Grex Cinema Conference

Item 57: *** AT THE MOVIES ***

Entered by mary on Sun Jul 6 22:27:33 2003:

34 new of 112 responses total.


#79 of 112 by mynxcat on Thu Aug 14 17:31:38 2003:

Yup, I've watched that. I'd read the book earlier, but somehow hadn't 
made the connection. It's only when I watched the movie "Emma" that 
the parallels became much clearer.


#80 of 112 by scott on Mon Aug 18 02:57:58 2003:

"The Third Man", from the library's small-but-growing DVD collection.  Pretty
cool, although not the most interesting movie from that era I've seen.  Mostly
I wanted to be able to comment intelligently on the "Pinky & the Brain"
episode which spoofed this movie.  :)


#81 of 112 by krj on Mon Aug 18 17:50:48 2003:

Leslie and I did a double-feature Saturday, so we could stay cool while
helping DTE out by not running our air conditioning.  WHALE RIDER was
possibly even better the second time I saw it; certainly the picture and
sound were better at the Q16.    A MIGHTY WIND was funny, not as 
funny as SPINAL TAP, and very much focused on The Great Folk Scare of 
40 years ago.


#82 of 112 by scott on Tue Aug 19 15:23:37 2003:

THe Time Machine (2002):
Better than I thought it would, and at 93 minutes it was easily watchable.
I'm certainly glad they didn't try to stretch it out to 2 hours, though.

The storyline changes were actually OK, too.  Some things were hokey, others
cool - I especially liked the library computer character.  The fake tribal
pop music during the Eloi scenes just about gagged me.


#83 of 112 by anderyn on Tue Aug 19 17:02:13 2003:

We went to see the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen at the cheap theater
yesterday. It was pretty good, given that the critics had trashed it nearly
as badly as Gigli, and I was surprised that I had a good time. The storyline
was more coherent than I'd expected, and the characterizations were fun, wiht
lots of one-liners and interesting/unexpected interactions that got missed
in the reviews I'd seen (at rottentomatoes.com, I think I saw a hundred, and
maybe 20 gave it grudgingly good marks).  I would give it a six, I think. 


#84 of 112 by jaklumen on Wed Aug 20 07:00:23 2003:

Six out of what?


#85 of 112 by anderyn on Wed Aug 20 12:37:26 2003:

Out of ten.


#86 of 112 by pvn on Thu Aug 21 05:03:14 2003:

Ten what?


#87 of 112 by richard on Sat Aug 23 04:46:20 2003:

SEABISCUIT-- saw this tonight and was pretty disappointed.  The acting 
is wonderful and the cinematography on the horse racing scenes is 
awesome, but the screenplay left out a lot of what happened and took 
the edge off the three main characters and "disneyfied" them (made them 
more wholesome than they really were)  This is a case where you are 
better off reading the book than seeing the movie.  In the book, a 
great book "Seabiscuit: An American Legend" by Laura Hillenbrand, you 
see that the three main characters-- Seabiscuit's owner, trainer and 
jockey, are dark lonely figures, corrupted by life, who are each in 
their own way redeemed for their past failures in their lives by the 
success of the underdog horse they come to love.  

The movie makes the three characters all wholesome and sweet.  You see 
Seabiscuit's owner, Jeff Bridges, meeting and romancing his new young 
Mexican wife.  You aren't told that the woman is his grown son's sister 
in law.  In fact you don't even see the grown son, because the film's 
screenwriter I guess wants you to think the jockey, is the surrogate 
son.  They cleaned up the character.  And the jockey is played as young 
and wide-eyed innocent by Tobey McGuire, and yet if you read the book 
you read that the jockey was a hard edged man beaten down by life who 
looked older, a hard drinker and womanizer who looked older than fifty 
when he was thirty.  Again they cleaned up the character.

There's a key scene in the movie where the trainer, well played by 
Chris Cooper, tells the owner (Jeff Bridges) that Seabiscuit lost a big 
race because it turns out the jockey was blind in one eye and never 
told them.  And Jeff Bridges, all big hearted and sweet, says he 
doesn't care and people need to be able to overcome their handicaps, or 
something like that.  Didn't happen.  If you read the book, it clearly 
says that Seabiscuit's jockey kept the fact of his being blind in one 
eye a secret all his life, because it would have ended his career.   
Horse racing is a business and Seabiscuit's owner would have fired the 
jockey on the spot if he'd found out he was blind in one eye. 

But this is the Disneyfied version of the Seabiscuit tale, where the 
characters are wholesome and nobody keeps secrets and everybody's 
reedemable and there are no skeletons in anybody's closets.  The story 
of Seabiscuit is amazing, its a lot more real and moving than what they 
show in the movie.   Save the money on "Seabiscuit" the movie, and use 
it to buy Laura Hillenbrand's book that its based on instead.


#88 of 112 by tod on Sat Aug 23 13:11:20 2003:

This response has been erased.



#89 of 112 by rcurl on Mon Aug 25 18:03:05 2003:

OPEN RANGE - I don't think I've intentionally gone to see an oater in
a theatre in years, usually getting my fill from the box. But I will
say the lack of ad interruptions, and the vastness of the scenic panoramas,
do add to the theatre experience. Otherwise, this is a pretty standard
one of its genre, with the twist that the usual good guys are the bad guys
and vica versa. While overall I enjoyed it for what it was, I did get
the feeling that they filmed several endings and then used bits of all of
them. The female lead was also kind of wooden, but the villains were
adequately snarly and villainous. The moral I got from the tale was, always
befriend the man with the dog.


#90 of 112 by tod on Mon Aug 25 18:27:40 2003:

This response has been erased.



#91 of 112 by rcurl on Mon Aug 25 20:08:07 2003:

Something like that would fit Costner's role. 


#92 of 112 by tod on Mon Aug 25 20:20:50 2003:

This response has been erased.



#93 of 112 by mcnally on Mon Aug 25 20:46:37 2003:

  Make it a double-feature with a film where Arlond Schwarzenegger, 
  Jean-Claude Van Damme, and Stephen Seagal struggle to get in touch 
  with theirinner feelings and you'll have a truly dreadful evening..


#94 of 112 by scott on Tue Aug 26 01:45:45 2003:

Perhaps a movie where Lee Marvin kills them all?


#95 of 112 by pvn on Tue Aug 26 06:07:26 2003:

Is he still alive?


#96 of 112 by scott on Tue Aug 26 12:34:23 2003:

(blustering) Well, Lee's a pretty tough guy...


#97 of 112 by remmers on Tue Aug 26 12:44:06 2003:

Lee Marvin:  1924-1987


#98 of 112 by katie on Tue Aug 26 18:42:04 2003:

I thoroughly enjoyed "Pirates of the Caribbean." And I understood the
dialogue and the plot better the second time around.

My friend and I were the only people left in the theatre when the
(lengthy) credits finished and the movie continued on for a minute
or so.


#99 of 112 by mary on Tue Aug 26 21:57:01 2003:

I like when that happens.


#100 of 112 by rcurl on Tue Aug 26 23:00:35 2003:

I meant to mention in #88, re OPEN RANGE, that there were only five (5)
at the 9:45 p.m. showing last Saturday at Madstone. An attendant said it was
because everyone was in SEABISCUIT. I still thought it was pretty strange.


#101 of 112 by jaklumen on Wed Aug 27 04:50:06 2003:

resp:99 Me, too.  I feel rewarded for my quirk.


#102 of 112 by edina on Tue Sep 9 18:02:08 2003:

I saw "Finding Nemo" last week.  I really liked it.  Ellen DeGeneres is
hysterical.

I've also watched more rented movies than I can begin to list.  Here's ones
that stick out:

"Bowling for Columbine" - Kind of all over the place, but I loved it.

"Solaris" - The only thing remarkable about this movie was Clooney's ass. 
And I assure you, for $4, there wasn't enough of it.

"Big Eden" - Great movie about relationships.


#103 of 112 by mynxcat on Tue Sep 9 19:24:49 2003:

regarding Solaris, I paid full price to see it at the theater when it came
out. I left soon after the ass sighting, and tried to console myself on money
wasted.


#104 of 112 by remmers on Tue Sep 9 22:50:28 2003:

Being who I am, I didn't even find *that* aspect of "Solaris"
worthwhile.  The movie was a major disappointment from a director
I normally like.


#105 of 112 by scott on Tue Sep 9 23:06:09 2003:

I didn't even bother to see that version - the Russian version would be pretty
hard to top.


#106 of 112 by richard on Fri Sep 12 02:05:39 2003:

This response has been erased.



#107 of 112 by richard on Fri Sep 12 02:12:27 2003:

I got the new deluxe DVD last week of Sergio Leone's classic, "Once 
Upon A Time in America"  The best thing about the DVD, although it has 
plenty of extras, is that it has Leone's original European cut of the 
movie, which is nearly four hours long.  This is the cut that never 
showed in the U.S. The U.S. distributors thought it was too long, they 
fired Leone, and hired an outside editor to slash the movie to under 2 
1/2 hours.  In the process, the studio's editor re-arranged all the 
scenes in chronological order and removed the script's "flashback" 
basis.  This basically ruined the movie.  The uncut version would have 
won the Academy Award that year, but the cut up version screwed up the 
order of the scenes, took out key scenes, and left the whole thing a 
mess.  Leone refused to have anything to do with the version that 
played in the U.S. (this is all detailed in a terrific docuemntary on 
the second disc)  Leone was able to re-edit and release a longer 
version, over three hours, where he restored his intended sequencing.  
But even then he wasn't allowed to simply release the entire movie in 
the U.S. The European version, Leone's original version-- nearly fours--
with all scenes restored, was never released theatrically in the U.S.  
That is the version on this DVD.

The flashback sequencing is crucial to this story.  Robert DeNiro is a
jewish gangster, who is now much older and is reliving his past, and
coming to terms with his past, and the loss of his friendship with  his
est friend, played by James Woods.  It really is a great movie, one of 
the best of its genre ever in fact.  Well worth having in DVD in its
letterboxed, original form.  Has a great musical score too.






#108 of 112 by mynxcat on Fri Sep 12 13:48:23 2003:

I finally got my hands on "chalte Chalte" a typical bollywood movie. I had
heard that it was about husband-wife friction, but the  first half dealt with
the soppy romance before the couple gets married (this wouldn't be Bollywood
if it weren't for the romance and song-dance routines)

When it actually came to the married life of the couple, that really hit home.
I'm not married but living with my fiance, and I see a lot of us in that
couple. The arguments were real, the fights were the kind of fights we had.
The make-ups were like us. I think that part of the movie was well made. Then
it ended in the typical soppy Hindi-movie style. Pity.


#109 of 112 by remmers on Mon Sep 22 13:42:57 2003:

Skip "Cold Creek Manor".  Solid cast (Dennis Quaid, Sharon Stone,
Juliet Lewis, Christopher Plummer) doesn't even begin to save this
plodding, predictable, paint-by-numbers thriller.  Director Mike
Figgis has made some fine, risk-taking movies ("Leaving Las Vegas",
"Timecode"), but in this one he risks nothing except possibly his
professional reputation.  What a disappointment.


#110 of 112 by lynne on Mon Sep 22 14:35:19 2003:

Saw a sneak preview of Underworld last week.  It was a nice idea, but I was
very disappointed with the last half hour or hour of the movie--found myself
rooting against the good guy, for the bad guy.  I was glad it was a free
sneak preview and I hadn't paid actual money to see it.  Go see this only
if you have a stalkeresque relationship to Kate Beckinsale and want to spend
two hours watching her run around in formfitted leather and rubber suits
(admittedly, she looks very nice in them).
Last night I went to the campus showing of "Nowhere in Africa"--a German film
shot in Afrika, in German and Swahili with English subtitles.  I was very 
glad that they subtitled rather than dubbing--it added a great deal to listen,
for my non-German-speaking friend as well as myself.  Excellent movie.  Go
see it if you get the chance.


#111 of 112 by jaklumen on Tue Sep 23 03:25:42 2003:

I'm considering seeing "Underworld" just for the eye candy and to find 
out what had White Wolf in such a huff... but then I'm a Camarilla 
member and a music video junkie.  *shrug*  This might be the movie I 
consider a waste of my money-- who knows.

(that's if I find a babysitter)


#112 of 112 by edina on Tue Sep 23 17:55:09 2003:

I was totally rooting for the bad guy (Lucien) at the end.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: