-in. In addition I thought the movie was about an hour too long (I'd've cut the warg attack and most of the footage of the two Rohirrim children and the pillaging of their village) but perhaps I'm just feeling uncharitable because I was in a rotten mood most of the day..
I liked Catch Me If You Can. Read the book, too. And Abagnale's website (not hard to find if you search on his name). Just saw Die Another Day, and enjoyed it, despite some offenses against the laws of physics.
I loved Abagnale's book, and can't wait to see the film. Dan, if you want to borrow the book, let me know....
16: Theoden wasn't a wimp at all. He was depressed and deeply pessimistic, almost to the point of immobility. That's the way he was in the book, too. He starts getting his courage back toward the end, and, of course, turns into a fearless hero in The Return of the King. I didn't notice Merry and Pippin drinking any "ent draghts" in the movie. In the book, they drink too much of the stuff and have become several inches taller when they next meet Frodo and Sam.
I would have liked to have seen the Ent draughts. Bruce is more unhappy with the movie now that he's reread the relevant passages in the books. (We found the Red Hardcover that was my wedding present to him, lo, these 25 years ago, and he's been re-reading.)
If Merry and Pippen did indulge in ent draughts, it'd be another marketing opportunity to sell "short" and "tall-short" action figures. <sigh> I guess the LOTR folks don't know how to make money. Deviating from the book and all. And of course people _should_ feel disappointment about a perfectly entertaining movie because it lacks the slavish plot of the book. If you can't leave them laughing, leave them wondering what the hell you ent.
Agora 14 <-> Cinema 52
Loved "Adaptation". See, it's about orchids. No, it's about being passionate about orchids. No, it's about being passionate about anything. No, it's about writing a book about all of the above. No, it's about trying to write a screenplay from the book about all of the above that won't bore the audience to tears and suffering the deadliest case of writer's block of all time. Well, whatever it's about, I loved it. Nicholas Cage does a great job playing twin screenwriter brothers (one of whom has the same name as the actual author of the movie's screenplay), Meryl Streep is excellent as the author whose book one of them is trying to adapt, Chris Cooper is ditto as the redneck orchid hunter, in a movie where it's hard to tell where reality ends and fantasy begins. The director is Spike Jonze, of "Inside John Malkovich" fame. That tells you something right there.
s/Inside/Being/
33: Having read the book adds another element of enjoyment to seeing the movie. A certain type of reader, the author would probably say the best type, has already already produced a movie of the book in his head, and will come out of the theater happy about some things that were added or changed or left out and disappointed about others. Can't be helped, but doesn't mean he didn't enjoy the movie. Some of us like George Pal's _War of the Worlds_ movie better than H. G. Wells' novel.
(Re #36: Thanks for the title correction.)
I wanted to go see Adaptations or Catch Me If You Can but was talked into seeing Gangs of New York instead. It was the worst movie I have seen in 2002. Yuck. The acting was terrible. They had a 1/2 hour plot stretched out into almost 3 hours of torture. There was a lot of violence and gratuitous gory parts. I was with someone I dont know too well otherwise I would have suggested leaving. I wish I had suggested it anyway as the person I was with felt the same way as I did.
I enjoyed "Catch Me If You Can." The story was unusual, the characters were well-played, and the movie was full of little humorous cut-aways, some more effective than others. Fun without being total fluff..
I saw Catch Me If You Can last night, I concur with mcnally. ;-) Read the book if you get a chance, the movie changed a lot of things, but that's not all bad. I really enjoyed the book when I discovered it about three years ago.
GANGS OF NEW YORK-- Saw this, the new Martin Scorcese movie about the gang wars that took place in the streets of New York in the mid 19th century. Scorcese paints a picture of a truly dark time, full of classism and bigotry. The central conflict is between the newly arrived immigrant irish, and the british descendants whose families had been in America for generations and considered the Irish to be low class. Leonardo DiCaprio plays the irish son of a murdered priest, who grows up and vows to murder the warlord who killed his father, the bloodthirsty evil gang leader, Bill the Butcher, played by Daniel Day Lewis. This movie is worth watching just to see the amazing performance of Day Lewis, who breathes fire and treachery, and manages to embody the entire conflict within his character. His performance just scorches the screen and I think he's going to win another best actor oscar for it. The cinematography in the fight scenes is awesome and this is a top notch production all around. Movie is three hours long and didn't seem like it at all. Very entertaining!
Dont listen to him. It is a trick.
This response has been erased.
It's hard to say what's standard Spielberg fare, given that he did Schindler's List.
This response has been erased.
Yeah, because Spielberg does that whole black and white thing with only one red part in *every* movie he does.
This response has been erased.
The fact that it's the only one that's not different makes it, by definition, different.
I dont know. Of course every movie has *something* different about it otherwise, they would be the same movie. But a lot of movies have a similar feel to them - Raiders of the Lost Ark, ET, Jaws, Poltergeist, Jurassic Park,etc. But then he pulls something like The Color Purple or Schindler's List out of his hat and they are very different kinds of films.
[psst...just agree with her] Why yes, that wasn't standard Spielberg fare at *all*.
This response has been erased.
Anyhow, I cant really comment about this recent movie as I havent seen it yet. I am just saying tht Schindler's List was enough different from other Speilberg movies that if someone hadnt told me he directed it, I wouldnt have known.
If I hadn't seen his name in the credits I don't think it would have occurred to me that Spielberg was the director..
THE PIANIST-- Saw this today, it is the new Roman Polanski film about the real life experiences of a jewish classical pianist named Wladyslaw Szpilman, and how he survived the horrors of Warsaw ghetto in World War II. He struggles through unimagineable horrors to stay alive. His family and everything he owns are taken away, and the only thing he has left are his memories and the thing most important in his life, his music and ability to play the piano. There are some really moving scenes in this as we watch Szpilman go from famous, and fairly conceited, concert pianist to an emaciated shell of a man. Who loses everything. But his ability to play. Which is his soul and his identity. The title character is played by Adrien Brody, in a wonderful performance worthy of award consideration. The film's depiction of the horrors of the holocaust and the destruction of Warsaw are really something. This is one of Polanski's best ever pictures and one of the best in the growing catalogue of holocaust movies. "The Pianist" won the grand prize at Cannes last year, and the NY Times review said it is better than Schindler's List. I don't agree with that necessarily, but I think its just as good. And that is pretty high praise. Go see Roman Polanski's "The Pianist", a great movie.
If he's the guy who made "Bitter Moon" then you might have to drag me into the cinema to get me to see it.
re: #56...Polanski was the director of Bitter Moon. Hey not everyone is perfect. But he was also the director of Chinatown, considered one of the great american movies ever made, and other classics like Rosemary's Baby and Tess.
I don't support roman polanski. He is a child abuser, sexual predator.
Beethoven was an anti-semite, Brahms was a woman-hater, Lewis Carroll adored little girls, and John Updike is a Republican. So the fuck what?
And Bruce is a moralizing right-winger. I still read his posts.
They're all dead. They can be great artists with human lfaws only after they can no longer redeem their flaws. ;)
s/lfaws/flaws
Besides, there is an enormous difference between admiring a person and admiring their art. Only the likes of Stalin and others of his ilk made a connection between the two.
re #63: Nonsense. Many people make connections between the artist as a person, and the artist's art. You don't have to be a Stalin to dislike Roman Polanski (and refuse to watch his movies) based on his pederasty. If I were choosing between two movies, and knew one was by Polanski, I would choose the other one. I don't owe Polanski anything. Decent humanity doesn't owe him anything.
Hey, we all make choices based on whatever is important to us. There is nothing wrong with making a choice not to see a movie because one has a problem with the morals of the director. It is only when people try to take the choice away from other people (by banning the movie or something) when there is a problem. Now me, I probably will skip any Polanski films I come across because I think he doesnt always make good movies. I'll only see one of his films if it gets really good reviews.
Way back to mynxcat in resp:44 :: "Catch Me If You Can" is a visit to Spielberg's lighter side, which I'm not sure we've seen since "Always," his film about forest firefighters and life after death. The other Spielberg film in that style is "Sugarland Express." (I've missed the last six Spielberg films after seeing everything he made since 1974, but we did see "Catch" this weekend.)
Re #64: really? It would never occur to me to do that. Why do you even have to know anything at all about the artist to enjoy his/her work? Are you consistent in your bigotry? That is, do you look every artist/director/writer/cartoonist/etc up to make sure their morals fit your standards before attending/seeing/reading their work? I would say that you are depriving yourself of much very enjoyable experience in the arts by limiting yourself so severly.
Er, um, interesting.
Re #66: Lighter side? Abagnale's home life is depressing as hell.
I don't have to agree with an artist to like or dislike her work. But I can make a choice about someone I do know I agree/disagree with based upon that, if I want to. I know that there's a writer who's just made a big stir upon the internet who has just lost my possible buying of her book (reviews made it sound intriguing, but too expensive for an impulse buy, but I was going to buy it in paperback, but she decided to make a big stink about a review and go after the reviewer and say that "readers cant' review books" in essence) because of her stance.
Also went and saw Adaptation this week, after much "are we going? Are we going _now_? Can we please leave already!" I swear it breaks every law of good writing, and even breaks most of the for good film writing. The first half is more or less PAINFUL to watch, the second half is just rediculous. The movie is absolutely _facinating_, but... When I get old and become a writing professor so that stupid undergrads can attempt to take my job away from me, I'm going to recommend this movie. "Here is everything you shouldn't do with a script, and I don't want to see it unless you can do it better than he did". It's not a good movie, but it's definately Interesting.
re 6 How do you demoralize an Orc? It would seem that moralizing them would not make them want to fight, which seems to be their first nature.
Saw "Catch Me If You Can" today. Most enjoyable Spielberg I've seen in some time. Continuously entertaining, with lots of deft, clever touches, and a nice 60s period feel (even the titles). Re #71: By the time you're an old writing professor, "Adaptation" will be an enshrined classic. And anyway, you'll have tenure, so your students can't take your job away from you. Worst that can happen is that they'll become your colleagues and you won't be able to order them around anymore. (This has happened to me...)
Went to see Lord of the Rings: Two Towers. It is a combination of Star Trek and a Mel Gibson thriller: the aliens are still all humanoid. The best moment for me was when the Orcs were seiging the keep and the Elves were ready with bows drawn, and the chief Elf yelled "FIRE": I chuckled for the test of the film. There will probably be a Sequal and a Prequal.
I bet you're right!
I went to see "Two Weeks Notice" with my mother in law. I probably would have not gone to see it, but she wanted to and the guys wouldn't go so being the trooper I am, I went. It was predictable, but fairly entertaining.
re #67: I don't look up the backgrounds of artists, actors, writers, etc. as a rule. It happens that Polanski's crimes were widely reported, and so I remember them, and so I have a tendency to be turned off from interest in his work. I generally don't know who directed the films I watch. I don't know who directed the Lord of the Rings films, the Harry Potter films, or most any movies I've seen. I got a copy of "Fiddler on the Roof", my favorite musical, but don't know who made it. I don't know who made the Godfather movies, the Blues Brothers movie, or any of my favorite Disney movies. I don't know what a director does, or a producer. I'm not interested in the process of making movies, I just watch some movies and like some of what I watch. Roman Polanski movies tend to be advertised as being made by Polanski, so it's easy to avoid them. If I found out he made the Star Trek movies that I liked, or "Ice Age" (which my son just watched tonight and which I liked), I guess I'd have an interesting decision. I probably wouldn't get rid of anything I already have, but I wouldn't be inclined to buy or rent more of those movies. This makes me equivalent to Stalin? Wow. I'd say if you believe that, you have a tendency to hyperbolize.
While both Star Trek and LOTR have produced explanations of why their enemy (and, in Star Trek, friendly) beings so closely resemble the race of the main protagonists, it's worth noting that LOTR"s reason is built into the backstory and exists without a special effects budget to keep in mind. Star Trek came up with its explanation late in TNG and used it as the focal point for one episode, basically a late-arriving excuse for years of cash-strapped special effects departments.
Re #77: Hm. It takes many hands to make a movie, but the director is in most instances the primary "author", so I tend to pay attention to who the directors are. For me, not knowing who directed the Godfather films would be akin to not knowing who wrote "A Tale of Two Cities" or "The Stand". If I learn that a particular movie was directed by David Lynch, John Dahl, Spike Jonze, Roman Polanski, or Martin Scorsese (just to name a few examples), then I'll probably go to see it. This is not to say that every movie made by those directors is automatically good, but I've learned that the director's name is a better indicator of whether I'll like a film or not than, say, what the critics think of it. For a discussion of "film director as author", and why the role of film director is different from that of a stage director, see http://www.moderntimes.com/palace/director.htm .
Re #72: To demoralize orcs, you give them dirty magazines. This is best done with a catapult specialized for lobbing pornography into the enemy camp, known as the "arbalust".
This response has been erased.
Re: #78: The Trek explanation actually goes back to the original series, which talks about "The Preservers" seeding the galaxy. They also had "Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planet Development".
"Die Another Day:" No doubt my initial reaction is a little over enthusiastic... The first hour is the best hour of James Bond film ever, with development and plotting that we've never seen in the series before. After that it gets a bit silly, especially when the invisible car comes in, but overall I think it's the best Bond film in 30 years.
It motivated me and Lisa to rent some of the earlier Bond flicks (on DVD, they're especially cool because they have documentaries and commentary). Violations of physical laws are part of the genre, so the invisible car isn't really out of line.
What's the pseudonym used by directors who either don't want to admit they made a film or want their name removed from the credits?
Alan Smithee
Over the holiday break I was able to get caught up on recent releases. Adaptations: Another brilliant example of blending fact and fiction so well it's hard to tell the boundaries. But maybe that's the point. LOTRTT: Mostly for those who like cars blowing up but on a grand scale with lots of chainmail. Catch Me If You Can: A fairly subtle touch for a Spielberg film. And the best part is it's all true. About Schmidt: I liked it but suspect it will not do well at the box office. Not once word gets out it's a fairy slow character piece that gets its humor from being searingly honest about dull lives.
(Actually, Catch Me If You Can is based on a true story, but it takes a number of liberties with the truth. http://www.abagnale.com/facomments.html .)
I suspect one "addition" is the scene where Abagnale looks though the window at the family life he never had. That's sappy enought to be pure Spielberg.
s/through/though and enough/enought I really should proofread.
I havent seen the movie but I just finished reading the book. My copy has a nice interview with him about the movie. He does say that he would have rather his parents didnt divorce but he doesnt put a lot of emphasis on that. Anyhow, it is a really good read.
Re #89: Indeed. If I hadn't known it was a Spielberg movie, I probably would have guessed it at that point.
re #85-86: I believe it is Allan Smithee (two 'l's)
I remember when the book came out, 20 years ago, and Abagnale was on the Tonight Show. He was telling all these stories about how he fooled people into thinking he was an airline pilot, then a surgeon. The audience was eating it up. Johnny Carson had the presence to say "Wait a minute..." Those were some pretty important positions he spoofed.
The Internet Movie Database has entries for both "Allan Smithee" and
"Alan Smithe". Two-L Smithee seems to have been cinematographer on a
couple German films. One-L Smithee's biography starts like this:
Born in 1967, the same year he directed his first picture, Death of a
Gunfighter (released 1969). Restricted by Directors Guild of America
rules to certain "genres" of film, i.e., those on which the other
directors have functioned, but from which they wish to be disassociated.
Gained strong reviews for his initial film: "Sharply directed by Allen
Smithee [who] has an adroit facility for scanning faces and extracting
sharp background detail", (New York Times); "Smithee's direction keeps
the action taut and he draws convincing portrayals from [the] supporting
cast", (Variety). His oeuvre extends over a wide range of topics and
styles, usually with only one unifying factor between projects: the
refusal of other directors to put their name to the work.
More informatively, but less humorously:
The Directors Guild contract generally does not permit a director to
remove her/his name from films. The Directors Guild has been striving
for decades to establish the director as the "author" of a film, and
part of getting the credit for the successes is taking the blame for the
failures. The only exceptions they make are cases in which a film was
clearly taken away from a director and recut heavily against her/his
wishes in ways that completely altered the film. Directors are required
to appeal to the Guild in such cases. If the appeal is successful, their
name is replaced by Alan Smithee. That is the only permissible pseudonym
for a director. So if you notice a film directed by Alan Smithee, it is
certain it is not what its director intended, and likely that it is not
any good.
I'm starting to pay more attention to directors in my old age. This was
partly inspired by the fact that one day I noticed that several of my
all time favorite films were all directed by the same person ("Romancing
the Stone", "Back to the Future", "Contact") as were a number of other
films that were certainly worth watching ("Who Framed Roger Rabbit",
"Forrest Gump", "Castaway"). Here it turns out I'm a fan of I guy I
never heard of. His next film is apparantly going to be "The Polar
Express".
http://www.smitheeawards.com
Read an article about "Catch me if you Can" In the movie, Spielberg more or less portrays Abagnale's acts as him being in denial about his parents divorce, thinking that if he made something of himself, and got his dad's money and prestige back, maybe his mom and dad wouldn't divorce. This is pure Spielberg, as he has admitted that a lot of his movies-- particularly E.T. but also Close Encounters and A.I. and others, deal with the divorce theme, because his own parents divorce was particularly painful to him. But Abagnale in the article denies his parents divorce had anything to do with his acts. "Hell, I just did it to get girls, thats all" It is pure hollywood to take the lead character's actions and somehow try to make them seem more noble. Case in point was the movie of Grisham's "The Firm" If you read the book, you know that it ends with the main character having stolen the money from the crooks and living the rest of his life on the run on the high seas. But in the movie "The Firm", they completely changed the ending. They created a scene where Tom Cruise's character actually goes and negotiates with the bad guys for his freedom. And it ends with he and his wife leaving in their old car to go back up north and be idealistic again. It is typical hollywood to take the ending of a perfectly good book and ruin it simply because they want the lead character to come across as more wholesome.
"The Firm" is a book with a *lousy* ending. The movie version was a big improvement.
Both movie and book endings for "The Firm" totally sucked. I think this is a frequent Grisham theme--books that are fine until about 75% of the way through, and then cease to be good for anything but the recycle bin.
re: 73 Remmers, it's not that I would be worried about my teaching position at that point, the "take my job away from me" comment was in reference to a writer making money to teach Other People to be writers while the teacher sits around in a classroom. :)
Finally saw "The Two Towers". Loved it. Hate people bitching and grousing about it because it seems as if they miss out on just how much vision and scope Peter Jackson has. Good lord - he made all three of them back to back - look at the continuity! It's really amazing. And yes - I have read the first two books. Sure - stuff gets left out - some leeway is given - but it's like that in many adaptations. Plus, and ladies, I'm expecting some concurrence here - he gave us Orlando Bloom in long blonde hair. Let's be honest, people - elves are HOT. So, thank you Peter Jackson - for a great ride, a lot of fun, and making me want to go to New Zealand. :) Ok - on rental: "The Sweetest Thing" - laughed my ass off. I really do love Cameron Diaz. "Reign of Fire" - not bad, not bad. Decent story, decent effects. And it has Christian Bale. I love Christian Bale. "A Walk to Remember" - look people - you want to bitch about a bad book to film translation, I highly recommend this. Though I surprisingly did like the actors.
This response has been erased.
I can agree with no reservation. And the horse trick, dear gods that was just beautiful...
We just re-saw the Two Towers. Some of what I was bitching about scanned better the second time around, and DAMN Legolas is hot. :=) Though I kind of like Aragorn, once he's cleaned up a little.
He's pretty beaten up throughout a good portion of the movie. :p I think I need to go see it again. It's a great ride.
I guess I need to go see it again, too.
Saw "Gangs of New York" last night. I posted more on m-net about what I thought (great but a bit long), but bottom line really felt that it's Daniel Day-Lewis's film. He's amazing. I wish he'd make more movies. It also brought up (for me) who I consider to be the most amazing actors of our time. I came up with Edward Norton, Sean Penn and Daniel Day-Lewis, but I'm curious as to other people's opinions.
I liked the movie ending to Contact more than I liked the Carl Sagan ending.
I can take my son to see the Star Trek movie for $2.50. Is it worth his time to take him? Also, is it violent? (He's had streaks of pretty violent behavior after playing video games, and I'm trying to avoid promoting more of that.)
This response has been erased.
Don't go see "Signs". I paid $0.50 to see it and I still felt ripped off. Hmmmm....LOTR this weekend, anyone?
I finally saw _Insomnia_ last night, I thought it a fairly well done piece, it maintained a decent level of intensity. Robin Williams though as a villian, now that was a pleasure to see. I was surpised but the man can carry off a villian really well. Documentary wise, last night I also saw "Dr. Death", fascinating work by the same director that did The Thin Blue Line (which now I have to see), excellent look at the life of Fred Leuchter, and on checking I see the proper title is Mr. Death. Still overall a great ride.
This response has been erased.
I'm not sure I'm ready for "A Beautiful Mind" -- since we've gotten reviews of both book and movie go through our office , I read the book very soon after publication and have seen what mathematicians think of it, and ... well ... I already know how eccentric mathematicians can be. :-)
This response has been erased.
A professional mathematician was the advisor for that aspect of the movie. I've read some reviews of the movie by mathematicians, and none of them faulted the mathematics shown. Can you cite a negative review from that perspective? In any case, however, *it doesn't matter*, as the movie was not about mathematics but rather about a man. Of course, practically any mathematical gobbledigook could have been used as the intended general audience would not have known a conditional probability from a heiroglyphic.
Well, yes, I know the mathematics weren't faulty. That's not my point. I've had to work with some eccentric mathematicians over the years, and I'm not sure I want to see a recreation of yet another. :-) (Not to say anything bad about my current co-workers, mind you. It's just that one of the most eccentric of my past coworkers died very suddenly last Friday, which has brought his more colorful moments vividly to mind. And he was probably a lot more colorful to work with than Russell Crow's character (though I am basing that on the book and not on the real man, or anything).)
If course, Nash wasn't just eccentric - he was sick. The film had much more to do with schizophrenia than mathematics. The math angle just added an opportunity for a dramatic context of a brilliant person that falls mentally sick.
Twila, just bite the bullet and watch the movie. It's good. I have worked with schizophrenics and thought the portrayal was accurate.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
THE HOURS-- This is just the film to see if you want to escape from it all, a movie about suicide. This movie follows the stories of three different women, all seriously depressed and contemplating suicide, who live in three different eras. It has as its basis the Virginia Woolf novel "Mrs. Dalloway", and one of the women is a contemporary version of Mrs. Dalloway living in 1991 played by Meryl Streep. The second woman is a repressed woman living in 1951 America, who is escaping from her own anguish by reading the novel "Mrs. Dalloway", played by Julianne Moore. And the third woman is the author Virginia Woolf herself, who we see in England in the 20's writing Mrs. Dalloway. You have thus an author, her charcter, and her reader. The movie effectively jumps back and forth between the storylines, linking these characters as we see common causes and also differing causes for their depressions. Essentially we are seeing three versions of Mrs. Dalloway, living in different times with different levels of personal freedom, and each woman has certain strengths and also lacks certain things. Julianne Moore's character is seemingly lacking in the ability to have either love or passion, and she seems to feel that her son and husband don't love or really know her as a result. She wants to kill herself. Meryl Streep's character is perfectly capable of loving, but feels she is incapable of passion in her life, and the most passionate person she's ever known, her gay ex- husband, is bitterly depressed and dying of AIDS. He also lacks the ability to love. Thus the ex-husband also wants to kill himself (he is brilliantly played by Ed Harris btw). Nicole Kidman's character, Virginia Woolf is both a loving and passionate woman, but feels she lacks sanity-- she has had a history of mental breakdowns and is deseperately afraid of having another one, and does not want 0to put her husband through it again. She wants to kill herself to spare her husband more pain. Like I said, light escapist fare this movie isn't! 'The Hours' has a wonderful script and is exceedingly well made and well written. In fact there's a plot twist towards the end that links two of the storylines, that I didn't even see coming. For some suicide is a desperate act. For some it is a courageous act. For some it is a cowardly act. This movie explores the question of why some people who find themselves at pivotal points in their live find the courage to live, and others find the courage to die. All the performances in this are great, particularly Kidman and Harris I enjoyed and recommend this movie highly BUT "The Hours" is not for everyone. This is a movie about seriously depressed and suicidal people, and it deals with them on real terms. Be sure you're comfortable with the subject matter, and with sitting in a dark room for two hours watching people think about and discuss killing themselves. **** (four stars-- one of THE best movies of 2002)
Back in #109, jep asked if he should take his son to see "Star Trek: Nemesis." If's he's not already a Next Generation fan, skip it. The movie is incomprehensible if you didn't watch the TV series. Violence content is on the high side for pre-teen children, with one very graphic killing by impalement and one "psychic rape". There's a ridiculous chase scene with a dune buggy and shooting. Oh, and the movie opens with the entire Romulan senate getting assasinated in rather ugly fashion... But there is not a lot of in-person combat (compared to "Spiderman"), mostly it's spaceships shooting other spaceships. I'm not certain, but overall I'd say the PG-13 on this one is a deserved rating and if I remember the age of jep's son correctly (7-8?) I'd say try to wiggle out of going to this one.
John is 6. Definitely this sounds like a good one to skip. Maybe I'll go myself tonight. Thanks!
Has John seen LILO & STITCH? That's a science fiction story which may be more suitable; as grownups, we liked it a lot. (In the Earthling plot of LILO, there are some family issue which might be resonant in your situation; I hope they wouldn't be too traumatic.)
Nope, we haven't seen Lilo & Stitch yet. John's not upset by the family situation. Maybe we'll give this one a try some time. Thanks for the suggestion!
The International Channel (Ann Arbor cable 33; http://www.internationalchannel.com) has axed the long running Saturday night French film (*waaaah*) and they are packing in Asian movies. Tonight we saw a 1994 Peking Opera production of "Saga of Mulan." I can't compare it to the Disney version, which I haven't seen. This one was pretty neat, though, with singing *and* martial arts. Bai Shuxian stars as Mulan/General Hua; I guess Peking Opera singers are supposed to do their own Martial Arts choreography. I don't know how common fight scenes would be in their productions. I'd recommend it, except that there are few signs on the web that the movie exists, much less is available to buy, rent, or view again on Broadcast. IMDB does not list it; Google only found two pages
Lilo & Stitch is *fun*. I recommend it.
This response has been erased.
I totally hated the noses on the "Hawaiian" humans in L&S - horrible.
"As Good As It Gets" got a bunch of nominations but the only Oscar I remember it winning in a major category was a "Best Actress" for Helen Hunt. Then again, I don't pay much attention to the Oscars -- it may have received more, but it received at least one..
This response has been erased.
he did. But the one who deserved it most, Greg Kinnear, did not.
This response has been erased.
re: #134-- Nicholson also won an oscar for "As Good as it Gets". IMO he was better in "About Schmidt" Also he was great in the sean penn-directed film from last year called "The Pledge", which is recommended if you are looking for something at the video store /.
I thoroughly enjoyed "Nicholas Nickleby" the other night.
"Enemy at the Gates" (rental). Been wanting to see this one for a while. I mostly agree with the reviews; the love story seems a bit pointless - actually a lot of the character motivations seem a bit weak. But hey, Ed Harris was good (as usual).
"Fail Safe". This is the movie spoofed by "Dr. Strangelove". Great 1960's movie (in very stark black&white) about a mechanical failure in the high-tech control systems nearly causing nuclear war. Very dark, unhappy ending, and Henry Fonda is wonderful as the President. Very highly recommended. This film has lost very little of its impact.
This response has been erased.
But they don't ...
This response has been erased.
Ah, the ending was great - nice reverse on the usual Disney ending. And the message is "who cares about beauty, anyway?".
This response has been erased.
Really? That isnt what I got at all. Shrek's feelings about the Princess didnt change at all when her appearance changed and therefore the big ugly ogre got the beautiful princess (since he thought she was beautiful both before and after her transformation)
Right!
This response has been erased.
My impression was that her only problem was fearing that Shrek would discover she was actually an ogre.
It seemed to me that the movie reinforced the stereotypes of "ugly". That a rare individual didn't care isn't particularly encouraging.
It seems to me that an ogre ought to find ogre form more "beautiful".
This response has been erased.
For some unknown reason, I wound up watching Scarlett: the miniseries last night. Most of the acting was pretty crappy, and the southern accents were totally unbelievable, but the actress who played Scarlett actually did a really good job of portraying her maturation. On the whole: definitely not worth my 6+ hours. Can I have a refund, please?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
In "Shrek", the book, the point was that the ogre wouldnt' have wanted her if she were the beautiful princess -- he thought that she was ugly then. So him falling in love with her when he thought she was ugly was seeing past the skin and her being changed into the form he thought was gorgeous was kind of his "reward" -- he got the girl he loved in a form he thought was sexy and cool.
I didn't think she was *that* ugly in either form, frankly. But not as cute as the dragon, perhaps. ;)
Re #141: IIRC, "Dr. Strangelove" was released *before* Fail Safe, and pretty much destroyed its earnings potential. Fail Safe is still an excellent and scary film. Thought-provoking.
This response has been erased.
In Shrek, why did Robin Hood have a french accent?
Re #159: I've read that Columbia Pictures, which released both
"Dr Strangelove" and "Fail-Safe", agreed to low-key publicity for
the latter in order to placate Stanley Kubrick, who was upset
about the similarity of the plots.
"Dr Strangelove" is based on the novel "Red Alert" by Peter
George. It is a straight, non-humorous cold war thriller.
Kubrick and his screenwriter, Terry Southern, decided on a
comedic approach while preparing for filming -- it wasn't
their original plan.
The books "Red Alert" and "Fail-Safe" are so similar in plot
that there was a lawsuit over it, I've heard.
I agree that "Fail-Safe" is an excellent film that still packs
a punch. Did anybody see the live black-and-white TV production
of a couple of years ago? Interesting, but not as good as the
film. Directed by Stephen Frears ("The Grifters", "High Fidelity")
with a cast that included Richard Dreyfuss (fairly ineffective in
the Henry Fonda role), Brian Dennehy, George Clooney, and Harvey
Keitel.
William Steig (I think!) is the author. It was a children's book long before it was a movie, "Shrek", that is.
Just for a modern take on the same ideas as Fail Safe and Dr. Strangelove, try your hand at _Deterence_, a mdae for TV movie/low budget film that actually was pretty good on modern nuclear war. Side question, can anyone tell me the author for Fail Safe or Red Alert?
Fail-Safe: Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler Red Alert: Peter George
Deterrence is a good movie... I have to wonder how long it is before someone taps Rod Lurie to do something like The West Wing.
Sapna: It was on the Love channel (giggle giggle smirk) and it wouldn't let me scroll very far forward to see if there was a rerun of it. I didn't much like the book either, but I was really frustrated with the ending to Gone with the Wind.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
I found "The Hours" an amazing film. I was concerned at first it would turn into another whiny women movie, but that was just the introduction to the characters. In the end I'd found I cared about them quite a bit yet I was able to find peace in their ultimate choices. Neat trick. Acting doesn't get any better.
"Die Another Day". I'm sure glad I waited for it to show at the discount theater. I figure John Cleese (and the bit with Ms. Moneypenny also) was worth my $2.50. "Triple X" was a much, much better Bond film. Funnier, too. :)
I agree. Bond disappointed me, XXX was much more exciting.
Wow, we seem to have very different movie tastes. I thought "Die Another Day" was the best Bond film in years.
This response has been erased.
"Die Another Day" was just lame, even by Brosnan-era Bond films. Lame dialog, cheesy digital effects, and Halley Barry was just a *wuss*.
This response has been erased.
Drift: My 9-year-old son asked if he could watch R rated movies. I said no. He asked if he could watch PG13 rated movies, and I said yes. He then asked what my brain heard as an alarming inquiry "Can I watch an XXX movie?" I was relieved to discover he was referring to the xXx "spy" movie (rated PG13, I believe), which I had never even heard of. :-)
Let him watch porn.
Do you watch PG13 movies with him, or just let him watch them on his own, and will you watch R films with him (and presumably, then discuss them with him) even if you won't let him watch them without you?
Drift: I do not let my 9-year-old watch R rated movies, period. PG13 covers a lot of things, such as Jurassic Park, Spider Man, etc. so I usually don't see many problems there.
Maybe shouldn't review movies while feeling grumpy. But will anyway. Rented "XXX". Was supposed to be a tougher, hipper James Bond, I guess. But it's weird. Yeah, the hero's got tatoos and occasional bad manners, but somehow he's basically got Shirley Temple's brain implanted. This guy radiates niceness and wholesomeness. We're supposed to believe he's a criminal? He goes around warning villians about cigarette smoking. He's supposed to be cooler than Bond, but Bond had at least a plausible cynicism. This is a cereal box cowboy pretending to be an antihero. Weird. Also rented "Simone". The makers of "The Truman Show" pick up a similar theme. This time, instead of a real person being inserted into a fake world to make a TV show, we have a fake person being inserted into the real world to make a movie. It was better the other way around. This way it's a well worn cliche - Al Pacino is perpetrating a fraud, goes to greater and greater lengths to preserve it, and ultimately ... well you already know don't you? This plot has been done a hundred times, and all this movie has to add are a few computer graphics. I guess I was at least glad that they didn't actually allow the computer-generated charater to magically sprout real intelligence, as computers so often do in the movies. Actually, the box says "From the Creator of 'The Truman Show'", but closer inspection says the writer of Truman wrote and directed this, but the director (the amazing Peter Weir) had nothing to do with Simone. It could have used a real director.
Took the boys to see Kangaroo Jack tonight (80 minutes). They liked a lot of the humor, and it had its moments, but overall I consider it poor quality. Certainly not in the league of MiB, more on par with Scooby Doo.
This response has been erased.
I saw The Hours this weekend and really loved it. The acting was amazing. I also didnt get how everything tied together until the very end but I see that as a plus. I think I "got it" at the exact right moment. It was perfect. I wasnt sure about some of the sexuality themes in the movie. I have a feeling that if I had ever read any Virginia Woolf or perhaps, _Mrs Dallaway_ in particular, I might have understood why that stuff was included. I probably would have had a much richer appreciation of the movie too. I think I'll read that book and then watch this movie again.
I just noticed on the IMDB that Peter Weir is directing a movie based on the first book of Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series. This is a justifiably famous series of naval books set during the Napoleanic Wars. Aubrey is a ships captain, Maturin a doctor/spy. O'Brian died 19 books into the series. Cool to see someone like Weir picking up such a project. Apparantly due out in November.
Vin Diesel did a much better job as the anti-hero in an earlier film,
"Pitch Black", where he wavered between a hero and anti-hero quite a number
of times.
"XXX" wasn't really a serious movie, though. Funniest movie I saw all summer, actually! :)
re #185: Hmmm.. Someone is working on a film of one of the later
O'Brian books but not starting the series from the first book
("Master and Commander".) Is that Weir, do you think, or are there
going to be two competing movie series based on the same series of books?
Interesting - and odd. IMDB lists the title as "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World". Other web sites list it as "The Far Side of the World" to be released in June. "Master and Commander" is the title of the first book in the series, "Far Side of the World" is the tenth. It looks like they are treating "Master and Commander" and a title for the series as a whole, and the movie is to be based on the tenth book. Though apparantly it's been rearranged a bit so the villians won't be the Americans.
So which great naval power will they be fighting, the Iraqis or the North Koreans? I guess the latter if they're working on "The Far Side of the World."
The Madstone Theaters in Briarwood (Ann Arbor) is trying a revival of repertory cinema. The February issue of CURRENT lists dates for "The Philadelphia Story," "The Apartment," "Blood Simple" and "Sling Blade," among other. It'll be interesting to see if they can make this work in the DVD era; the VCR finished off most of the repertory movie theaters in the country
I know I wouldnt mind checking out The Philadelphia Story on a big screen.
Saw "The Hours". Brilliant, but very depressing.
This response has been erased.
It was still depressing.
This response has been erased.
We saw The Two Towers on Saturday, finally. (NB: I've been avoiding the movie review items since the movie's release. If I repeat what others have said, I'll find out when I catch up. ;) Most of the departures I could forgive on ground of translation to a different medium. I can't say that for: the loss/disappearance of Aragorn, the sudden change of mind that took Treebeard to Isengard (and, with such a sudden change, where did all the other ents come from?) and the trip to Osgiliath. Frodo and Sam really should have gotten to Cirith Ungol. Still, the scenery was beautiful.
Welcome to New Zealand.
I highly recommend Chicago to all on the BBS, fantastic musical work, acting in high degree, and overall a great performance.
This response has been erased.
Saw Gangs of New York, last night. So, can anybody fill me in this part of history? Cause I wasn't aware that a thing like this had occured during the Civ War
This response has been erased.
I think because everyone can relate to the movie, in some way. And it's a good movie for both men and women to see.
This response has been erased.
I thought her boyfriend was a totally plastic character - almost unnecessary except as a prop and to provide dork inlaws. However they provided a little humor as foils to the main characters and story.
This response has been erased.
I thought the boyfriend character was dreamy. Sure a little "too good to be true" but I wouldnt say he was "plastic".
Trust me, John Corbett, in plastic or however mode, can hang out in my house anytime.
This response has been erased.
Final Destination 2 (B) -- We were all surprised that watching graphic depictions of people being sliced, crushed, incinerated, impaled, eviscerated, suffocated and blown to pieces could so much fun. Take FD1, remove the plot, such as it was, and expand on the Rube Goldberg aspect of the deaths. What I liked best about FD1 was the music, which had some Samuel Barberesque moments, and of course Ali Larter. The music in FD2 is pretty tame by comparison, and Ali Larter's role was not only minimal but, alas, terminal.
re: a few items back-- Clees, "Gangs of New York" is about a very violent time in New York City's history, the mid 19th century. Basically the old protestant/catholic conflict taking place over in England and Ireland came over to NYC along with the new immigrants. The old line protestants, primarily descendants of British settlers, took exception to the great wave of new Irish immigrants. They saw the new Irish immigrants coming over on boat after boat as lower class, and unwelcome. And particularly the Irish catholics. The establishment at the time, embodied in the movie by Daniel Day Lewis, saw America as the great protestant land, and did not want catholics coming over to even have rights. The conflicts between the old guard, and people of other faiths, races, and countries coming to this country and trying to gain acceptance and freedom, defines the history of the U.S. And New York City, by virtue of its being the largest city and the arrival point for most immigrants from Europe, was at the center of that struggle. The struggle, as shown, was in some ways more violent and pronounced in New York City than anywhere. New York City was torn apart in the 18th and early 19th century with battles, corruption, crime and bigotry brought over from Europe. The city was torched and much of it burned down more than once in that era. But the point Scorcese is trying to make in the movie, and I think he makes it well, is that the Civil War changed everything. After the war, everything changed. Suddenly, everyone in New York City-- and the country-- who had been feuding, had a common history. Everyone had blood shed now, people had died across all social, racial, ethnic, religious barriers. Finally, what everyone in this country had in common could start to become more important than whatever differences they had. Day Lewis and DiCaprio are shown at the end ultimately realizing the futility of their battle, that time was passing them by. DiCaprio is shown in the final scene at his father's grave, in the same cemetary as Day Lewis's grave, and lamenting that nobody was going to remember who they were. And the final shot is the skyline of New York City, which from the civil war forward changed forever, as people of the various classes/sects that had been feuding finally started working together. You see the NYC skyline changing as that feuding, bitterly divided town became the greatest city in the world, with diversity as it strength.
Not really. The Irish overcame racism the only way any group has ever
overcome racism, ever, by assimilation into the mainstream culture, to the
point to which the idea of discrimination against the Irish is almost
laughable, because the Irish are mainstream. Diversity may be strength, but
racial-cultural seperation is weakness.
Hell, the Irish are no longer mainstream - they are cool as hell at this point.
<One of my teammates is marrying an Indian guy in the summer. They wanted a small wedding, but wound up inviting 400 people because it's apparently an enormous insult for his parents to not invite everyone they've ever met. They're also having a large reception in Texas entirely for his parents' friends. Is this common for Indian weddings? How on earth would they manage if both sides were Indian and knew 800 people each?)
This response has been erased.
I sometimes think that's why many Indians wind up in the United States -- a forlorn hope that if they move far enough away some of the wedding guests won't be able to make it.. ;-) Really, though, the only Indian wedding I've been too seemed a pretty manageable size (at least from my frame of reference, which is largely informed by numerous weddings of Irish-American Catholic relatives..)
Under the bold assumption that seeing a movie on TV "counts", IWLTA that I recently saw on either FX or SciFi (I forget which) a 1979 release entitled "Meteor". Think "Armaggedon" with 1970's technological effects (although Star Wars had much, much more than this). Meteor had an "all-star" line up of actors: -Sean Connery: The "save earth from meteors" scientist. -Carl Malden: A cabinet science advisor or something. -Martin Landau: The military guy who had made SC's device into a weapon. -Henry Fonda: The US prez -Brian Keith: SC's Russian counterpart -Natalie Wood: BK's English-Russian interpreter The story line was a rogue comet collided with a "giant" asteroid and sent it on a collision course with earth. Earth could only be saved if the US and the Russians cooperated to launch their orbiting nuclear warheads in concert to explode that nasty ole asteroid cum meteor.
How does one say <bites tongue> in Latin?
admordeo lingua?
a few days ago, i saw "Habla con ella" a Spanish movie de Amodovar, just fantastic
I should really watch some more Almodovar movies; the only one I've ever seen was "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown." The movie rcsa cites is now playing the USA under the title "Talk to Her."
This response has been erased.
I saw (thanks to the snowstorm): "American History X" - One of hte greatest movies on hatred I have ever seen. A tremendous acting turn by some great actors, Edward Norton being number one, but Ed Furlong, Stacy Keach and Beverly D'Angelo were amazing as well. Keach creeped me out, that's for sure. "Monsoon Wedding" - I liked this movie - I liked how there were about 15 different stories going on. I had been led to believe that it was very funny - which was not true, but it was good none the less. "Bourne Identity" - Eh. Matt Damon is hot? "Sweet Home Alabama" - Eh. Ethan Embry and the guy playing her husband is hot? "About A Boy" - Good good movie. Loved Hugh Grant and Toni Collette - the kid playing Marcus was amazing. Not as good as the book, but it was still a great movie. "Dare Devil" - Eh. Some great effects. Colin Farrel is hot.
This response has been erased.
If you've read "About a Boy", you might appreciate it more.
This response has been erased.
I found "Monsoon Wedding" fascinating for the glimpse it provided into an unfamiliar culture. But I'm a Westerner. Someone who's part of the culture and who's seen lots of similar movies would no doubt have a different perspective.
This response has been erased.
American History X is awesome.
Back in my college days I became quite a fan of the Indian film director Satyajit Ray -- "Pather Panchali", "Aparajito", "Apur Sansar", "Teen Kanya", many others. They were among the earliest Indian films to reach an international audience. Ray died a few years ago. Are his films still shown in India? Are they highly regarded there?
This response has been erased.
Methinks mynxcat finds many movies boring.
I'm curious as to what movies she likes.
I saw _Pather Panchali_ for a film class. I probably have a review of it, stuffed away in a pile of college homework somewhere. I did watch it all the way through; I view it as excellent film, in the sense that a challenging crossword puzzle is excellent.
This response has been erased.
It's all about "The Godfather".
This response has been erased.
My mom and I were discussing great movies - I said my favorite was "The Godfather" - she said, "That's your opinion", and I said, "yeah, mine and the American Film Institute."
This response has been erased.
I've never liked _Gone with the Wind_ much. Too long, and incredibly overacted. I love Citizen Kane_, though.
The mivie I like to watch over and over is Grease. It was such an upbeat film and the music was excellent. I also like the Cary Grant comedies, except for Arsenic and Old Lace; way too loony for me. I also like a number of WWII flicks starring The Duke.
the movie I like to watch over and over is Charlie Chaplin's "City Lights" This is a film that never ceases to amaze me. And the final scene with Chaplin and the blind girl always gets to me
This response has been erased.
"City Lights" is amazing. The whole story is a cliche (possibly more so now than when it was made, but probably it has been a cliche since the dawn of man), and yet it still has amazing emotional impact. No way I could watch that over and over again. It'd wring me out. Maybe less so these days, when my own life isn't quite so lonely.
We saw "Old School" last night. If you are Will Ferrell fan, this is a must see. He's pretty darn funny. It can definately wait for a rental, but is a fun and entertaining movie.
I saw Chicago over the weekend and would have much rather seen Old School...
This response has been erased.
I finally saw "Amelie" yesterday and I loved it. Tim hates watching movies with subtitles and I told him he had to watch it cause slynne said it was one of her favorite movies. And when we were watching it he said "This is a TOTAL Lynne movie!" hahahahaha. Even Tim liked it!
I'm with Tim regarding subtitles. When I went to see Crouching Tiger, Belching Dragon--or whatever it's called--I didn't know it was all subtitled. Talk about disapointed.
HAHAHA. That is sooooo funny, Jeanne! I am glad you guys liked it :)
RE#247 -- It was alright, but I dunno, there was just *something* I can't put my finger on that I didn't like about it. I think seeing it on stage would have been great, but I don't think it translated to the big screen. That said, the costumes were good. And now that I'm thinking about it, CAtherine Zeta-Jones is one of the things that bugged me. She never convinced me she wasn't Catherine Zeta-Jones.
This response has been erased.
For a movie like Amelie, subtitles are ok. For CTHD, it was hard to read and watch the action. He's a martial arts guy, and was was also disappointed cause he couldn't watch both. Must be that lack of multi-tasking men have. ;)
Hey, now. I found CTHD so easy to handle with the subtitles that I didn't even realize it was subtitled by the end. If you'd asked me, I might have denied it.
I too found CTHD easy to deal with subtitle-wise. And I can't usually read them (my eyes are bad enough that I can't read AND watch the action, I can't see half the action when I'm not trying to read subtitles, too). As an aside, this is one reason I've discovered that I LOVE DVDs -- I can finally see the damn movie, 'cause I'm watching on a 17 inch screen ten inches from my eyes.
I was in college and grad school when "art houses" showing subtitled foreign films were commonplace, so I've seen dozens of subtitled movies and am very used to it. Doesn't bother me. What *does* bother me is a foreign language film with bad English dubbing.
I hate dubbed films - they can never really get the voices right.
I don't like dubbed movies either, I much prefer subtitles. I also like listening to the foreign language and match what I know to the english words. :)
speaking of subtitles... Just rented a "Dirty Pair" CD adn have been watching it tonight. What is interesting is the voice over is in english, and the subtitles are in engish, but they don't match. The gist of the conversations are the same, but totally different. "Come on, Do it." Vs. "This is stupid" "Is anything wrong" Vs. "Is there a problem" Of you don't know who the Dirty Pair are, they are an anime interga;actic Trouble shooters.
Accurate subtitles are extremely rare. Since I speak German, I notice this mostly on German language films. Sure, sometimes things need to be shortened to be readable quickly enough, but I often find I can come up with much more accurate translations that aren't any longer. And I'm hardly an expert translator. I don't know *who* they get to do these things. However, I like subtitles much better than dubbing, and don't think it detracts from the experience at all. Plus it makes it easier to eat crunchy food while watching the movie.
This response has been erased.
With the capabilities inherent in the DVD medium, dubbed versus
subtitled should be an old argument (as should letterboxed versus
pan-and-scan). However, it isn't. I've recently purchased two French films
that, for some bizaare reason, cannot be played with the original French
language dialogue and soundtrack, though they can be played in English with
somewhat dubious French subtitles, and one American film that I *can* play
in French with English subtitles. It just shouldn't happen like that!
I came up one evening to find my roommates watching "Brotherhood of the Wolf" on DVD, dubbed. I nearly fainted. The idea of watching a movie NOT in the original language just seems wrong.
That's one of the ones that I bought that you *can't* watch in French.
It really pissed me off. Especially since I bought it after seeing it in the
theatre, in French, with English subtitles below the visible action.
Re #260: another requirement for subtitles is that, when spoken, the mouth movements are similar to what are the actor's mouth movements and emphases. This is attained to various levels of versimilitude, in my observation depending upon what "grade" is the movie. I find it hilarious when the subtitle is a long sentence when the actor obviously spoke just a couple of words...or vica versa. I think it takes a lot of skill and effort to synchronize these patterns of speech. This is obviously more important with dubbing as your attention is more on mouths, but also makes a difference with subtitles.
Re 264 What do you mean you CAN'T watch it in French. I have.
The DVD has no option for a French soundtrack.
Ok - I must now rush home and test mine again.
Re. 253: Hey, I can mutitask with the best of'um. In fact, I'm do so right now. I'm typing this and watching the screen AT THE SAME TIME! And listening to Duran Duran to boot. Damn, I'm good! 8-) Re. 255: Same sitch here, Twila. Except I got a 27" set 4' away. DVD's are great for pausing to read the subtitles, if necessary. Re: 257: Reminds me of Enter the Dragon. Weird hearing Chuck Norris's voice dubbed by someone else.
I find it entertaining and a good use of language skills to watch an American movie that's been dubbed into German. Also, the choice of voices is often highly entertaining--DiCaprio in Titanic, for instance, was given this whiny brown-nosing dork voice that was hysterical.
Finally saw "The Last Temptation of Christ" in its entirety.
You guys are spoilt. Anything coming from UK, France, US etc. has subtitles, overhere. Convenient for you english speaking people if from anlgosaxon counyries. (which dominate our tv stations and movie theaters) Dubbing is rightout annoying. On the other hand - if I can choose - I rahter watch movies on BBC. Like Jan says, many subtitles are awkward at best, or wrong misinterpreted etc. Mainly cause of work pressure there is no time for decent jobs, or those typist persons aren't good enough in languages.
"Spolit." Is that a slang term? ;-)
(Of course, most Dutch speak four languages anyway - a slight advantage.)
When I was in the Czech Republic in 2001 I went to see "Chocolat" subtitled in Czech. It was fun, and I think I learned a bit of Czech that way. Years ago I saw "Star Wars" dubbed into French on French TV. (The French seem to prefer dubbing to subtitling.) The voice they picked for Han Solo was high and whiny. Hysterical! Actually, I've read that subtitling is common in smaller languages/ countries, because the audience isn't big enough to justify the expense of dubbing. Thus, it's easy to find American movies dubbed into French or German, but not Czech (or Bulgarian, or Albanian, etc...) I did see "Notting Hill" subtitled in German when I was in Austria, but it was at a special theater that showed subtitled rather than dubbed movies.
Has anyone seen " The Caveman's Valentine"?
I recently saw a historical romance where a man and a woman were headed of on a trip together. Since the kids were sleeping, I had the volume turned fairly low and English subtitles turned on. The man, wondering if sex was a possibility said something along the lines of "Shall we lodge together?" The subtitle said "Shall we lunch together?" Half died laughing.
Recently saw on video, "The Fast Runner". This is a Canadian film, set among Inuit Indians, probably some time in the past (certainly there was no sign of any white men or modern technology). It apparantly won a lot of film festival awards. It's a bit hard to describe. "Really bad" might cover it for most viewers. But, on the other hand, it just might be terrific. I can't quite decide. Certainly one gets the strong sense that the film-makers have somehow never seen any Hollywood films. The actors all appear to be Inuits, none of whom approach Hollywood standards of beauty. To some degree it doesn't matter, since most of the time most of them are bundled up in furs, so you can hardly tell one character from another. The story is full of love, sex, passion, murder, magic and revenge, but it all rather drags, acted out by half-frozen people in an artic wasteland. The cinematography is handicapped by the fact that most of it is filmed outdoors in the snow, where the light is *never* right. The fight scenes are odd. In Hollywood movies, fight scenes are super choreographed. The ones in this movie look like...well, except for some obvious fake punches, like people having a fight. You ever watch two random guys have a fight? It doesn't look deadly and graceful. It looks banal and clumsy and stupid. Two guys rolling around on the ground, clutching at and hitting at each other. So, is this really bad movie making or really good movie making? The story is interleaved with lots of bits of life among the Inuit, so it feels almost like a National Geographic documentary. All this feels amazingly authentic. The equipment, the way it is used, the way people behave makes it seem like a home movie taken among real tribal Inuits a century ago. My strongest impression is that this is about the least attractive way of life imaginable. Squeemish vegetarians will not be delighted. One comes away from this film having seen many things that one has never seen before in a movie. Most of them things I could have lived without. One does not come away feeling terribly entertained, but it certainly is an interesting experience.
It was a Cannes 2001 Winner Camera d'or for Best First Feature Film. It's on my To See list. Lots of info at http://lot47.com/thefastrunner/index.html
We rented One Hour Photo this weekend. I really liked it. Robin Williams was really creepy in it and as a bonus, he was watching a MSU/Purdue game in his little fantasy. :)
American editing is much more tight. We don't see it until you see editing made up of each shot scene being spliced together. Example: We see report being dropped emphaticly on a table. Camera changes to character and he begins to speak, making his point. Hollywood editing has the character starting to talk while the report is hitting the table, then mid-sentence the camera switches to the character. A second or two shaved from the film. But when such tranisions add up, it can make a film feel choppy or slow.
This response has been erased.
Re. 280: This is the second(?) film where Williams plays a nutso character. While It's interesting to see him expanding his acting skills, I hope he doesn't give up his comedic side like Tom Hanks did.
I agree. I hope that he does both. Is the other movie you are talking about Insomniac?
Yeppers. Normally, these aren't my kind of flicks, but I'll probably rent them just to see Williams doing something different.
I thought Insomniac was ok and thought he was ok in it. He was much creepier in One Hour Photo. Insomniac is worth the watch, but I don't think as good as he was in One Hour Photo.
re #283: A matter of personal preference, I guess. I won't feel sorry if I never see another movie in which Robin Williams plays a character who's heartwarming and puckish.
I read that as One Hour Potato...
(I've not seen it, but I thought he played a nutso in The Fisher King.)
Yes, but in that film he was a heartwarming nutso..
Rented "King of Texas". Patrick Stewart and Colim Meany set aside their Star Fleet togs to do King Lear reset as a Western. I guess this is mostly a curiousity. But it's not nearly as bad as one might reasonably expect it to be. Quite watchable, really. Patrick Stewart really is a good actor, as are several of the other performers.
Oh, and the film is called "Insomnia" not "Insomniac".
oops! I almost didn't even come up with that, so thanks!
Watched a fair amount of "Ishtar" (yes, *that* bad movie) last night - didn't really watch it will attention, and the friend who bought had to leave early to avoid the snowstorm. No opinion on it yet.
Re. 291: I think you mean "Colm Meaney." I just finished watching the TV-movie remake of The Lone Ranger. I didn't recognize any of the actors but I enjoyed it. Although it took place in the old west, you could definitely see modern-day influences, like the way they talked and particularly the fighting style of Tonto which had plenty of martial arts-style moves.
I've enjoyed Robin Williams evolution as an actor. He's continued to mix up both comedy and more serious roles as his film career progresses. If you haven't seen it yet, I'd highly recommend "Robin Williams, Live on Broadway." It's fabulous!
I think Williams deserved to be nominated for an academy award for "One Hour Photo", but it was a smaller film and released earlier in the year and not the end of it, and lacked the marketing muscle of other films. But he was great in it.
Saw "Chicago" on Saturday. Ok - how badly do I want to take jazz classes now? Talk about a great show!
This response has been erased.
I still can't get over how great Richard Gere was!!! I mean, he's an ok singer, but the tapdance he did was great. And how can I forget John C. Reilly? Talk about a great actor. I can't believe that Gere didn't get an Oscar nod.
Yep, I REALLY did enjoy that movie. I went out and bought the soundtrack immediately upon leaving the theater!
Watched "Shall We Dance" over the weekend. Cute Japaneese movie. reminded me a little of Strictly Ballroom, which I love. (Which is on Bravo this week.)
This response has been erased.
Rented "The Fast Runner" (on Jan's enthusiastic recommendation in #278). We were "glued to our seats" (but were happy for video so we could pause for potty runs). It IS a movie - not a documentary - but the closeness to either earlier or remote Inuit life is well done. No "modern conveniences" are evident, except for a pot in which they boiled water or rendered fat, which may have been a snowmobile oil pan (??). We thought the cinematography was excellent - it was just that the scenery is so barren. The focus is therefore mostly on the people and their lives. It is a story of an internal feud in a remote Inuit tribe based on jealousies over both a woman and leadership. Although a murder is committed most public violence is ritualistic, with elders having enormous influence. The story and characters are a little hard to follow because of unfamiliar faces, and the langauge being Inuktitut with English subtitles. If you can't pronounce a character's name it is harder to follow their place in the story. I had read "Confessions of an Igloo Dweller" by James Houston some years ago. It would have been complementary to have seen this movie immediately after having read the book. Many of the objects of daily use described in the book were employed in the film - the ulu, igloos of course and kayaks, the tangle of the dogsleds, an angakuk, kamotiks,..... (I think there is a review of _Confessions..._ in the book cf) - as well as the social and work lives of the Inuit.
You know, Jeanne - "Strictly Ballroom" is easily one of my favorite movies. Where on earth is Paul Mercurio?
Me too Brooke. I'll be watching it again this Friday on Bravo. :)
JUNGLE BOOK 2 C+ Kids under 10 will like it well enough. It has songs and characters from the first movie and has similar story line. This resemblance to the previous Jungle Book is the selling point. However, the ordinary evaluation comes from an adult perspective. In the past I have been amazed that Disney could retell an old story and make it great. Such is not the case here, where the plot is as thin as one peril after another in the jungle. The animation is uninspired: coloration was just plain clumsy with the shadow areas of head shots looking as though faces were blemished by a creeping, irregular bruise. The direction managed to get the story told, but there were few instances of extra effort. In lparticular, the musical number W-I-I-ILD is the only part with novel POV. I paid matineee prices and did not get my money's worth. This movie is good enough to rent though.
This seems like another totally unnecessary sequel from Disney. The first time I went to a movie where the trailer for it played, people *booed* it.
Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt If you watched the '60s Batman series as a kid you'd probably get a grin off this spoof of a spoof. As in the original episodes, the storyline is thin. The original Batmobile is stolen from a charity auction and Adam West and Burt Ward-- in Batman and Robin style--follow clues left by the mysterious thief. Intermixed are flashbacks of how the show got started, problems with censors, Adam's sexual excapades, Burt's problem with the battle of his "buldge," et al. In addition to the original Dynamic Duel, Julie Newmar and Frank Gorshin make appearances as themselves. As for the flashback actors, I wasn't impressed with Jack Brewer, who played a young Adam West. He only sorta looked like him and IMO, didn't sound like him at all. Jason Marsden, who played yound Burt Ward, I thought was alright; not great, but alright. The best casting was with the young villains. I particularly liked the guy who played Burgess Meredeth (Penguin). All-in-all, a fun romp.
I'll probably take my son to see "Jungle Book 2" at the $2.50/seat Clinton Theater on Friday. I've only seen the first movie once, so even if this one is a repeat, I'll be okay.
How can anyone other than Phil Harris be Balue the Bear?
Hell, I thought the first Jungle Book movie was sacrelige.
Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood" - MacBeth, set in medieval Japan. Great B&W movie, starring (natually) Toshiro Mifune.
resp:305 I agree.. funny, romantic, and I liked the Spanish touches. Paul Mercurio? The male lead? resp:309 Oh, I missed that! I hope I can catch a re-run. resp:311 That would be "Baloo".. I wonder if it's Hindi for "bear." Sapna? Phil Harris voiced Little John for Robin Hood as well and I wouldn't be surprised if he was in other Disney films. He has such a rich, melodious baritone voice..I like John Goodman, but really, compare Phil Harris's voice to his gratey bass and well, I just don't think I could sit through this film. resp:307 hasn't Disney learned anything? I know they're capable of good work-- this must be a throwaway film. (I think a friend of mine who's studying graphic arts pointed to Lilo & Stitch as a fine example of pure cell animation.) My first cousin, once removed, Don Bluth, used to be Disney's right hand man but left the studios when animation got bad. Pete's Dragon was one of his last projects for them. "The Secret of NIMH" was his first big project and I understand he wanted to make it really good.. I think animation students may still study it. I hope he does more projects; I enjoyed "Anatasia" and "Titan A.E.".
John and I went to see "Jungle Book 2" at the cheap theater in Clinton ($2.50 per seat). It was worth that much. It was a nice enough movie, very similar to the first one. I hope there's never a "Jungle Book 3", though.
Re #314 (response pi?): That's "cel animation", not "cell". (I wonder if this term is derived from "celluloid"?)
Re #314: Bluth also did a pretty decent PC adventure game a few years back. Wish I could remember the name of it.
Since Tim has been away, this weekend was chick/foreign/any movie that Tim won't watch weekend: In the Bedroom - Ok. kinda boring, but I didn't hate it. The performances were good the but story dragged a bit. About a Boy - I loved this a movie. A little slow at times, but I really liked it. Probably my favorite Hugh Grant role. I do get tired of his roles being much the same, though. Igby Goes down - Ok. It was a little cliche, but ok. Y Tu Mama Tambien - This was an interesting little movie with lots of sex in it. Not rated. The Banger Sisters - This was a fun movie. I liked Geoffry Rush in it a lot. Bowling for Columbine - I loved this movie. It's interesting being both from Michigan and living in Colorado, since most of the movie is centered around the two states. Daughter from Danang - Documentary about "Operation Baby Lift" back during the Vietnam war where they took 2000 vietnam kids and adopted them out to American Parents. One child who came to the US when she was 7 was adopted to a single mom in a very small town in Tenessee. 22 years later, they reunited her with her birthmom in Vietnam and took her there. It was a very interesting how the cultural differences were portrayed in this movie. Pretty good.
I saw Daredevil this afternoon. I liked it. There's something about movies based on comic books. They can't possibly be expected to be realistic, and so I can dismiss that part of the movie, and just have fun watching.
Went to the movies last night with my brother and his wife. They have a two year old at home and had limited time away from the house (her parents were babysitting) and the only interesting-looking movie showing when we got to the multiplex was "The Hunted". Until they do an MST3K version, I'd recommend avoiding it unless you enjoy seeing Tommy Lee Jones outrun trains or don't find it overly implausible that a fleeing fugitive would stop running long enough to forge his own weapon from found scrap iron. I'd describe the movie as having the Grand Canyon of plot holes but, well, there's only *one* Grand Canyon. Heartily disrecommended, unless you and a group of friends are looking for something to make fun of..
This response has been erased.
The East Lansing / MSU film festival this week (Wed - Sat) will feature a guest appearance by Bruce Campbell (Evil Dead, etc.) and his very recent movie where he stars as a still-alive Elvis Presley.
Saw Daredevil with Julie myself late this afternoon myself. We were not disappointed. In retrospect, it wasn't quite as thrilling as the Spidey flick, but it was still very, very good. We noted that the reporter was the same actor that played Cipher in Matrix, and thought that Kingpin was well cast. I also thought Jennifer Garner made a smart career move with the role as Elektra.. not a stretch from her Alias job, but might get her considered for romantic roles perhaps in the future. I somehow missed, though, that Stan Lee had a cameo (I think I remember it now.. it was when Matt and Elektra were crossing the street and Matt noticed the car.) resp:316 Again, I must trust my memory.. that's right, "cel animation." resp:317 PC adventure? I was aware he had his laser disc games packaged together-- those being Space Ace, Dragon's Lair, and Dragon's Lair 2. The video games came out in the mid-80s and Bluth was quoted as saying that they were very expensive to produce at the time. It was pretty cool for back then, though, although I remember my father's non-plussed response when I babbled wildly about how neat they were: "Yes, I know all about it; he's my cousin."
cel (sel), n: a transparent celluloid sheet on which a
character, scene, etc. is drawn or painted and which
contributes one frame in the filming of an amalgamated
cartoon; may be overlapped for change of background or
foreground. Also, <b>cell.</b> [by shortening of celluloid]
I love unabridged dictionaries.
Do you feel scholarly superior now? <chuckle>
Superior? Before, it was something I suspected; now, it's something we all know. If anything, I've lost some "superiority"... but I've gained karma, and we're all a bit richer.
har.
You have several choices: