Grex Cinema Conference

Item 60: *<*<*<*<*< AT THE MOVIES >*>*>*>*>*

Entered by mary on Sun Dec 28 00:44:29 2003:

88 new of 306 responses total.


#219 of 306 by md on Tue Mar 2 12:33:21 2004:

I've seen the swastika graffiti.  There was an incident in my home town 
once: a brand-new modernistic synogogue - an architectural masterpiece, 
set in a beautiful wooded area - was covered with swastikas in the 
night.  Turned out to be a bunch of rich drunken frat boys, but I don't 
doubt the Christians of Rane's colorful imagination - whipped up to a 
vandalous frenzy by watching Mel Gibson's movie - are capable of it, 
too.

"Frequent burning of synagogues" is another matter.  I don't recall 
hearing about synagogues burning down even once in a while, much 
less "frequently."  Anyway, I'm afraid the most likely perps in any 
future such arson and vandalism, especially where I live, won't be 
fundie Christians.


#220 of 306 by remmers on Tue Mar 2 12:37:40 2004:

Re #212, #216:  Safire's column on "The Passion" can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/opinion/01SAFI.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEdi
tor
ials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fWilliam%20Safire

(Sorry about the long URL.)


#221 of 306 by rational on Tue Mar 2 12:55:03 2004:

http://url.rexroof.com/, newb


#222 of 306 by remmers on Tue Mar 2 13:19:37 2004:

http://url.rexroof.com/515


#223 of 306 by rational on Tue Mar 2 13:56:34 2004:

Thanks!


#224 of 306 by bru on Tue Mar 2 15:09:52 2004:

In 1965's historic Second Vatican Council, during the papacy of Paul VI, the
church decided that while some Jewish leaders and their followers had pressed
for the death of Jesus, "still, what happened in his passion cannot be charged
against all Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of
today." 

That was a sea change in the doctrinal interpretation of the Gospels, and the
beginning of major interfaith progress

William Safire


I don't kniow what planet Safire lives on, but my church never taught that
jews were responsible for the death of Christ.  Of course I am not Catholic,
and we were taught the pope was full of hooey.


#225 of 306 by rcurl on Tue Mar 2 16:25:11 2004:

Safire expressed more eloquently than I have my sense that this movie is a
piece of the same anti-semitic "tradition" of the classic passion plays. 
It is also an example of "religious excess" - carrying aspects of
religious mythology way too far as a means of emphasis. But here these
seeming "traditionalists" go too far. They are the ones that complain that
violence depicted in movies creates a society more tolerant of violence. 
How can they applaud this extreme excess of violence? 



#226 of 306 by albaugh on Tue Mar 2 18:37:28 2004:

> Once that button ["Jesus"] is pushed a whole bunch of people go
> into mental lock-step like zombies.

Really, rcurl, such caustic generalizations don't become you.


#227 of 306 by rcurl on Tue Mar 2 20:04:51 2004:

Well, I did feel that I had perhaps gone too far with that one. But
there is a variety of religious fanaticism that obscures peoples'
senses of proportion (is that a kinder way of saying the same thing?). 
I think Passion dips into that kind of fanaticism.


#228 of 306 by twenex on Tue Mar 2 23:58:55 2004:

"the pope [is] full of hooey". Well, someone once said that 95% of everthing
is crap, which I suppose means that (a) most of us are capable of a lot hooey;
(b) moany of us are full of hooey; (c) a small proportion of us are
responsible for a disporportionate amount of hooey. I wonder which bru agrees
with?


#229 of 306 by tod on Wed Mar 3 00:02:59 2004:

This response has been erased.



#230 of 306 by twenex on Wed Mar 3 00:12:40 2004:

If it could, the GOP would be the party *least* interested in lessening
America's dependence on foreign oil and ruining Alaska.


#231 of 306 by jmsaul on Wed Mar 3 02:29:34 2004:

Re #224:  Safire is talking about Catholic doctrine before Vatican II.  He
          lives on the same planet you do, but he's better read, apparently.


#232 of 306 by richard on Wed Mar 3 02:35:20 2004:

this is the MOVIE REVIEW item...can we move the religious discussion drift
to a new item?  what movies have you seen lately?


#233 of 306 by jmsaul on Wed Mar 3 02:38:41 2004:

Unfortunately, none.  The current crop of movies doesn't look interesting to
me.


#234 of 306 by bru on Wed Mar 3 03:08:14 2004:

I kniow what he was talking about Joe.  But I spent 8 years in a Christian
SChool during that period.  While not catholic, I did grow up in a catholic
neighborhood.  I always found the catholics reatehr demented in their
attitude, what with being able to commit sins and then go to confession and
be absolved.

But I never heard any schools or churches in our area that blamed Jews for
the death of Jesus during that period, either before or after.


#235 of 306 by aruba on Wed Mar 3 03:55:57 2004:

We saw "The Triplets of Belleville" at the Michigan Theater tonight.  It was
weird.


#236 of 306 by albaugh on Wed Mar 3 18:06:41 2004:

I didn't know that Belleville had anything interesting enough going on to make
a movie about.  Well, maybe the Strawberry Festival...  ;-)


#237 of 306 by remmers on Wed Mar 3 18:09:19 2004:

Right, the Belleville I know is *so* dull that only Michelangelo Antonioni
would consider making a movie about it.


#238 of 306 by tod on Wed Mar 3 19:58:41 2004:

This response has been erased.



#239 of 306 by aruba on Wed Mar 3 20:20:46 2004:

A passion play is a re-encatment of the Christ story.  There is a village in
southern Germany called Oberamergau, which, through some twist of fate, was
spared being hit by the plague in the 1300s.  Ever since, in thanks to God,
they enact a big huge passion play every year.  It's a big tourist
attraction, I gather.

The movie "Triplets of Belleville" doesn't specify where Belleville is, but
it's certainly on the seacoast, and it has a statue that looks like a short,
fat version of the Statue of Liberty in the harbor.  So draw your own
conclusions.


#240 of 306 by salad on Wed Mar 3 20:40:43 2004:

The airport in belleville sucks compared to the one in Trenton


#241 of 306 by twenex on Wed Mar 3 21:03:39 2004:

Passion plays originated in mediaeval times, not in the 1930s.


#242 of 306 by tpryan on Wed Mar 3 21:04:13 2004:

        Sorry have to skip over 55 responses in 3 days.


#243 of 306 by tod on Wed Mar 3 21:04:48 2004:

This response has been erased.



#244 of 306 by jmsaul on Wed Mar 3 22:19:44 2004:

(They're an older tradition than that, but Tod's right about how they were
used.)


#245 of 306 by tod on Thu Mar 4 00:37:51 2004:

This response has been erased.



#246 of 306 by jmsaul on Thu Mar 4 23:51:21 2004:

>Jews kidnapped and murdered Christian children
> in ritual sacrifice; the blood of pure Christians was needed by Jews to
> make matzoh.

This seems like a ridiculous and archaic rumor, but it's been published in
the Arab press within the past few years.  So this crap isn't dead.


#247 of 306 by twenex on Thu Mar 4 23:52:46 2004:

if there's anywhere this crap ain't dead, it's in what the (comedic ) Prince
Regent (in Blackadder) called "Jolly Arab Land".


#248 of 306 by tod on Thu Mar 4 23:53:39 2004:

This response has been erased.



#249 of 306 by richard on Fri Mar 5 03:20:21 2004:

Hey Starsky and Hutch is opening tomorrow, with Ben Stiller as Starsky and
Owen Wilson as Hutch-- TV Land is even having a Starsky and Hutch marathon
tonight. That was one of the campier tv shows of the mid/late seventies. The
movie is getting good revies, and yes, Paul Michael Glaser and David Soul--
the REAL Starsky and Hutch-- get cameos


#250 of 306 by richard on Sun Mar 7 07:11:08 2004:

Okay I finally saw The Passion of the Christ today at the multiplex
(Starsky and Hutch was sold out, so I figured what the hell)  The movie is
well made and the special effects and makeup were great.  That sure looked
like a REAL scourging to me.  Jim Caviezel also puts in an oscar-worthy
performance as Jesus-- I read that he suffered hypothermia, a dislocated
shoulder and a lung infection during filming, and after seeing the movie I
can believe it.

I am worried about what the reaction will be to this film.  The punishment
that Jesus endured and the crucifixion is so violent and so vivid and so
intense in this movie that I think some people could get worked up seeing
it to a point where they go looking to make acts of vengeance.  I guess
Mel Gibson's point in emphasizing and making as explicit as possible the
scourging and torture of Jesus was to make Christians watching it feel the
proper (in the catholic view, of which Gibson is a catholic) sense of
guilt.  But some people won't feel guilt. They'll feel anger.  This is the
sort of film that Hitler, had it been made in the thirties, could have
used to stir up support for the Holocaust.  

I am not sure therefore that it was necessary for Gibson to so explicitly
show the way Jesus was beaten.  Viewers are smart enough to get the point
without being beaten over the head with it. Did we really need to watch
Jesus violently whipped, with the flesh coming off his back in chunks, for
twenty minutes?  It was gratuitous, the sort of excess that is meant to
incite.

I'd rather have seen more flashback scenes with Jesus and the Disciples,
and more development of the other characters, like Judas and Mary
Magdalene.  I also think that both the Romans and the Jews come off
looking really badly here.  There were good Romans and good Jews, but the
sense you are given here is that the Romans were clueless thugs, and the
Jewish rabbis were conceited and arrogant.  And when you see the ground
shaking after Jesus dies, and the rabbis who pronounced judgement and the
romans who carried it out suddenly are wide eyed with the fear of God and
run terrified for cover, the sense you are given is that they are getting
what they deserved.  That they deserved vengeance.  In spite of what Jesus
repeatedly says of, "forgive them, they know not what they do", the movie
shows them in such a bad light that they are the bad guys and you want the
ground to open up and swallow them.  I heard a couple of people in the
back applaud when the black crow shows up and pecks out the eyes of the
guy on the cross next to Jesus who had been dissing him.  He was getting
his.  Vengeance not compassion.  This is the problem I have with the
movie-- instead of concentrating more on who Jesus was and what he was
teaching, this movie mostly wants to show in gory detail his beating,
torture and death in order to incite emotions.

I didn't like this movie for the same reason I don't like hard porn
movies-- they show "the act" in too much detail and for too long at the
expense of character development and story telling.  


#251 of 306 by richard on Sun Mar 7 07:31:22 2004:

Last week there was a picture in the paper of a class of kids from a local
catholic high school marching down the sidewalk in their uniforms, on a school
sponsored field trip to see the movie.  This movie was so violent, so
gratuitous, that it really should have carried an NC-17 rating.  I find it
ironic that many of the same church leaders who scream about tv and movies
being too violent, and wouldn't want their kids going to the next Friday the
13th or Nightmare on Elm Street movie, let them see this.  This was more
violent, and had more bloodshed than any movie I ever saw Jason or Freddy
Krueger in!


#252 of 306 by mary on Sun Mar 7 13:02:21 2004:

This response has been erased.



#253 of 306 by mary on Sun Mar 7 13:09:27 2004:

I suggest that those folks who are getting their panties in a bunch
over this piece of fiction should go see Judgement at Nuremberg, Shoah, or
Schindler's List.  Then we can have a real talk about religious hate
crimes depicted on film.  



#254 of 306 by jmsaul on Sun Mar 7 14:22:27 2004:

I'm not sure what point you're trying to maje, Mary.


#255 of 306 by jmsaul on Sun Mar 7 14:22:47 2004:

(Um, "make".)


#256 of 306 by jor on Sun Mar 7 14:47:33 2004:

        "This is the sort of film that Hitler, 
        had it been made in the thirties,
        could have used to stir up support 
        for the Holocaust."
 
        I appreciate Richard's remark, it helped
        me understand why some people think the
        film is anti-Semetic.



#257 of 306 by bru on Sun Mar 7 22:20:03 2004:

you could also use it to stir up anti-italian (roman) sentiments.  Or anti
Caucasian sentiments.  Take your pick.  

The same could be said about J.C. Superstar.  Or Quo Vadis.  Or the Robe.

If you want propaganda, pick a film and put your spin on it.  Eall it to the
people you want to influence, adn off you go.


#258 of 306 by twenex on Sun Mar 7 22:21:11 2004:

Roger-rabbit is anti-authority!


#259 of 306 by anderyn on Mon Mar 8 14:49:56 2004:

I agree that the whipping scene was far too much. But something that you may
have missed, Richard, in all the spectacle, was the emphasis Gibson put on
Jesus' own willingness to be  there. It was His choice.  He knew it would
happen and chose to allow it. So there's no vengeance to be taken since He
could have stopped it at any time.


#260 of 306 by twenex on Mon Mar 8 14:51:27 2004:

Stockholm syndrome.


#261 of 306 by tod on Mon Mar 8 16:10:37 2004:

This response has been erased.



#262 of 306 by novomit on Mon Mar 8 19:27:18 2004:

I wonder how many people left the theatre with tears in their eyes . . . this
was what Gibson was trying to do, right? Give everyone a sense of the
sacrifice that was made . . .


#263 of 306 by tod on Mon Mar 8 19:33:46 2004:

This response has been erased.



#264 of 306 by mcnally on Mon Mar 8 19:58:18 2004:

  re #263:  Who banned it?  From what?


#265 of 306 by novomit on Mon Mar 8 20:09:05 2004:

Yeah, you can get it online. Kinda boring, though. 


#266 of 306 by tod on Mon Mar 8 20:54:40 2004:

This response has been erased.



#267 of 306 by mary on Mon Mar 8 22:22:58 2004:

If Jesus hadn't been killed per God's plan, if he had been spared by those
Jews, would God have been disappointed that plan A didn't go as planned? I
mean, he knew from before Jesus' conception that this innocent man, his
"son", had to be brutally killed so that He could forgive mankind for
being sinful.  No brutal murder, no forgiveness.  Not the kind of god I'd
respect but that's the beauty of religion, you get to choose what works
for you.  Without God's help Jesus wouldn't have been on that cross, the
Jew's wouldn't be the fall guys, and Mel Gibson would be doing what he
does best, looking sexy. 

Religion is a hoot.




#268 of 306 by twenex on Mon Mar 8 22:33:12 2004:

Yeah, God is forgiving like that. That's why he smote Sodom and Gomorrah,
brought down the Tower of Babel, prevented people from communicating from one
another, subjected *his own Son* to (supposedly) "the greatest crime in
history"; drowned everything but one specimen of each animal (what about
plants?) and will "forgive" every sinner on judgement day by subjecting them
to eternal damnation and torture.

Maybe the "torture" envisaged will consist of being subjected to homophobic,
xenophobic, and Thatcherite rants /ad infinitum/.


#269 of 306 by bru on Tue Mar 9 03:04:17 2004:

either that or we will have to sit chained to computer terminalsreading your
posts.


#270 of 306 by twenex on Tue Mar 9 03:33:42 2004:

Or yours...

Sorry, two specimens of each animal.


#271 of 306 by aruba on Tue Mar 9 03:36:47 2004:

Indeed. :)


#272 of 306 by richard on Tue Mar 9 07:23:51 2004:

God said "thou shalt not commit adultery", and then went and impregnated a
woman to whom he was NOT married, and in fact an underage woman at that.  God
was guilty of statutory rape and adultery if you want to be technical about
it.  But He seems like a complex individual so He'd probably come up with a
perfectly plausible explanation for the hypocrisy if you asked Him  :)


#273 of 306 by fitz on Tue Mar 9 09:09:37 2004:

Mystic River  D

Sean Penn's acting deserved some sort of award, but the best acting in the
world isn't going to help a poor screen play.  Other actors acted up a storm
of fidgeting, gritting teeth, wringing hands.  I don't see how tighter
editing could have improved it.

Penn, Robbins and Bacon were boyhood friends, until the abduction of
Robbins' character by a pair of molesters rather much ends the innocence
of youth for all three.  Years later, the three are reunited by the murder
of Penn's nineteen-year old daughter.  Bacon, a detective, is the
hub between Penn and Robbins as the investigation plods along.  It's a
whodunnit:  I canna say much more.

Look for an uncredited performance by Eli Wallach.  I paid matinee prices for
this and felt royally ripped off.  Eastwood the director is now on my shit
list.  Nothing would be lost from this film by renting it.  Waiting for it
to play on TNT for free would give the view the added bonus of frequent
bathroom breaks.


#274 of 306 by fitz on Tue Mar 9 09:49:40 2004:

The Price of Milk -  B

This was a rental.  Novel character behavior makes this movie watchable. 
Eccentric behavior can be overdone and ruin a film, but you gotta love the
screen's first agoraphobic dog.  This is light, romandic comedy, filmed in
New Zealand.

After a farmer, Rob, asks Lucinda to marry him, she takes her friend's
advice to test his commitment by doing something to outrage him.  The
initial attempt merely baffles him and she doesn't feel that she has yet
put him to the test.

When she finally suceeds, it is by selling his herd of dairy cows.  The
loss puts him in a depression that Lucinda's friend would gladly take
advantage of.




#275 of 306 by twenex on Tue Mar 9 14:12:06 2004:

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Bunch of fictional 19th century
characters team up together to save the world from mystery evil force. Better
than you would expect from the premise, not as good as you would expect if
you heard it was better than you would expect.

How long can Sean Connery keep on doing this?


#276 of 306 by jor on Tue Mar 9 15:43:25 2004:

        Uncredited Eli Wallach:

        In 'The Producers' as they are auditioning
        the Hitler wanna-bes, it turns into a
        hysterical montage and one of them looks
        like a crazed Eli Wallach. I've never
        been able to verify this.



#277 of 306 by krj on Tue Mar 9 16:27:00 2004:

This reminds me that I wanted to mention that THE PRODUCERS (the original
film) will be screened at the Michigan Theater as part of their comedy
classics series, at the end of the month.  


#278 of 306 by klg on Tue Mar 9 17:41:57 2004:

re:  "#272 (richard):  God said "thou shalt not commit adultery", and 
then went and impregnated a woman to whom he was NOT married,"

Herr richard,
Does this mean that you are also opposed physicians who perform
in vitro fertilization?
auf wiedersehen


#279 of 306 by slynne on Tue Mar 9 19:17:47 2004:

I saw Hildalgo on Sunday. It wasnt as bad as the reviews made it sound. 
But I am not saying it was good either. If it werent for the eye candy, 
I would have only barely liked it. But, it was a fairly decent action 
movie that a person who really likes that genre would probably like. 
The horse was cool. The plot was...lacking. But there were lots of fun 
scenes with people being chased on horsies. There were also a few funny 
lines here and there. Granted, nothing knee slapping funny but I found 
myself chuckling now and then. 

Personally, this is one I would recommend for a video rental. Dont 
waste your money seeing it first run unless, like me, you think Viggo 
Mortensen is worth watching just all on his own for 2 hours. 



#280 of 306 by anderyn on Tue Mar 9 19:27:05 2004:

I want to see it for Viggo and the horsie. :-) I like simple action movies
and it looks like it's a good popcorn flick. That's what I hope for in the
spring, anyhow, a good popcorn flick that will be enjoyable.


#281 of 306 by tod on Tue Mar 9 19:31:28 2004:

This response has been erased.



#282 of 306 by albaugh on Tue Mar 9 23:18:12 2004:

Can anyone remember a movie where there was something like a conversation or
interview with an older black gentleman, a musician maybe, and every so often
he would say:

Can you dig it?  I knew that you could.

Searching the web indicates that John Travolta's character Tony Manero
supposedly said that in Saturday Night Fever, but that's not what I'm looking
for...


#283 of 306 by mcnally on Wed Mar 10 01:13:48 2004:

  sounds like a role Scatman Crothers would've played..


#284 of 306 by krokus on Wed Mar 10 02:16:51 2004:

I saw Hidalgo on Saturday, and really appreciated the way the that
the Native Americans were portrayed.


#285 of 306 by richard on Thu Mar 11 08:21:22 2004:

SCHINDLER'S LIST-- Steven Spielberg's holocaust masterpiece, just 
released on DVD finally and I watched it earlier this evening.  This is 
quite an emotional experience to watch, even a second or third time.  
This movie has a lot of meaning for me, because I'm half german and 
while my german grandfather served in the american army in world war 
II, I also had relatives who were in the german army at the same time. 
It is hard not to cry at times watching it.  The story of Oskar 
Schindler, a nazi aristocrat who opens a factory in Poland with the 
idea of getting rich off of slave jewish labor, and instead ends up 
saving all the jews he hires to work for him.  Wonderfully acted, with 
Liam Neeson as Schindler and Ben Kingsley as his bookkeeper.  The 
slowly developing friendship between the two of them is at the center 
of the movie.  

This is a great movie, well worth having the widescreen edition now on 
DVD as a keepsake.  The DVD has in the bonus section testimonies from 
Holocaust survivors, many of which are as moving if not more so than 
the movie itself.  These testimonies are part of the Shoah project.  
Steven Spielberg gave all of his profits from the movie and many 
millions more than that, to personally help fund the Shoah project 
which was formed to record the testimonies of as many Holocaust 
survivors as possible.

I'm not sure if it was some sort of weird coincidence or not that this 
movie came out on DVD right when "The Passion of the Christ" was 
released.  Who knows.  But I personally think that everyone should 
see "Schindler's List".  It is a DVD worth being part of anyone's 
collection  


#286 of 306 by richard on Thu Mar 11 08:29:23 2004:

Note-- as I typed that, I'm still watching survivors testimony in the bonus
section of the dvd.  this is pretty overwhelming stuff.  one of these days
I hope to buy the Shoah dvd set, which is also out (just a bit overpriced in
my opinion)  


#287 of 306 by tod on Thu Mar 11 15:59:21 2004:

This response has been erased.



#288 of 306 by krj on Sat Mar 13 04:50:35 2004:

resp:235, resp:239 :: Belleville's an odd town, isn't it?  Clearly a 
lot of New York in it, and the signs are in English, but the gangsters
drive modified Citroens...
 
TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE we found absolutely delightful, but it's not
going to be for everyone.  There is almost no dialog in it, and there's 
a lot of almost-surrealism.  It's (mostly) old fashioned, hand drawn 
animation, mostly produced in Canada and France, with some BBC help, and
there were some other countries there in the credits.  Not as much of 
a musical as I thought it would be; to talk about what the movie is really
about might spoil half the fun of trying to figure out where the story 
is going.
 
The characterization of the dog, Bruno, is one of the best animated 
animals ever.


#289 of 306 by salad on Sat Mar 13 04:55:44 2004:

!useruseruser
a

^K!useruseruser
b

^L!useruseruser
c

!useruseruser
d


#290 of 306 by rational on Sat Mar 13 04:55:59 2004:

WHOA!


#291 of 306 by salad on Sat Mar 13 05:03:19 2004:

Wow!  That didn't turn out good.


#292 of 306 by krj on Sat Mar 13 05:43:20 2004:

I suppose it should be mentioned, as TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE is an 
animated film:  it's not a movie for small children.  There are a 
few scenes which some might deem unsuitable for kids, but more 
to the point -- I don't think children under the age of 12 or so
would follow the story.


#293 of 306 by slynne on Sun Mar 14 04:40:47 2004:

I really liked Triplets of Belleville. I loved the dog's dreams the 
best. I especially liked the one with the train going around the rim of 
the food bowl :) I also liked that the French Mafia's slogan was "In 
Vino Veritas" I think that is going to be my slogan :)


#294 of 306 by krj on Sun Mar 14 15:47:54 2004:

Leslie pointed out that the dog dreams in black and white, as dogs'
vision only works in black and white.  At least, we think we know that.


#295 of 306 by tod on Sun Mar 14 16:53:02 2004:

This response has been erased.



#296 of 306 by fitz on Tue Mar 16 17:20:02 2004:

Dogs dream in Smell-o-vision:  They're dogs, for goodness sakes.


#297 of 306 by edina on Wed Mar 17 14:35:23 2004:

"STarsky and Hutch" was a great popcorn movie.  We had a great time at it.
"Starsky's bored now!!  Starsky's bored now!!"


#298 of 306 by styles on Sat Mar 20 03:57:23 2004:

dawn of the dead.  see it.


#299 of 306 by krokus on Sat Mar 20 20:50:05 2004:

I must agree with Anthony.  The current Dawn of the Dead is worth
seeing, even at normal prices.


#300 of 306 by furs on Mon Mar 22 12:42:08 2004:

I agree!  It's incredible.  The humor, the gore, the filiming.  Awesome.


#301 of 306 by remmers on Mon Mar 22 13:41:56 2004:

Interesting.  I'd dismissed "Dawn of the Dead" as Yet Another Unnecessary
Remake, but it's been getting some good reviews and endorsement here from
people who have seen it.  Maybe I'll catch it sometime.


#302 of 306 by tod on Mon Mar 22 17:36:29 2004:

This response has been erased.



#303 of 306 by jvmv on Fri Jun 25 06:29:45 2004:

     re #285 Schindler's list

     "This film is very empty, for not only does it
     portray the germans as 'evil, lop-sided,
     devil workshippers' but it shows the jew as
     being 'promising, alluring, good guys'. If one
     it to question morality, then do so, but don't
     give us the black vc white issue found in this
     film. Spielberg, immature since day one as
     director, tell us what to think, he strips away
     our humanity by overdosing us on excessive
     amonts of guilt and sentimentality. In effect,
     the film lacks any moral basis except to
     denounce all evil men and with that, we learn
     absolutely nothing"



#304 of 306 by klg on Fri Jun 25 11:01:09 2004:

Bunk.


#305 of 306 by jvmv on Sat Jun 26 06:44:39 2004:

     My critic serves as reflection.
     Bunk is to sleep.



#306 of 306 by tod on Tue Sep 14 19:03:22 2004:

Ben Kingsley was brilliant.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: