57 new of 278 responses total.
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: