93 new of 278 responses total.
Oh my God, They killed 005! You bastards!
In support of the assumed name theory: Last night I saw _Tomorrow Never Dies_; in it, 007 uses the name "James Bond" *as* his cover name. The newspaper mugul has a background check run on the Bond name, and gets back "Banker, squeaky clean". (From which the henchman concludes "government agent" on the theory of "too good to be true".)
Banker?? Whatever happened to "Universal Exports"?
I was definitely LMAO watching Shrek 2. It's not just for kids. In fact, perhaps it's not even *for* kids! :-)
I plan on seeing "Day After Tomorrow". It's a big summer disaster movie. I don't go to those because I want scientific accuracy or a thought-provoking plot. I go because I want to see lots of stuff getting destroyed. ;>
Yeah, I like to see the world being destroyed as well as the next guy, but "Day After..." was a one-trick pony. The characters were boringly underdeveloped, the science was insultingly stupid, but the biggest flaw of all is the lack of humor. I mean, dead serious. Big mistake. BIG MISTAKE. Skip this one. Rent "Men is Black".
Where??
We enjoyed "Shrek 2". It was full of parody, sight gags, and well -- I fell in love with "Puss in Boots". Antonio Banderas really must have been a cat in a previous life! It is definitely a movie to go to if you just want to have a good time.
I saw Starsky & Hutch at the dollar theater and I loved it. I was a fan
of the series and it was a real kick to see these guys again, even if it
wasn't the original actors. They did a good job, especially Stiller
(Starsky). And while I'm not a Snoop Dog fan, I did like him in the
role of Huggy Bear ("Nobody touches the Bear!"). And of course I loved
seeing that red and white Torino again. And lots of (to me) great 70's
tunes.
One noticeable difference was how they protrayed the basic character of
S&H: In the series, Hutch was the neat, orderly, semi-rule-follower
kinda guy and Starsky the do-what-it-takes-to-get-the-job-done, sloppy
(except for his car) kinda guy. Just the opposite in the movie, which
was rather strange.
Unlike the series, they didn't try to play the movie for being totally
serious. This was just a fun flick to watch.
Agreed with Twila on SHREK 2; Puss in Boots steals the movie. Can there be a spinoff? :)
Yeah - Puss in Boots in Mexico ;-) In other news, just on principle, not *another* "legend of King Arthur" remake / variant!!!
:-0
I saw the posters for that king arthur remake. It looks like a feminist version where arthur and lancelot are wimps and lady guenevire is the warrior I'll still take Excalibur, which I have on DVD somewhere
Re: #198. king arthur ... looks like a feminist version where arthur and lancelot are wimps and lady guenevire is the warrior Snicker.
That is because I have heard they are both supposed to be Sarmatians, not Celtic. Sarmatians from Iran are supposed to have had warrior women as well as men.
Sarmatians? rotfl. Please let me know if it gets any more laughable.
Well, they are Sarmatians in the novelization. Yeah. (Though at least they are still doing the Romano-Britain thing, I believe. I *may* go see it.) I hate hate hate Excalibur. What fecking person would have Arthur's mother doing a belly-dance?! And then the sex in full plate armor? Sheah. That lost me right there. Stupid Borman. Stupid movie. Stupid stupid. The only good parts were in the very middle when Arthur was fighting King Lot. (I am a fan of King Arthur. I have about as many versions of it as could be imagined. I get very testy when people mess with it.)
ooooH don't get testy!!!
I see there's yet /another/ King Arthur movie coming out this Summer.
Yes - Clive Owen as Arthur and Keira Knightly as Guinevere. I'm looking forward to it.
Went to see Harry Potter yesterday with some friends. I wish I had a glowing review like I did for the last two movies, but this one I was a bit dissapointed. Yes, there was plenty of action and drama, but this was a much darker chapter. Right from the get-go, there was nothing happy about this film. I understand that the book is very close to the movie (or vice-versa) so I guess it's supposed to be that way. But even the ending didn't have that "feel good" quality that embodied the other flicks. However, I still reccomend it for viewing and I'll certainly be adding it to my DVD collection when it comes out. I've heard that this will be the last Potter movie. If that true, I'll be sorry to see it go. On the other hand, if the remaining novels are as dark as Prisinor..., I won't mind it too much.
It isn't the last movie, they started filming the next one 4 weeks ago. same cast.
SHREK 2 held up well on a second viewing; lots more little details to pick up on now that I know the ending, plus a host of additional comic bits stuffed into every frame. For one not-much-of-a-spoiler example: after picking up the "Medieval Meal" at the drive-through, Prince Charming is fidgeting with a cardboard crown like the ones Burger King used to give away to kids. Puss in Boots and the Fairy Godmother are just amazing to watch, in terms of character detail. The Fairy Godmother might be the most realistic animated human I've ever seen -- except, of course, that she flies around. The Bichon Frise (white puppy), on the other hand, is very crude in its animation, much more so than any other character. There has to be a reason for this, but I can't figure out what it is! I think I'm going to see this another couple of times in first-run. Last time I did that was with GHOSTBUSTERS 20 years ago.
Re 206 The latest HP very much is like the book. The whole point is that there isn't a happy ending and it's at this point that things start getting "complicated".
re #208: My reaction to Shrek 2 was certainly not as enthusiastic as Ken's. Having seen it over the weekend I can't imagine wanting to see it multiple times in the theater. It wasn't horrible but even with decidedly modest expectations I found it didn't really live up to them. Most grating at all, at least to me, was the film's use of music. The original Shrek wasn't a subtle film either, but the person who picked the music seemed to know how to enhance a scene with the right musical choice (for example the scene which uses John Cale's cover of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah") I couldn't find a single scene in Shrek 2 that benefitted from the accompanying music, and some of the musical choices were cringe-inducing -- the big "Livin' la Vida Loca" musical number at the end and the action scene inexplicably set to a decidedly inferior cover of the Buzzcock's classic "Ever Fallen in Love" both spring to mind. As for the jokes, I will admit that they piled in a *lot* of pop culture references, many of which I probably missed. The ones I had time to notice, however, didn't seem particularly insightful or amusing to me, they just seemed to be there with no real point to them. "Oh look, it's another 'Matrix' reference, or is it supposed to be a reference to Shrek 1's bullet-time gag?" or "Wow. 'Sir Justin' looks just like Justin Timberlake. How hilarious.. <yawn>" But don't let me suck all the joy out of it for any of the rest of you. More than likely you'll have a good time; I seem to be in a distinct minority of people who didn't think it was particularly good.
One problem seems to be you know too much about current pop music.
re #202-- Twila, what was wrong with Arthur's mother being a bellydancer in Excalibur. The scene is a flashback, showing Arthur's mother when Arthur was conceived, when she was young and desireable. Why is it necessary that Arthur's mother have come from high society? If Arthur's mother was a commoner, in these dark ages, and was good looking, she may well have made money the ways in which good looking women made money in those days. Let us not confuse modern times with the dark ages. I think Boorman did not want to look at the probable past of Arthur's family with rose colored glasses and it was commendable Did you also disapprove of the incest between arthur and morgaine, that produces mordred? Other legends have Mordred the son of Lot. I guess it was a bit revisionist but I still liked it
Richard - it's you who's confusing modern times with the dark ages. Nobility married nobility then, no exceptions. If Arthur *was* the son of a common woman, the only way he would have been able to gain the throne would have been to hide his origins, otherwise he would have been excluded on the principle of being a bastard. Mediaeval aristocracy marrying commoners is a fiction which suits the romanticism of our age, which isn't at all like the brutal times they lived in.
For a realistic idea of how the well-born treated the low-born, see the prima nocte scenes in Braveheart.
This response has been erased.
mcnally, who knows if Shrek 2 is a good film or not. But it was certainly enjoyable - at least for most people - and the fact that you didn't derive must enjoyment from it won't wreck it for other people, believe me. I mean, c'mon, giant cookie named "Mongo" - that's as good as it gets! :-)
"Why can't we all just, get along?"
Point.
It'd be pretty dull if this was the "everyone agrees about the movies" item. I'm just presenting a contrasting view on "Shrek 2".
Re #213:
What about that bit where Arthur pulls the sword out of the rock while
no one else could?
This response has been erased.
Yep - and the device of having Arthur pull the Sword out the Stone is probably simply a mythical or fictional one to get around #213.
This response has been erased.
Richard: re212: Hmmm. Guess my suspension of disbelief is way lower than yours about belly-dancers in England. In 500 or thereabouts. Nope. Sorry, I don't think the Celts were really into belly-dancing in Middle Eastern costumes. And Igraine was definitely a Queen. So nope. Again, I'm not buying it. And I still hate the "rape" by Uther while in full plate. Dumb dumb dumb. I am a full Sir Thomas Malory Le Mort d'Arthur canon-fiend (or, if pressed, I'd go with Giraldus or the Welsh Triads, all of which have some pretty definitive Arthurian material), but Borman just doesn't cut it. (Neither does Marion Zimmer Bradley's uber-feminist Mists of Avalon, to be fair.) I admit that the real (if there was a real true person who was Arthur) would have been probably a Romano-British war leader, but I happen to go with the full mythological Malory figure for my Arthur. About the music in "Shrek 2" -- it didn't seem obtrusive during the movie, to the point that I'm still not sure where most of the music on the soundtrack album was actually used (I know where maybe 5 songs were in the movie, "Accidentally in Love" at the beginning, "Funkytown" and the Tom Waits song, and of course both fairy godmother numbers and "Livin' La Vida Loca"...). I bought the album because I wanted to get the version of "La Vida" (I'm a sucker for Puss and Donkey, what can I say? I want to get boots for my cat!) but I like more than threequarters of it quite a bit. I particularly like the Pete Yorn song, after the Fairy Godmother's version of "Holding Out..." and the Counting Crows song. I was particularly shocked to find myself actually semi-enjoying the Tom Waits song, since I don't like Tom Waits's voice at all, and I don't do black depressive songs.
Re resp:206: I liked it for the same reason you disliked it. It didn't
try to be chipper. It was sort of the "Emperor Strikes Back" of Harry
Potter movies.
I haven't read any of the books except the first one, but my friend who
has tells me the dark tone is consistent with the book. He also warns
me that the next one is even darker.
Re resp:208: I still found the computer-animated humans a little creepy
at first, but after the first few minutes of the film I didn't notice
anymore.
Re resp:224: Careful. Tom Waits is an acquired taste, and if you manage
to acquire it you may find yourself hooked. ;> I first encountered his
music on the _12 Monkeys_ soundtrack. ("Earth Died Screaming", another
cheerful party song.)
re #224: > I particularly like the Pete Yorn song.. Ouch.. The Buzzcocks' original of "Ever Fallen in Love" is a pop music masterpiece -- a bouncy, high energy two-minute gem that was an almost perfect blend of punk and power pop. Yorn's cover version, used on the soundtrack, might well be the best track in the movie, and it's also better (in my opinion) than anything on his breakthrough album "musicforthemorningafter" but it's just so.. lacking.. compared to the original.. I'm really trying NOT to be a pop culture snob but it's distressing (in a small way) to think that there are people whose only experience with the song will cause them to remember it as "the Pete Yorn song from Shrek 2" Even if you enjoy Yorn's version of the song, however, it's not a very good choice for the scene it accompanies in the movie (which [mild spoiler] is a chase scene in the potion works.) There are plenty of movies which feature music I don't like which nevertheless manage to use their music more effectively than I thought "Shrek 2" did and which didn't leave me with a feeling of jarring disconnect between what was happening on-screen and in the story with what I was hearing in the music.. > I was particularly shocked to find myself actually semi-enjoying the > Tom Waits song, since I don't like Tom Waits's voice at all, and I don't > do black depressive songs. If you don't do bleak, downbeat songs I doubt that you're in any danger of winding up a Tom Waits fan, as warned in #225, but even singing his own songs I find Waits' voice works very well for some songs, not well for others. If you develop an interest in hearing more of Waits' work I recommend the album "Rain Dogs" as the best starting place.
I just saw "Shrek 2", and while I agree the songs were slightly excessive, overally it was a very funny movie.
Agreed that his voice works well for some songs and not others. I'm sure there's disagreement about which ones, too. For example, I like his version of "Downtown Train" a lot better than Rod Stewart's, but I'm sure there are many people who feel otherwise.
Now there's another depressing thought, though you're undoubtedly right. I have a visceral dislike of Rod Stewart which no doubt colors my opinion on this issue..
Re. 225: I didn't "dislike" it. I was just dissapointed that it didn't match the spirit of the first two. I'm glad that ther'll be another film and I'll certainly be there opening weekend to see it.
Film 4 is due out in 2005, film 5 is scheduled to be out in 2007. That will take it out to the current book.
Hi, Glenda!
Re. 231: Any idea why not 2006?
Probably due to special effects?
Doubtful, considering how many FX were in the last two films.
My guess would be to avoid a 3-year gap between film 5 and film 6 (assuming there ever is a film 6.) The spacing between the books has been growing greater and greater and the films take at least a year of work to produce *after* the book has been finished. Keeping the series relatively evenly spaced-out is probably somewhat important to the producers.
Some of the extra time is so that the kids can actually spend some time at real schools. I just read an article about the actor that plays Malfoy. He said that he is putting college off for a year to finish filming #4. There was a gap between 3 & 4 so that one of them could catch up on school work. It has to be hard working around school and labor issues with kids of this age on projects this big.
This response has been erased.
Saw Shrek2. Okay, Love Potion No. IX. I got it. Also saw Harry Potter. I wanna ride on the Magic Bus. Saw "Saved" earlier tonight. A bit of commentary on "Christian Life".
I would like to report that "The Day After Tomorrow" is the best movie I ever saw in Sedalia, Missouri.
I'm guessing it's also the ONLY movie you've ever seen in Sedalia, Missouri?
Saw "Harry Potter and Prisoner of Azkiban"-- my feeling is that the movie is too rushed, and certain details are sacrificed as a result. I know the studio didn't want a three hour+ movie, but the books are so detailed that you can't do them justice without enough time. It was still a good movie but I wanted it to be more than it was. I shudder to think that they might try to bring "Goblet of Fire" in at 2 hrs. and 25 mins or less
I also saw "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" this weekend and agree with Richard's criticism. Even at 2 1/2 hours it was rushed to the point where substantial story cuts had to be made, eliminating crucial exposition and obfuscating character motivations. Discussing the movie afterwards with Cathy it was clear to both of us that the problem is only going to get worse as the series progresses. If you look at the books next to each other on the shelf each book is noticably thicker than the volume that precedes it and the last couple of books have taken a huge leap over the first three. This can't help but be a problem for filmmakers trying to continue the series. I thought that the new look for the series was interesting. A much, much larger portion of this movie takes place outside Hogwarts' castle, much of it in the outdoors. The protagonists wear "muggle" clothes throughout all but a small part of the movie. The lesser characters have largely slipped away into the margins; they get very little screen time and do almost nothing to further the story. And of course the new Dumbledore sucks, but what are you going to do when your original actor dies?
Took the boys to see Garfield. Not great. Good clean family fun, I guess. This screen version of eats, but he doesn't, can't, ... well, you'll just have to see the film to understand what I'm hinting at. :-)
Didn't even know there was a Garfield film. Thanks for the warning.
They should have gotten Gandalf to stand in for Dumbledore.
Re #241: No, I've actually seen two movies in Sedalia, Missouri. "Day After Tomorrow" recently, and "Forces of Nature" a few years ago. Didn't think either was particularly good, but "Day After Tomorrow" was marginally better.
This response has been erased.
They've got to be concerned in Redondo Beach - they are onlly 59 feet above MSL.
This response has been erased.
Mike in resp:242 :: in press stories around the time of the first Harry Potter movie, director/series producer Chris Columbus was saying that the fourth book would have to be split into two films. But I have not heard anything to indicate that this realization is affecting the current filming of Potter #4.
Are the King and Queen of Spain financing the next one?
Re resp:250: I thought it was pretty funny when the reporter got smacked by the billboard.
THE TERMINAL-- New Steven Spielberg/Tom Hanks movie about a tourist from a small eastern european country who arrives at JFK airport in New York, and finds out that while he was in the air, there was a coup d'etat in his country. Since his government has been overthrown, his passport and his visa are invalidated and he is not allowed to enter the U.S. He is also not allowed to leave the U.S. for the same reasons. He is stuck in limbo. This is like Tom Hanks' "Survivor" movie, except instead of being stranded on a desert island, he is stranded in a big airport with no money (he can't exchange his currency since his government was overthrown), no friends and little command of english. We follow Hanks, as this eastern european tourist, around as he tries to eat, sleep and survive in a hostile, foreign environment where the authorities tell him that he "doesn't count", that he has fallen into diplomatic limbo and is expected to just disappear into the airport crowds. The story sounds preposterous, to get stuck in an airport for more than a year, but it is in fact based on a true story. There really was/maybe still is a guy who got stuck in such limbo at DeGaulle airport in Paris and ended up living there. The story is true, they just changed the location to New York. The movie is a bit long. A 2 1/2 hour movie where the entire movie takes place in a busy airport can get tedious. JFK airport, where this takes place, is my home airport and I've had my share of travel issues there over the years. But anyone who has ever had to spend a night in an airport due to missed flights, bad weather or airline snafus, will be able to identify with this movie. Hanks and Catherine Zeta Jones, who plays this stewardess who keeps coming through the airport off of flights and befriends him, and Stanley Tucci as the head of airport security, are all terrrific. The movie is I think about the natural desire we all have to have identity and be acknowledged, and the fear you can have of finding yourself becoming irrelevant and disappearing into the system and wondering if anybody cares. The ending is particularly poignant, which I won't give away except to say Hanks's character has come to America to finish something his late father started. Because by doing so, he can have closure and feel like he has somehow expressed the importance of his father's life, that he was alive, that he was somebody. The irony is that in the course of doing this, he has seemed to lose his own identity, lose his country, his passport, his money. This is a Spielberg film though, so you know it has a happy ending. Spielberg would never leave one of his characters trapped at JFK airport forever! Good movie, as long as you don't hate airports.
Note, the Tom Hanks "Survivor" movie I was comparing "The Terminal" to, was of course "Cast Away" Of which there are a lot of parallells, as anybody trapped in a foreign airport where they don't know the language and have no money, might well feel like they may as well be on a desert island
SAVED My friend Kate wanted to see a movie this weekend. I let her choose because there arent any movies out there that I feel I just *have* to see. She chose "Saved". I hadnt even heard of it so I did a quick search on the internet. When I first read a plot synopsis I wasnt sure this would be a very good movie. I heard that it was about high school students at a Christian high school. One of them got pregnant . I figured it would be some weird drama about teen pregnancy in what I often view as the rigid world of fundamental Christianity. My little web search turned up two other tidbits about this movie. One was that it starred Macaulay Culkin which made me even more worried about how this film would turn out. I wasnt really sure how well he would be as an adult actor. The second thing I learned was that this movie was produced by Michael Stipe. I have long been a fan of Michael Stipe's and I have listened to interviews with him on the subject of religion. I also know that he is from the south which is a place often referred to as "The Bible Belt" by us yankees in our more rude moments. This had me curious. Maybe this wasnt the Christian melodrama I was expecting. It turned out to be quite different from my expectations. In a general way, while there were aspects of the dramatic and I found myself crying a couple of times, it was mostly a comedy. And quite a good one at least from my point of view which is one of an outsider peering into the world of fundamental christianity with it's christian rock groups and clean cut kids and "Jesus loves You" bumper stickers. I was also pretty impressed with the way it used satire to explore some of the more fundamental Christian values such as forgiveness, tolerence, kindness, etc. In a strange way, it was almost a modern film adaptation of that familiar bible story, The Good Samaritan. Macaulay Culkin, btw, seems to have come into this own as an actor. The rest of the cast was pretty good too. All in all, I was pleasantly surprised and probably will let Kate pick the movie again ;)
I enjoyed the "I'm more Saved than you competition". A great line--after Mary had a Bible thrown at her by the cheif bitch, she turns around, picks it up and says "This is not a weapon".
1. Terminal is not a "true story." It is loosely (very loosely) based upon an actual occurance. 2. Stanley Tucci is not "the head of airport security." He is in the process of being promoted to chief of the INS bureau at the airport. 3. It is not a good movie. It is a fair (very fair) movie. If you miss seeing it, don't be disappointed.
You're loosely (very loosely) based on an actual person.
re: Saved...I want to see that because the movie's producer is REM's Michael Stipe. He's got a pretty good second career going, he also prodeuced Being John Malkovich, which I really liked
This response has been erased.
The original Stepford Wives is very creepy. I am getting that this remake isnt so much. I might have to see it but I think I'll wait until it is out on DVD.
This response has been erased.
I went and saw Dodge Ball this weekend, which was one of the funniest movies I've seen in a while. There are a lot of details they added it, which just added to more fun. I can't remember laughing out loud so much in a movie.
This response has been erased.
Is Ben Stiller a director? Well, then I'm Hitchcock.
What happened to Ben? He used to be funny.
"He should go to the Derek Zoolander school for
kids that can't read scripts good".
Ben has great performance as actor. That's all.
If you like zoolander, you'll love dodge ball. Humor is similar.
Zoolander is one Ben's worst films.
He got into trouble trying to do two things
at the same time: director & actor.
Ben is a great actor but a terrible director.
This response has been erased.
No way. It doesn't make sense tod. Why would I be
offended? I am not pretty heheh. I like comedies a lot.
Moreover, I like Ben's work. He has a characteristic
humor.
But I have critical sense and I think Ben gave director
all his attention. That's, he couldn't work that much.
This response has been erased.
His performance could be better.
Ben's best performances are with common stories.
Zoolander, filmed in NY and LA, Ben directs, writes
producers this movie. What did he prove with that?
He proved that he doesn't have talent to be director,
writer and producer at the same time.
A good idea isn't ehough, it's necessary talent.
Honestly, he went TOO far.
This response has been erased.
Compared to films previous of him.
Well, I know the difference between novella and
comedy. My critic is only related to Ben's work
as director.
And, how I said before, what harmed his performance
was the desire to do a lot of things at the
same time.
This response has been erased.
It's no wonder that meybe another rewrite 'from the
truth' was needed.
The fact is Ben would be better off this way when he
plays mild-mannered characters who get into hilarious
trouble like 'Meet the parents'.
This film is amusing, but not quite funny enough, for
the most part there are a few laughable moments here &
there.
This response has been erased.
*This film is amusing...I mean t Zoolander :(
You have several choices: