317 new of 323 responses total.
I havent ever heard anyone accuse Michael Moore of being fair or balanced. Even Michael Moore admits that he has an agenda with his films. Still, I like his sense of humor and I expect that I will like this film as much as I have liked his other ones. And hey, once in a while, he opens my eyes to something. Like that Marilyn Manson interview in Bowling for Columbine. Interesting that the creepy rock star with the terrible lyrics seemed to actually be a nice guy with a brain in his head. Well wht do you know! And what Marilyn Manson said about not talking to kids but listening to them has kind of stuck with me. *shrug*
I am tempted to go to the Mich to see it tomorrow
when it opens. I only go to see first run films
about once per century.
This response has been erased.
Haha. I am kind of thinking that I might try to catch a morning show at Showcase tomorrow but I dont think I am going to have time. GRRRR
re #5. I'm sorry, you are wrong. That would be iggy.
This movie is, of course, a despicable work of propaganda and trickery. But we are interested in learning whether the "we're under attack" quote is, in fact, true. If so, (1) how is that known if it was whispered and (2) was the the entire extent of the interchange between the President and his aide?
resp:5 richard isnt one for checking facts. Moore may have attended UM- Flint but he never graduated. Next you are going to tell us about all of Moore's great work in Michigan getting rid of the death penalty here. ;) hahahaha. (remember that one, richard?)
resp:12 I am sure that if anyone was slandered, they wont hesitate to take legal action.
Why? And in this context, what constitutes "slander?"
Well I figure that if Moore told any actual *lies* in his movie, he will be sued. I imagine that he didnt. Which isnt to say that I expect the movie to be unbiased. But having a bias is different from telling untruths.
I read or heard somewhere, recently, Bushie was
acting nonchalant on purpose. c/b spin control in
respnse to MM's film.
IHB tod started a new item for 9/11 discussion.
Bush may be, but the talking points still involve villifying Moore in whatever ways possible.
There is a difference between telling a one-sided story and telling lies. Most critical commentary is one-sided. Take Jonathan Swift, for example, who excoriated hypocracy and stupidity. That was one-sided, but not lying. Does Moore lie? Very little, as far as I can tell - at least that is not what he is criticized for. He is criticized for telling one-sided stories. Well, OK then: let his critics tell the *whole* stories, but not of course omitting what Moore highlights or they will be equally one-sided.
Mr. Moore is, for example, legendary for using trick editing to convey false impressions to his audience. He uses the camera to lie for him.
Examples?
The trickery involved with Charleton Heston's speech the the NRA, for one. A second example is "showing" the ease with which a bank depositor could obtain a gun as a premium, when, in fact, in his case it was all pre-arranged.
Don't be silly, Rane. klg has solid opinions about the content and presentation of this movie, and despite the fact that he'll probably never see this movie, he'll defend his opinions of it to the death.
Heston said what was shown that he said. No words were put in his mouth. What "trickery"? And are you denying that the bank offered a gun as a premium? I looked at http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank. htm where the "staging" of the scene is described. Of course it had to be "staged" to be filmed. But the fact remains: the bank was offering a gun as a premium. Most people consider that weird on its own. Toasters, sure: but, guns?
re #6: >> for the most part I think he's a master of cheap shots, duplicitous >> juxtapositions, and the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy. [/b] > > > Don't make such accusations unless you can back them up with specifics. > Its easy to say those things when you don't agree with his political > views, but unfair unless you can back it up. Is there anyone here who has given serious thought to Moore's work (which obviously excuses Richard) who doesn't think these are fair criticisms? They don't mean that Moore's work isn't entertaining or interesting, but let's not confuse entertaining or interesting with honest. One must keep in mind when reading Moore's writings or watching his films that Moore is an untrustworthy narrator. Richard doesn't seem to be able to separate the idea of criticism of Michael Moore's argumentative style from criticism of Moore's political positions. I suspect he would therefore be shocked to find out that I agree (at least partly) with Moore's positions on a number of issues. I'm not willing, though, to check my skepticism and critical thinking skills at the door when listening to someone, even when I agree with much of what they're saying. I simply don't appreciate being conned, even (or perhaps especially) when the con artist is telling me the things I want to hear. > He is not making any pretense of being unbiased, and he doesn't > have to. Reporters reading the news have to be unbiased. > Columnist and documentarians do not. Moore's tactics aren't any worse > than what Robert Novak and Bill O'Reilly do in their columns. Is that really the standard to which we aspire: no more intellectually dishonest than Bill O'Reilly? Perhaps democracy really *is* doomed.
RE #13..slynne, I don't recall any item where Michael Moore's views on the death penalty in michigan were discussed, at least by me. You must be confused. re: mcnally, okay I see your problems are with his style. Moore has an in your face take no prisoners style and he has been accused of not being tactful. there were people who thought he ambushed poor charlton heston and didn't like it. But it didn't change the words that came out of Heston's mouth did it? It is whether the means justify the ends, when it comes to Moore's tactics. I believe that what he is telling is truth, in a way that few others have the guts to tell it these days, and questionable tactics aside, that should be admired. btw, at the theater, every single showing all day long in all three theaters in the multiplex that had it were sold out all day long yesterday and today in advance. this movie should break all the records for highest grossing documentary. Makes you wonder if Disney regrets refusing to release it. Moore gets in his shot there too. In the movie, he goes into the various corporations that Saudis are heavily invested in, and pointedly mentions Disney as being one them.
resp:27 I was just teasing you about that one time when you went on a rant about how no one in Michigan seemed to be doing anything to abolish the death penalty. That was years ago but it stuck in my mind because it was soooooo funny ;)
Re resp:4: I consider him more like Rush Limbaugh than Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter is her own special brand of harshness -- she thinks anyone who disagrees with her is guilty of treason. Reading her work you get the impression she wants to see all liberals locked up behind razor wire. Moore, like Limbaugh, is selective and one-sided, plays fast and loose with the facts, and is an entertainer, not a journalist. Moore, unlikely Limbaugh, is actually funny. (Limbaugh used to be funnier, before he started taking himself so seriously, though.) Of course, Limbaugh's audience and media exposure is exponentially larger than Moore's, too. Re resp:25: The Ford dealership in Houghton used to run a promo where if you bought an F-150, you got entered in a drawing to win a .30-06. I thought at the time that this was the most redneck bit of advertising I'd ever heard.
Why is Mr. Moore's film called a documentary? He states that he is not a journalist; rather, he is a comedian. And a rich comedian at that, masquerading as a "man of the people." He owns 2 homes, each valued at > $1M. Even his "life" is a fictional fraud.
How does this compare with Rush Limbaugh's finances?
Re resp:30: George W. Bush claims to be a 'man of the people', too, and he didn't exactly grow up in a trailer park.
hey woody allen's a comedian who's also a great filmmaker. Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. The fact is that Moore deals with very serious subject in an extraordinarly effective way. There were a lot of people in tears by the end of the movie when I saw it. Moore btw is making sure Fahrenheit 911 gets released on DVD before the election and has said he'll work with Move On and other groups, and even go into his own pocket if necessary, to ensure that voters in swing states get copies of this movie
Because this is the general movie review item, and Fahrenheit 9/11 is worthy of more detailed discussion, I have entered item 30 for that purpose. What other movies has anyone seen recently? Spiderman 2 opens next week and is getting strong advance buzz that it is better than the first one. One poster in one board who saw it says its this year's "Empire Strikes Back"
SAVED-- This movie reminded me of "Heathers", the great Winona Ryder/Christian Slater high school movie from a few years back. You have the in crowd and the out crowd, and a confused girl who starts out part of one crowd and ends up in the other. The lead character is a high school girl at an evangelical private school (a "Jesus High" as some call them) Her boyfriend turns out to be gay, and she thinks she had a vision from God that she should sleep with him to save him from his gayness. She thinks if she sleeps with him, he will be cured of his gayness, and then God will restore her virginity. It is the kind of twisted thinking you get from being brainwashed at Jesus High. Naturally the boyfriend is not cured of his gayness, and she ends up pregnant instead. Causing her to have a crisis of faith, which her snooty in crowd friends can't understand, so she ends up with the out crowd. This movie conveys a fine message of tolerance and acceptance, and that faith and skepticism need not be mutually exclusive things. Its got a good cast and good writing. I had a couple of issues with the plot and was annoyed that the central character, who is hiding her pregnancy, manages to get almost all the way through her senior year without her pregnancy showing. She just wears sweaters and manages to gain absolutely no weight in the face or arms, just in her stomach. The director should have had this girl go on a get fat diet during the filming, so that she is actually showing the weight gain in a natural way by the last trimester. But that is nitpicking. This was a good, not great but solidly good, film that has a lot of good things to say.
It isnt unheard of for teenaged girls to effectively hide their pregnanacies. Not everyone gains weight in the face or arms when they are pregnant. Different people carry babies differently. One of my favorite stories is about a friend of mine who ran into an ex- boyfriend just a couple of days before her due date. Later on she heard that he had mentioned running into her to a mutual friend and had said that he thought that she *might* be getting a little bit of a belly which he thought was kind of weird. Seriously, she just didnt even look pregnant even that late in her pregnancy.
"The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra" is a hoot. It's a 2004 film that does a great job of pretending to be a 1950's sci-fi classic. If you love the genre ya gotta rent this one.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is a documentary only in france. here, with thinking people it is properly recognized as a superior political polemic. wroing sided in the first half but revealing in the 2nd half.
There is no rule that a documentary cant have a bias.
However, it ought to have at least a fleeting consistency with the truth. Main Entry: 1doc u men ta ry Pronunciation: "d -ky&-'men-t&-rE, -'men-trE Function: adjective 1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence> 2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>
Y'all have FOX News and Rush Limbaugh; we have Michael Moore. Deal with it.
This response has been erased.
Or daughters...
This response has been erased.
Say, for example, the Bush daughters. A little military discipline might do them some good.
We nominate Bill Clinton - he would need a lot.
Does he have a parent in Congress?
Hillary.
Hillary is his mommy?
She is the adult of the "household."
If Hillary is his mommy that means he wasn't really cheating with Lewinsky, right? Maybe he just needed a time-out or a spanking, instead of an impeachment.
He wasn't impeached because of cheating with Lewinsky. He was impeached because he lied about it, causing billions of dollars to be spent to understake a war not approved by Congress and undermining the very foundations of our democratic society.....oh, sorry, I think I got the villians mixed up.
I'm just pleased that, so far, we don't seem to have screwed up the way Reagan did in trading arms for hostages.
This response has been erased.
I figure if you investigate someone for seven years with an unlimited budget, and the worst you can come up with is a blow job, that's gotta be a pretty clean administration.
Snicker.
re #55: or more likely that the rest of the dirt they could dig up was embarrassing to *both* sides.
This response has been erased.
Ringo, perhaps. But those who actually know Kenneth Starr state that he is an immensely good and decent person.
This response has been erased.
it also doesn't excuse the lengths the Clinton Administration went to hide things that were of no danger to it.
This response has been erased.
The Bush Administration, by contrast, is a paragon of transparency who is always happy to share information.
This response has been erased.
What did the Clinton Administration hide (especially things more egregious than like Cheney's energy advisory panel)?
This response has been erased.
That would raise a stink.
(rim shot for tod)
did I say the Bush administration was perfect? where were the first ladies papers? If they had been available the first week it would have saved the government a load of money, but she lost them for over 2 years. If you are being investigated, and you lose or hide needed documents, it is going to caus ethe investigator to dig deeper.
You never lose/misplace anything?
re #70: I lose things all the time, but when I do it's pretty clear I had no incentive to do so.. So far I've never "lost" documents that had been subpoenaed in an investigation. Nor do I have a staff who can be tasked with finding stuff for me.
This response has been erased.
I hope everyone would agree that someone losing something for which they might have an incentive to lose is not necessary guility of doing so deliberately.
This response has been erased.
This is the MOVIES item guys. Movies movies and more movies. What movies have you seen?
"Not necessarily" but quite coincindentally.
Thank you, Richard. I saw Hellboy at the dollar theater. I've never read the comics, but I enjoyed it. I didn't know Ron Pearlman was the star. Seems like the only time I see him is when he's covered in makeup.
I have just watched again "Underneath", which dates
from 1995. The direction is Okay but a little rough
on the style. Trying to be clever Soderbergh didn't
get great ideas to work out. "Underneath" is interesting
to watch. As a movie itself, it's more than a experience.
I thought that Hellboy was entertaining. Okay, a bit predictable in spots, but the character of Hellboy was fun. The rest of the cast was all right, the fish-man (whose name is excaping me) was one of my favorites. Saw Harry Potter: Prizoner of Azkhaban on IMAX a few weeks ago. I don't think that it was much better than non-IMAX, though maybe the IMAX experience would have been better if we (all 10 of us who went) were a few rows back and more to the center. I do have to highly recommend the "Blue Collar Comedy Tour" with Jeff Foxworthy, Bill Engval, Larry the Cable guy and (my favorite) Ron White. Okay, so the humor is a bit low brow, but it never fails to make me laugh... a lot.
I just wrote a very long email to a friend about The Station Agent. It occurred to me that I could post it here too as a review. The only thing is that this review has a minor spoiler in it so if you are one of those people who get really mad about those...you better skip this post. It was a very visually stunning movie. Every shot was like a photograph. I have been working on developing my eye for visual composition and I found this film to be very enriching in that way. Naturally, I also was very impressed with the characters which isnt a surprise because character study as a genre has always appealed to me. The scene near the end where Fin is stumbling drunk on the tracks and then falls just before the train comes by reminded me a lot of a short story called "A Train is an Order of Occurance Designed to Lead to Some Result" by Sherman Alexie. Have you read that? That story has a lot of significance for me because I read it the day before I found out a friend killed himself by stumbling on the train tracks while high on a suicidal dose of some pills. I dont know if he meant to get run over by the train but he meant to off himself so the end result was the same. Alexie's story also is a reason why I have a personal rule not to walk home from the bar on the tracks even though that is the shortest route for me.
I just have to start reading your blog, Lynne. I also really enjoyed Station Agent. Fin was so unexpected and memorable. And the movie wasn't sweet. Big plus. Last night I watched Aria. It's a collection of shorts, by different directors, each done to an opera aria. Three or four of the seven or eight I'm still thinking about, and that's good. All are visually stunning and the music is incredible, as you'd expect. I'd like to hear from someone who knows opera (Ken, Leslie?) as to whether the stories being told in the arias actually have much to do with the stories acted. My ignorance of opera is vast.
I rented Aria so long ago. The Liebestod from Tristan und Isolde I still think about. Yeah. The two actors (one was Bridget Fonda) even look like brother and sister. The incestuous relationship explains a great deal. Wow. On the other hand, Vesti la giubba is played straight on and would be recognizable to anyone--even if there were no music. All you need know is that Canio has been horridly cuckolded and belts out a classic lament of having to make the audience laugh even though his life is a disaster. That's Caruso sing the track, by the way. I've listen to it since I was ten and, really, I have quite wearied of hearing any more of it. The one with the bodybuilders: I haven't a clue.
This response has been erased.
Eww.
Watch "Girl with a Pearl Earring". It's fascinating.
As someone who is a great fan of movies, I highly
recommend that film.
This is a beautiful film worthy of attention. Not the
best film of the year, but certainly one to look out
for. The direction was brilliant, the acting good.
Directed by Peter Webber, made in Luxembourg, based on
a soap opera of Tracy Chevalier, "Girl with a Pearl
Earring" is definitely one of the best beautiful films.
It's not just a "soap opera" - it is am invented story woven around the painting of the same name and the artist Johannes Vermeer. It is worth learning more about the painting, either before or after seeing the movie. See http://girl-with-a-pearl-earring.20m.com/.
Saw Spiderman 2 yesterday. I was suprised how prevalent the love story was, but I don't know that much about the spiderman comics or orignal series, so I'm not sure if it's dead on or not. But I like it a lot. I thought the special effects where great and they even added a little humor.
This response has been erased.
BEFORE SUNSET-- Saw this earlier this evening. It is a sequel to a movie called "BEFORE SUNRISE" which came out ten years ago, and told the story of an american traveler (Ethan Hawke) who meets a french woman (Julie Delpy) on a train, and how two complete strangers ended up spending a long night walking around Vienna. That movie ends with them leaving and agreeing to meet again in six months in Vienna. There wasn't supposed to be a sequel, we weren't supposed to find out if they ever met again. But "Before Sunrise" became a cult hit on video, and now ten years later the movie's stars, Hawke and Delpy, and director Richard Linklater, have reunited to continue this story. And this is one of those cases where the sequel is BETTER than the original. It is now nine years later, and Ethan Hawke's now thirtysomething character has become an author and he's written a book about the events in the first movie and is doing an autograph signing at a bookstore in Paris. Delpy's character reads about his appearance in the paper and she shows up. The rest of the movie is following them around as they walk through the streets of Paris on a late afternoon catching up on their lives. The movie is one long conversation, a two person play where we see these people who connected a long time ago try to re- connect. They aren't even sure why they connected that time years back, but only know that its rare to connect with anyone at all. The script was co-written by Hawke and Delpy, and it is clear that they know their characters quite well and had great command of the dialogue. Sometimes they are talking superficially, talking to cover their nervousness or to cover the fact that they actually don't know what to say or have nothing to say. With actors also having been the writers, the dialogue comes across as quite natural. The conversation SOUNDS real. You'd actually think these really were two people walking downt the street talking. This is really refreshing when you consider how bad the heavily prepared dialogue is in some movies. Director Linklater does really long extended camera shots of them walking through Paris, which is intended to make what we are seeing and hearing come off as real as possible. It is also crucial to see how the passage of years has changed these two characters, which is why it is vitally important that the same actors play them. You can see the lines in Hawke's face which tell a lot more than he does about what his character's probably been through in the intervening years. You can sense the world weariness in Delpy's eyes and her mannerisms, and that her character has really changed in the intervening years. I also like the fact that neither of these two characters are intended to be completely likeable or dislikeable. You start to see in this movie why they connected in the first movie ten years ago. You even wonder if they might connect yet again. But it isn't important. This, as was the first film, is an existentialist movie. It is the moment that matters, only the moment. "Before Sunset" takes place in real time, literally an hour and twenty minutes in the lives of these two memorable characters. This is a wonderfully acted and directed movie. "Before Sunrise" and "Before Sunset" are like two halfs of a whole. The second movie completes the first. Which doesn't mean that it wouldn't be totally cool if ten years from now, in 2014, director Linklater finds Hawke and Delpy and gets them to revisit the characters yet again. I highly recommend "Before Sunset", even if you haven't seen the first movie. Best movie I've seen this year so far.
I watched "Before sunset" some years ago.
I don't like all of Richard Linklater's films but he made
a good work in this film. I don't like Ethan, he's a good actor
but very inexpressive.
One of the great things about "Before sunset" is the
characterization. The screenwriter put a lot of thought into
philosophical issues. I really liked the ideas the characters
had and they made me think.
Well, I'm a little skeptic about the sequel.
Saw Van Helsing last weekend and while visually great, the story was, IMO, thin. This was, basically, an action story. In some ways it reminded me of a Bond flick, especially a scene early in the film where Van is in a "lab" located in the basement of a church, getting his briefing for his next mission. There's even a Q-type character who shows him the newest gizmos he'll use. Unlike Bond, however, this "Q" goes on the mission. If you like action-oriented stories, this one is definitely worth seeing.
re #90, you watched "Before SUNRISE" some years ago. That movie takes place mostly at night, before sunrise. "Before SUNSET" is the new movie, which takes place in the day time and ends at sunset. Which I suppose could be intended as a metaphor for the idea that you see things more clearly when you get older. In the first movie they are walking around in the darkness and relishing the moment. They don't even want to know each other's last names. In the second movie they are a decade older, and are walking around in the daytime actually making something of an effort to really get to know each other. They can see each other now, as they are older, in a way that they couldn't then...
That's right, I made a mistake. I meant "Before sunrise".
We Went to see King Arthur last night and found it quite entertaining. Much more gritty and dirty than any other Arthurian movie, more accurrate to the conditions of the time.
This response has been erased.
Why>
Oh pooh, nothing could be more accurate than "Monty Python and the Holy Grail": "He must be a king, he hasn't got shit all over 'im!"
I saw Spiderman2, I thought it was well made and one of the best of the superhero genre movies. I especially liked Alfred Molina as Doc Ock, aka Dr. Octavious.
Has some interesting elements.
I think the special effects were great. The future of exciting
movies is in exploring & exploiting that one, however if only the
special effects were as competent as the ideas which I can only say
that it's a matter of incompetence.
A sentence of the previous film still sounds in my memory when one
of the characters even says "just because you can beat someone up,
doesn't mean you have to". There Raimi added interesting messages.
We went to the local multiplex yesterday to waste money on Anchorman, which was playing on 2 screens vs. 1 screen for Michael Mooron's F9/11 - and the parking lot was pretty much empty.
What is that you were saying about insults VS logical arguments?
We apologize for insulting Anchorman. (Happy now?)
Anchorman was awful.
No, worse.
did anchorman even try to reincarnate network?
This response has been erased.
I saw "Saved!" and "King Arthur" on vacation. I liked both, for entirely different reasons. (Duh) "Saved!" just had me busting out. And somewhat thinking. And vowing to never stick my kid in a school like that. I really enjoyed Eva Amurri in this, though she was far from the star. And Macauley Culkin is making me forget "Home Alone". "King Arthur" was just a fun ride. I'm a major fan of Clive Owen, so to see him doing more "action" was just a blast. Plus, the guys were hot. I mean, seriously hot. A skosh of Tristan, Gawain and Galahad would do any hetero girl good. Oh - and the plot was interesting. Very much not your Disney/typical send up, much more dark and gritty.
Saw "Spiderman 2" over the weekend and managed to stay entertained for a couple of hours (though only just barely in a few parts, I'd say the pacing could/should have been tightened a bit.) I thought they did a fantastic job with the Doctor Octopus special effects; Doc Ock was always one of my favorite Spiderman villains and they did an excellent job with both his motion and the sheer physical menace of his mechanical limbs. It's odd but the parts I liked best of the comic books are the parts I thought dragged the most in the movie -- Peter Parker's hapless struggle to master the everyday life of an intelligent outsider in a world he really doesn't fit into. The real genius of the Spiderman comic books was that the focus of the story really wasn't Spiderman's struggle against the supervillains, it was Peter Parker's struggle against everyday life. The fights with the supervillains were just added inconveniences heaped upon an already staggeringly overburdened young misfit who rarely got a break. And if things weren't confusing enough for young Peter already, half of the time the villains turned out to be people he cared about from the everyday life he was trying to cope with -- you can see them setting up for that in this latest movie with the introduction of John Jameson (who, in the comics, turns into some sort of man/wolf beast after a moon mission goes wrong) and Dr. Curtis Connors (becomes "The Lizard" after an experiment in limb regeneration goes wrong -- notice a pattern here?) and, of course, with Harry Osborne, who eventually becomes the second Green Goblin (after his father's scientific experiments and subsequent supervillain career go wrong, naturally..)
This response has been erased.
Well, in those days when a comic found a successful niche, it stuck to it. If you were a "tampered with things man was not meant to know / science experiment gone wrong" sort of comic-book reader you were probably a Spiderman fan.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Just read an item in the ny daily news that the success of spiderman2 has
convinced marvel that spidey's ready for the great white way. They are in
negotiations with Julie Taymor, who did the Lion King play, to
do...yes indeed....
SPIDERMAN-- THE MUSICAL
Hey its already got a catchy theme song ('spiderman spiderman, does
whatever a spider can....) and thats half the battle when it comes to a
musical.
This response has been erased.
Re. 113: I think I'm gonna be sick. B-p
Spiderman2 is as annoying as the praises that some
people do it when you think this is just the review
of a child who only wants to see action and special
effects & the special effects transformed some directors
in Mandrakes.
Don't get me wrong this is not a bad movie, but it's
not a good one either. As all the others (Hoolywool
production line stuff) it's forgotten QUICKLY.
The story was boring and the message so expertly crafted
in the first movie was simply repeated (over and over)
in this one till it go boring but if you like these
kind of stuff, it will entertain you for about 2 hours.
After watching it, immediately boot it to the trash can!
...
This response has been erased.
Spiderman 2 was good, but Elfman gave the horns and chorus the best part. The trombone chorus got their usual unsheathed dagger danger part. Anyway, it was a serviceable score, but I'm very envious of the best going to the horns. [Spiderman inside the subway train] Victor is certainly right, though. I guess the audience really wouldn't want something too different from a character defined in a both a previous movie and decades of comics. At least the director spared us a repeat introduction of how Parker received his preternatural powers. Maybe Spiderman 3 will have some surprises! Like does Parker blow a sticky web when he sneezes snot or ejaculates? Does he fear coitus because of the fate of other male arachnids?
My advice on Spiderman 2? Wait for hte DVD.
I caught "I Robot" over the weekend. I've never read Asimov, so I can't compare, but even the credits say, "Suggested by the book by Asimov", in what I would imagine is a plea for everyone to just back off and let the movie happen. I think what impressed me is how much I like Will Smith. He's a good actor, but he really has what it takes to be a great action star.
This response has been erased.
re #121: it had plenty of tentacles and arachnids.
This response has been erased.
Re. 120: The book is nothing like the movie, which is understandable as the book was an anthology of robot-related stories.
As noted by kenn, Asimov must be turning over in
his grave. This travesty of a film mocks everything
that he stood for. Asimov, a devout pacifist, wanted
to create a series of robot stories that did not rely
on idiotic violence to advance the plot. His stories
rely on humans (and robots) using intelligence & reasoning
to solve problems.
He also wanted to create stories that contradicted the
all to clich d "Frankenstein" motif. This film does exactly
the opposite. It's quite obvious that the screenwriters
casually browsed the books, selected a few choice names,
& then proceeded to write a script that had the
intellectual depth of a episode of Barney the purple dinosaur.
...
I personally don't give a rats a$$ if the movie is different from the book, especially if it was never intended to be like the book. I haven't seen "I, Robot" yet, but I want to, and I suspect I will enjoy it, as I enjoyed Spiderman 2 and many other "hollywood" movies. Yes, I even enjoyed "The Day After Tomorrow", because I went to see it as a fan of "good" disaster movies. In such movies, the acting and plot holes are irrelevant. As long as the disaster actually OCCURS, I'm good. (This is why I didn't like Deep Impact or Armageddon)
Heh. In the credits, it flat out says it's adapted from the book.
Re. 126: "the acting and plot holes are irrelevant." Your kidding, right? Without these elements, what's the point? Oh, wait, you already answered that question. Then you'd probably like "The Chronicles of Riddick." I went and caught this mind-numbing piece of celluloid at the dollar show. Good thing, too. I'd hate to think I'd coud'ov wasted five or more bucks on this. The movie stars Vin Diesel, which immediately tells you this is going to be an over-the-top action flick with little character development and as little plot. Here's the story: The place, a agalaxy far, far away. The time, who knows. It seems there's this evil empire going around blowing up planets if the inhabitants don't bow down to their will. There's also this guy (Vin) who's got a bounty on his head and has been hiding out for some indeterminent length of time. When a group of bounty hunters comes gunning for him, he returns ot his homeworld (after apparently wasting the bounty hunters, of course) to find out who ratted him out and find out who put the bounty out on him. Blah, blah, blah... It's no surprise this didn't last in the theater. Nothing about Riddick stands out. The costumes, S/F, music...all very typical. Something you might see on the Sci-Fi Channel. If you like seeing things get blown up, punched out and burned to a crisp, without all that bothersome plot/character thing, then you'll love this.
Re #127: The credits say that it's "suggested" by the books.
As an action movie, "Chronicles of Riddick" was so-so. This isn't because of plot problems -- action movies, from 'Indiana Jones' to 'Independence Day', never really have good plots. But the action scenes in Riddick kind of sucked. Many of the fight scenes were shot in a headache-inducing strobe-light style that just made it hard to tell what was going on, and a lot of the spacecraft special effects shots were unconvincing. Let me know when CGI reaches the point where it's more convincing than old-fashioned scale models, and I'll start to pay attention again.
re 128 - The non-requirement of plot and acting only applies to Disaster Movies. I don't think "The Chronicles of Riddick" is a disaster movie. Although it may be a disaster. I didn't go see it because I *HATED* "Pitch Black", which was this movies predecessor. Of course, I don't mean "no plot at all" - that would be porn. But I'm willing to forgive the vast holes in the plot that were in "The Day After Tomorrow"
Suggested, adapted, either way I know it's not a literal rendering.
I'd prefer that people were honest about that, like they were in "Troy". Stuff like 1953's WAR OF THE WORLDS was ridiculous.
So the scene in Ten Commandments when Heston raises up the tablet and you can see his spidel wristwatch wasn't VERBATIM?!?
Don't know, haven't seen it. Probably not!
Yul Brynner as Ramses II! How could you not see it?!?
An oversight!
Okay, so the Beau and I went to see "Catwoman" on Saturday. I really really liked it. Though we both agreed that if you don't like cats, or at least appreciate them, you probably won't like this movie. I'm not horribly sure what the 'point' of the movie was exactly, whether it was Woman Power! or something like 'Be yourself' or what, but I still liked it. I think Halle Berry did a fine job, as did Benjamin Bratt- and the fact that they're both nice to look at doesn't hurt. If you're the type who wants to analyze every single nuance to a movie, every look, the lighting, etc., skip this- it's not Film, it's a fun movie.
'Twas slated by the critics, but came in at 3 in the States this week, I hear.
#138...hmm, maybe I will see "Catwoman" after all. I was discouraged by the scathing reviews the critics have given it. One critic gave it an "F" and said Halle Berry does not put her catsuit on until 2/3rds of the way through the movie. Also why is Catwoman not Selena Kyle (the Batman storyline character) but an entirely different character?
re 138. I'm sure that people who don't necessarily like cats, but like to see a hot woman in a skin tight outfit will draw a few people. ;)
Richard- they explain that quite well in the movie. (the name thing) I also think that a lot of critics won't apprciate the cat behavior nuances (they're probably dog people)... Nuances that I had a lot of fun spotting. (Things like the character- in the Catwoman guise- gets agitated, crack goes the whip- reminiscent of when a cat gets agitated and they whip their tails.) Actually, they 'honor' a couple previous Catwomen (we spotted a photo of Michelle Pfieffer as Catwoman as well as a Julie Newmar shot- though if you're not paying attention they're easy to miss). As for my liking it, the fact that a 'co-star' is an Egyptian Mau doesn't hurt. Though never EVER should an Egpytian Mau be named Midnight. <shivers> Hmm, and Sharon Stone did a very nice job too. re #141- Jeanne- very true, especially when there's a good deal of skin- tight skin exposed too. ;)
Just saw "'KING' ARTHUR" (notice the single quotes around KING). Not only does nothing happen, what doesn't happen involves a Cockney-speaking Sarmatian (ancient East European, I think, who ironically was one of the only characters who didn't ge ton my nerves) and a guy supposedly from the North who speaks like Sam from LOTR. Obviously they were too taken with the accent to wonder if it didn't come from completely tthe wrong area. As if that weren't enough, if the plot of the film had anything less to do with the Arthurian legends, they would have been taking orders from Starfleet Command. Take my advice and rent FIRST KNIGHT with Sean Con nery and Richard Gere, instead.
Didn't at all enjoy "Before Sunset." Bad acting; annoying characters.
Re. 143: ACtually, those were approrpiate accents for the time period.
#145 appropriate
Yes mom
Now I know twenex has no sense of reality. He lives in a fairytale world. FIrst Knight? Are you serious? CanI think of any movie related to Aurthurian legend that is farther from reality than First Knight? You think the english built funky maze machines to test the knights? That they all wore shiney plate armour? That the peasants rose up to topple the bad guy after he kills Arthur?
Yes, I'm serious; and watch who you accuse of having no sense of reality. Actually, I've decided that probably a lot of the reason I didn't enjoy KING ARTHUR was 'cos I just wasn't in the right frame of mind - but they could at least have got the accents right (especially if it was British-made, which I've heard it was.) "Can[ ]I think of any movie related to [Arthurian] legend that is farther from reality than First Knight? Legend and reality are not the same thing, even if legend sometimes originates in reality. This I know, and you apparently don't, so I refer you back to my first sentence.
Actually, if the Knights were Romanized Celts, they probably /did/ wear shiny plate armour. And believe it or not (yes, I know, some of you won't), some people thought some of the kings were worth avenging.
not the kind of plate worn in First Knight, and what was with all the blue in the clothing? And you can accept an american accent as a french knight and a Scottish accent for Arthur in First Knight, but get all bent out by a ma with a southren british accent in King Arthur? Get real.
Gere and Connery are established actors, and if they can't get do them to do the proper accents, they should at least get some of the minor actors in the film to do 'em. Same with KING ARTHUR . Besides, it's widely alleged that "Americans can't do British accents", and if that's true (obviously not true in all cases, as Sam in LOTR is played by an American actor - as I found out /after/ I saw FOTR) better a natural American accent than a bad British one.
Is it a British class-consciousness thing that makes you more concerned with the accents than the plot? I know a bad accent can be distracting (or worse -- unintentionally humorous) but is it really the thing you think people will take away from watching the film?
This conversation may be more bothered about the accents than the plot, but I'm not. And class doesn't come into regional accents, as people who talk with a regional accent are more likely to have been born into (though not necessarily stuck in) lower-class social circles. Like me, for instance.
Re 153: Well, wouldn't you be distracted if, say, John Gotti was played with a Southern drawl?
It would make me think of a "Southern Don", which is a Godfather (scotch and amaretto, served on the rocks) except that you use bourbon instead of scotch.
re #155: #153 explicitly recognizes that a bad accent choice can be distracting (that was even the exact word I used.) But if the rest of the movie was good I'm sure I'd get over it, and if the rest of the movie was bad I'm equally sure I'd find other things to blame as well as the accents.
Just a little prod to see if I can get klg to come out of hiding: Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" has now passed the $100 million mark.
I gave a private showing of F911 to my folks this weekend. We all agreed that Moore is a funny man.
I'd heard terrible things about King Arthur and decided to shun it. I hope Michael Moore spends a lot of his $100 million helping to unseat President Bush.
Not only has Fahrenheit 9/11 passed $100 million, but the film only cost $6 million to make and another $10 million to market, which means at this point it is over $80 million in the black. As it is Michael Moore's movie, you can figure that he owns a healthy percentage of the backend. He's already promised to use the profits of this movie to defeat Bush, although I'm sure he didn't dream it would do this well. So maybe he can use some of the money on anti-Bush activities, and maybe give some back to his hometown of Flint, which could probably use the money. Or maybe the Michael Moore School of Film at UM-Flint :) Regardless of your political views, every struggling documentary filmmaker will benefit from the success of this movie, because Fahrenheit 9/11 has disproved a long held myth-- that documentaries can't make money .'
And hopefully the fact that this film is going to turn at least $80 million profit will lead to the ouster of that egomaniac head of Walt Disney Michael Eisner. Eisner is such a brilliant businessman that he thought it wasn't worth the studio's money to release a movie they paid to make. He was ready to shelve the movie until the Weinsteins (Miramax heads) bought it. If I was a Disney stockholder, I'd say it was time for Eisner to turn in his Mickey Mouse ears
I think you have to look at the big picture. If releasing the movie had upset their friends in government, and made lobbying for future legislation (like copyright extensions) more difficult, it would have been a net loss for them.
So much for free speech.
Free what?
I don't find it too terribly troubling that companies looking for special favors from government feel the need to engage in self-censorship. If Al Queda had flown planes into the Magic Kingdom (and the office of Senator Fritz Hollings) I wouldn't shed many tears.
re 164 - free speech has and has always HAD consequences. As for planes crashing into Disney World, please don't. I enjoy going to Epcot Center, and look forward to my daughters first trip to the Magic Kingdom.
It's not the same thing, though, is it? The Founding Fathers did not say: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that companies are endowed by their Creators with certain inalienable rights, that amongst these are money, favours from government, and the unbounded pursuit of greed...that to secure these rights, companies are free to avoid funding controversial products, deriving their money from fleecing the governed..." ...did they?
Re: #167. I'm not arguing against free speech, but against Disney limiting it in exchange for favours from the Scumbag-in-Chief.
In what way did Disney limit free speech?
They declined to release documentary. How were they to know someone else would?
They're entitled to choose their customers like any other business. I don't care about Disney and never did. I'm GLAD Lion's Gate is going to make out on this cuz they are going to make a ton of cool movies with that dough.
Re #169, I believe the favors were from the Scumbag-in-Chief's brother.
Oh, well in that case it's perfectly acceptable! ;-P
re 172 - like "House of 1000 Corpses"?
I believe you are a bit confused with "Free Speech". As a corporation, Disney also has a right to speech, inwhich it refused to distribute that film. Free Speech is up there with the meaning of Life, or as I put it, The Meaning of Death.
Disney's decision not to release F911 was in no way an abridgement of anyone's freedom of speech. It was nothing more than a business decision, and a bad one at that.
It's sort of like how freedom of the press is only meaningful if you own a press. Fortuately, there are lots of presses around these days.
"The Village" - I *really* liked this one and wanted to see it before word filtered out about the plot. Glad I did. Again, as with earlier films by Shyamalan, it's not about the monsters, aliens or the dead. It's about the living, ordinary even, people. See it soon and don't read Richard's review first. ;-)
I get the point! Re: #179. Heheheh.
we went to see "THUNDERBIRDS" If you are not a fan of the supermarionation TV series from the 60's cartoon series, you may not like this movie. But if you were a fan of the series, this movie is true to tha concept, from the music to the hardware, to the characters. LAdy Penelope is spot on, as is her Chueffer/butler/bodyguard/safecracker Parker. You are just going to love her pink Rolls Royce. Some upgrades to teh electronics and mechanics has been done, the Mole is more blunted and has more blades, Parker has a flip down visor and the Rolls is now equipped with wings and a jet engine that pops out of the trunk. Tin Tin and Alan are younger than in the series, with dad still operating some of teh machinery that would later be relegated to the youngest son. I was most disappointed with teh portrayal of Brains, the scientist behind the machines. He had a very pronounced stuter that I do not remember. Teh uniforms are improved, no funky hats and sashes anymore.
Damn. Those sashes were good. Do the close-ups use mechanical plastic hands?!
Enjoyed Spider-man 2. For sure there must be a SM3, as Harry the son discovered the stash of hardware for the Green Goblin aka his dad.
In the Spiderman universe it seems like practically everyone either got into the superhero or supervillain business at one time or another, with the possible exception of Aunt May. There were several other Spiderman foes introduced in this movie, too.
re 183 - I found that to be fairly disappointing though. I don't want to see them rehash the Green Goblin.
Given the other villain setups present in Spiderman 2, my prediction is that the Harry Osborne story will continue in the background and one or more other supervillains will be the main emphasis of the story, probably not any of the relatively minor villains they've been setting up (such as the Man-Wolf or the Lizard.) Given the increased and more effective use of J. K. Simmons in the second movie perhaps they'll work up to the hatred that newspaper publisher Jonah Jameson develops for Spiderman and base the story around some villain Jameson has hired to kill Spiderman. "
I must have been sleeping through the parts where other potential villains were "set up" (surely the machine-gun-toting hoods in the getaway car don't qualify). Can you elucidate?
Peter's professor that threatens to fail him becomes (I'm forgetting the name) some sort of lizard man. Jonah Jameson's son goes to space (he's an astronaut, remember?) and comes back as something else.
Peter's Aunt goes to prison for tax evasion and comes back as Martha Stewart.
Re: #188 - those references must come from the comix. Besides *introducing* those characters, I didn't see any foreshadowing of evil (except perhaps the a-naut's jilting at the altar being a motivation for revenge...).
re #190: that's correct, the inclusion of other characters from the Spiderman universe is probably mostly a nod to fans of the comic book who are familiar with its history. However, these particular minor characters wind up becoming supervillains in the classic Spiderman pattern: they violate the natural order and mess with Something Which Man Was Not Meant to Know (John Jameson flies through space and visits the moon; Connors experiments with limb regeneration iirc) and both wind up transformed into id-dominated monsters (Jameson a werewolf-like creature, Connors a lizard-man.)
Speaking of comic book movies, the next Batman movie is currently filming in England, with Christian Bale (the british actor who starred in American Psycho) as Batman, and the villains are Liam Neeson as the Scarecrow and Ken Watanabe as the evil Ras Al Ghul, with Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon and Michael Caine as Alfred. Sounds promising.
I know!! Christian Bale has been mentioned for possibly taking over James Bond. I have to admit, of everyone out there, he is my fave.
Christian Bale is wonderful, and I think he'll play a great Batman.
I'm discouraged with the future works of
James Bond series. One of the best films
of adventures & action is surely James
Bond. However, when it was produced by
English, because it lost the same quality
after it began to be produced by North
American.
Hereafter, I hope the production comes back
to the English hands. The North Americans are
transforming James Bond in a kind of mediocre
mercenary as other created by the hoolywoodian
studios.
...
Its all about Cubby Brocolli
It's about time they laid the ghost of Batman movies to rest, imnsho. Then again, I said that when they cast Michael Keaton in the first one. Ouch.... I, Robot: OK, so maybe it's nothing like the book; damned if I know as I haven't read it. Bloody good movie. Effects are getting better all the time - but don't worry, this movie actually has a /plot/, too. Wow. Will Smith sure picks some winners. Gets good lines, too.
Am I the only one who while watching "Spiderman" is wondering about the poor slob who is going to get the job of cleaning up all those sticky spider web thingies Spidy's ejecting all over town? Body secretions. Sticky body secretions. Yuck.
It's NYC. Plenty of it already..
I think they dry in a few hours, turn into dust, and blow away. Problem solved.
If true, then spiders would need to find another way to catch prey and survive. And Karen wouldn't have to dust all those high corners. Nope, I'm not buying the "not a problem" thing. It's a problem. Be denialistic all you want. It's the dirty side of herohood and nobody wants to talk about it.
Real spiders eat their webs. Peter had to devise his own, as well as the device to launch it (ignored or glossed over in the movie), so I've always assumed his web-formula was bio-degradable: He needed the webs to last for an hour or so at most, to hold the bad guys until the cops arrived.
MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE-- this wasn't as good as the original, but is a fine movie in its own way. Directed by Jonathan Demme (Silence of the Lambs), and starring Meryl Streep and Denzel Washington (in the Angela Lansbury and Frank Sinatra roles) I liked the way this was updated, now instead of the communists being the big evil, it is corporate power/greed. Same story, different enemy. Both Streep and Washington deliver oscar caliber performances, and Liev Schrieber (in the other principal role, played by Laurence Harvey in the original) is also quite good. This movie is quite appropriate for an election year. It raises the serious question of "to what extent are we all brainwashed/controlled by the power of big multi national corporations?
Watched "Hildago" today. I had been wanting to see it ever since I first saw the previews, but hadn't managed to make it to the theater. But it was quite good on the small screen. Viggo Mortensen managed to make his character, Frank T. Hopkins, sympathetic and charismatic, although Hildago, the horse, did steal the show. :-) It wasn't very original, plot-wise, being a take on the old-time serials, but it was quite fun. I liked it a lot.
Watched Starsky & Hutch with Stiller and Wilson. It was very fun.
"Don't give up on us baby . . ." Between that and "Do It", I still howl.
This is gonna get kinda weird...but I wanna see TWO dragons
re #199-201: In the comic books, the webs were shot from a mechanical device that Peter invented, not something that came from his body. As originally written, those webs did indeed dissolve after a fairly short time. But since Raimi and the scriptwriters messed with the web issue for the films perhaps Mary has a point.
RE 207 LMAO!!!!
For continuity's sake, I stick with the comics. As for what the movie did, well, that's just their goof.
First, I remember seeing (maybe it was on "The Ghoul") this really horribly badly made "Dracula versus Frankenstein" movie with Lon Chaney as a pitiful shell of himself. Then last summer we had "Freddy versus Jason". Now soon to be released is AVP. Who is lined up already to see this one? :-)
What's AVP?
Aha - made you ask!!! ;-) Well, the V is obviously Versus. A & P are species known to be harmful to movie humans in 2 separate horror/action movie series. Can you deduce them?
Alien vs Predator?
That would be the one, yep.
I'd rather see Riley vs Terminator
Or Ripley, even..
No..Bill O'Riley I want to see his eyeballs squished out their sockets by a Terminator ;)
Napoleon Dynamite was amusing.
Also coming is vampires vs. werewolves.
I thought that was out already... ie Underworld.
I bought "Six String Samurai" on ebay the other day. I'm looking forward to watching it again.
Watched Rebecca with Jane something and Lawrence Oliviet. Its been re-done a million times.
Saw "Open Water" yesterday. I thought it was quite good. They did a good job of showing interaction before and during them getting left behind. I was really on edge the whole time as this movie really stressed me out! I was suprised by the ending, and didn't care for it that much, but I'm not sure how they would have created a good ending for that movie.
(Re #223: Joan Fontaine.)
I think there's a great idea for a comic book up there - a superhero who's gig is cleaning up the messes that other superheroes leave behind. I think we start the story with a teenage kid who suspects that one or both parents has a secret identity as a superhero and wants to get in on the hero action. Kid gets to join the superhero squad (via blackmail probably), and finds their first mission is to help clean up after a battle between Diarrhea Man and the Vomit Comit. Kid goes through serious depression, a desire to be a real superhero, but ultimately matures into the role. "I may not be able to fight evil, but I sure as hell am going to clean up after it."
I like it. :>
Disgusting.
Your face.
#226...that sounds like Howard Stern's "Fartman" character...."Fartman" has no great superpowers so he catches criminals by mega-farting on them, causing them to pass out. As Fartman says, "if you can't beat'em up, then shit all over them!" :)
rotfl.
Point.
Saw "Hero" over the weekend and really enjoyed it. I thought it was a beautiful story, and the visuals were just stunning. There was an incredible use of colors that I really enjoyed. It is very artsy, and the martial arts are more stylized than realistic. Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung are just fabulous (okay, so is Jet Li and I think it's a shame Donnie Yen didn't have a bigger part). Zhang Ziyi did well with her part as well.
Its not a story. Its a freshmen level collage of bad camera tricks. Ever since Wizard of Oz and David Lee Roth's California Girls video, the Asians have tried to steal the use of color visuals. The movie had a weak plot. Any assassin on the planet would have killed the king the moment he had the opportunity. I wouldn't recommend the movie to anyone unless they're into doing hard drugs and thought "The Wall" by Pink Floyd had a good storyline. Here's a better movie http://www.adrenalineonline.com/images/newsreport.wmv
Yeah, those thieving Asians!
THEEVZ!
This response has been erased.
Anybody know how to transfer the audio when you do a avi2mpg?
re #234- we'll have to agree to disagree. Personally, I would explain his hesitation to kill the king as a curiosity... and I was going to more fully explain but I wouldn't want to give anything away to those that may still want to see it. Again, I liked it, and I adored the use of color. so :p
My friend Jason said he really enjoyed "Hero", and thought it was one of the best movies he's seen in a while, and the CGI wasn't overdone.
That wasn't CGI..it was XGA..maybe even VGA or monochrome.. ;)
In other movie news, later this month the first Star Wars trilogy comes to DVD! There is controversy however, because George Lucas can't resist tinkering with the films. At the end of "Return of the Jedi" for example, Lucas is said to have replaced the ghost image of Anakin Skywalker that we see at the end of the movie next to Yoda and Obi Wan. He has in its place inserted the updated image of Anakin, which is actor Hayden Christensen as he appears in the upcoming Episode III- Revenge of the Sith (out next year) Lucas has also made other additions and modifications. I guess it makes sense in terms of continuity. The problem some Star Wars fans have is that the upcoming DVD box set will only have these updated editions (spiffed up versions of the "special editions" reissued a few years ago) and not the original films as they were initially released.
Lucas has also updated the image of Emperor Palpatine in "Jedi" so he is played by the actor who plays him in the new trilogy, and has inserted the character of Naboo into the final celebration scene in Jedi just to show he survives the whole saga
Lucas also added a scene to the Mos Eisley bar where Luke orders a futuristic-looking can of Pepsi.
Sounds typical of Lucas, these days. Talking of Pepsi, if one particular episode of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is anything to go by, Hollywood's idea of "vendor-neutral" or "advertising free" leaves a lot to be desired. Will Smith's characters cousin was holding a "COLA" can in her hand; trouble was, above the COLA sign was a blue semicircle with a sort of wavy outline, and above it a red one with a wavy outline. The rest of the can was red. I WONDER who that reminds me of.
s/above it/below it/ s/was red/was red white and blue/
Am I just confused here? I thought Naboo was a people- not one character. Am I missing something?
Speaking of Star Wars, this chick I know named something or other is in September's Seventeen magazine where she talks about empowering women with her role as the Queen.
I thought the Emperor/Palpatine was played by the same actor, just that in the orginal orginal trilogy, they had to make him look old. for the latest set, no problem.
As distasteful as Lucas' modified DVD releases are to the hard-core fans they're a brilliant marketing decision. Ten years from now he can release a super-special edition of the original, unaltered films, and cash in at the expense of the rabid fanboy set yet AGAIN.
I think he needs more ewoks and other disturbing toys in his re-makes.
re #249- he was- I remember hearing that too, that the actor was aged in the '6th' movie, but that given how long it took to getting around to making 1-3 he was finally the right age.\ I think Richard has a few details off.
I still think Palpatine is Anikin's Dad.
NO! That's IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Search your feelings, you KNOW this to be true!
no no, we have already established that anakin skywalker was immaculately conceieved, his mother explained in episode I that he had no father. Star Wars is a religious parable and Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker is a Jesus Saviour figure, fighting the eternal conflict between good and evil
Okay here's what I think happens. It is clear that Star Wars is a religious parable, and that Anakin/Darth Vader is a Jesus figure, a Saviour caught in the middle of the ultimate struggle of good vs. evil. his destiny is the confrontation at the end of Episode VI where he kills the Emperor. It is also clear that Emperor Palpatine is Satan. So Anakin is Jesus, and Emperor Palpatine is Satan, that means that Anakin's father is God. Thio since we know from Episode I that Anakin was a product of immaculate conception. Consider too one big thing that has yet to be explained and I assume will be in Episode III. Which is that when the other Jedi die, their bodies vanish, as if they are divine, as if they are Gods. Obi Wan dies in Episode IV, and Yoda dies in Episode VI, and both of their bodies vanish. But when Anakin/Vader dies in Episode VI, his body DOES NOT disappear. Luke has to cremate his body. What is implied here? That Anakin is human, the other Jedis are not. The other Jedi Knights are a race of Gods. Consider then the possibility that the Jedis, this race of Gods, have been wallowing in their own perfection, and some of them, led by Emperor Palpatine, have turned to the Dark Side. The head God, the God of Gods, then realizes that the Dark Side is so powerful that in order to defeat it, the Gods NEED the humans. The Gods, the Jedis, need to JOIN with the humans. So he decides to divinely impregnate a good human woman, and have his only begotten son, to be the Saviour, the great merging of the humans and the Gods. This is Anakin Skywalker. However the merging of the humans and the Gods, as played out in the life of Anakin, does not go smoothly. Anakin's destiny is to be a God, but his yearning is to be human. He realizes that God is his father, and when his true love is taken away from him, he blames God and turns to the Dark Side and becomes Darth Vader. Thus it ends up the responsibility of Anakin's son, Luke, to turn his father back to the good side, to help his father gain control of his soul. All of which leads to the big question-- if Emperor Palpatine is Satan, and Anakin is Jesus, then who is Anakin's father? Which is to say, who is God, the head God, the God of Gods? The one who has given his only begotten son, and let him be human, to save the human race? Pure conjecture here, but I think we are going to find out that Anakin's father, God Himself, has been with us all along. That it will turn out to be Obi Wan Kenobi. Think about it, Obi Wan has been there all along, and goes out of his way to protect Anakin, and we know that it is Obi Wan that he ultimately turns against and has his climactic battle in Episode III where he loses and becomes Darth Vader. I suggest that the catalyst for this final confrontation happening, is that Emperor Palpatine revealing to Anakin that Obi Wan is not who appears to be, but is in fact God, or the head Jedi or whatever. That God took the form of Obi Wan Kenobi when Anakin was born and kept his true identity a secret, but that the Emperor using his evil ways found out. Think about it. This is why Anakin will blame Obi Wan for the death of his wife, and will turn on him. This is also why Obi Wan Kenobi is still there in Episode IV, on Tattoine, quietly protecting Luke as he grows up. This is why it is Obi Wan appearing intermittently throughout episode V and VI giving heavenly guidance to Luke. Obi Wan only ACTS inferior to Yoda, because we aren't supposed to know who He is. This would also give deeper meaning to the final shot in Episode VI, where we see Anakin, having been saved, at the side of Obi Wan Kenobi. He has fulfilled his destiny as a human being and is now taking his place at the right hand of God. Anakin, and his son Luke, have helped the human race learn to control its own destiny, and overcome the pompous, arrogant race of Jedi Gods. Its kind of Wagnerian actually. But then again, maybe Lucas has a better idea :)
Oh and it also fits because the climactic father vs. son battle in episode V and VI (Luke vs. Darth Vader), where Luke loses the first battle and wins the second, mirrors the two battles between Anakin/Vader and Obi Wan. We know that in Episode III, even though we have yet to see it, that Anakin loses his battle with Obi Wan. That is how he gets disfigured and turns into Darth Vader of course. But we also know that in Episode IV, in the second battle between them, Vader/Anakin wins. Or rather Obi Wan lets him win. Two father vs. son battles, in both cases, the father wins the first battle, and in both cases, the son, the more human one-- uses the depth of his human emotions to win the second battle. And in the ultimate confrontation, Vader/Anakin realizes the depth of HIS own emotions-- that the power of his human side is as great or greater than the power of his Jedi side-- and he is able to fulfill his destiny and defeat the Emperor.
Gui-Gon Jinn's body was also cremated. Both Obi-Wan and Yoda *chose* to let go of their bodies; neither really "died." If you look carefully, you note that Obi-Wan was gone *before* Vader's saber touched Obi-Wan's cloak, much less his body.
Jews have never practised the odious custom of cremation. Jesus never went bad, nor was he ever (to my knowledge) decked out in fetching black.
Well, the odiosity of cremation may, I suppose, be disputed. That is, however, how I've always thought of it.
#260...I disagree that the practice of cremation is "odious" A dead body is going to turn to ashes eventually anyway. It is not environmentally prudent to bury dead bodies and let them decay naturally. There is not enough ground left for new cemeteries today as it is. Being "buried" is a decadent exercise for those who are wealthy enough to afford plots of land that their bodies can lay in forever. And your body will decay anyway. So whats the point? When I die, I want to be cremated and end up in a nice china vase, and maybe then get sprinkled in some ocean or river. Back to nature as I say. I find that far preferable than being my body being buried in some cemetary among a bunch of people I don't kno.
And how are all cemetaries going to be maintained in-perpetuity? They aren't. Buring just delays the inevitable - and at great cost with no benefits.
cremation is a good, sound solution with no religious drawbacks that I know of. (in my opinion) not as good as being ground into mulch, which would be more environmentally friendly.
I believe that Dick Cheney's energy council is working on a way that bodies of poor people can be converted directly into oil, without needing to decompose for lots of years first.
Before or after they're finished with them?
That depends how successful "compassionate conservatism" is, but just the executions in Texas should allow them to have Hummers for some time to come.
My brother-in-law died and was cremated earlier this year. We hired a boat and had a party on Tampa Bay, and distributed his ashes there: appropriate too, as he had a degree in marine biology. This apparently against the law, but the wind was too high to go out into the Gulf. I think that they fear that Tampa Bay would get filled in, if it is allowed. But then they could build more condominiums on, say, Ash Acres.
Re #265:
I thought they were going to make red, yellow, and green food wafers
out of them instead.
Just the terrorists
re 262 Actually being buried isn't environmentally unfriendly. But the way that people are burid in modern times is.
Yeah. I don't agree with cremation, as I don't see it as natural, any more than I see the opening of a coffin at a funeral natural. And if it's a case of not bothering to delay the inevitable, you might as well get someone to shoot you now; you're going to die sometime anyway.
#272...cremation is a lot more natural than spending thousands of dollars so you can be buried whole in a fancy box with a marble monument to yourself, taking up eternally a piece of land that you don't possibly need. It is also a fact that there are not enough cemetaries or places for cemetaries left anyway. You can always be frozen. Ted Williams was frozen. Then his daughter sued his son. The son wanted him frozen. The daughter wanted him thawed out and cremated. They settled out of court. Ted is still frozen. He's taking up space in a refrigerator, which is using electricity. Total waste.
So buy a wooden box.
As for Ted Willians, being buried fashionably must be about the most decadent thing one can arrange for on God's polluted Earth.
I think cremation has a lot of beauty to it. Your substance returns quickly (if spread) to the natural world from which it came. It is the ultimate personal recycling. Above-ground burials - laying out - is similar, but in crowded area creates some danger. Indians and Zorastrians practiced this. The recycling is also rather rapid as scavengers eat what they need. Re #272: what's unnatural about cremation? All humans on earth will be cremated in the distant future when the sun expands into a red giant. Also, I was speaking of the inevitable for inanimate objects - bodies. I have no reason to deny people living out their natural lives. But when one dies, that is the end of the person's conscious presence. I see no sense in extolling the corpse.
The chances of anyone being alive by the time the sun expands into a red giant are not good. I don't like cremation. It may be irrational. But I don't like the idea of a body burning up like that.
You like better the idea of it decomposing into a putrid glob of bacteria and molds?
Yes. Not in the kitchen, but in the ground, yes.
Who cares what ideas you like?
I'd like to know from twenex the precise bases for his preference for corporeal putrifaction over combustion.
I don't think it's natural. I believe the link between spirit and body is too strong to justify breaking it by incineration of the body.
Getting back to MOVIES... Finally caught Shrek 2 at the dollar show Saturday. Really enjoyed it. To me, the commercials I'd seen didn't impress me much, but those folks at Dreamworks have a knack of fooling you that way. Like the first, there's a lot to take in, but it's worth it. There's more good tunes, in-jokes, and a twist on the whole Fairy God-Mother persona. If you liked the first, Shrek 2 is definitely worth adding to your movie list.
Re #282: if you believe in "spirits", for which there is no evidence. When an animal dies the only thing we know that remains is useless flesh. Why invoke mystical "spirits" out of nothing?
There is evidence. It's just that atheists and materialists choose to ignore it, or confuse "evidence" with "proof". If there's no such thing as a spirit, why do people have a consciousness? Why aren't they just like the totem poles the Native Americans constructed, or the statues Abraham's father worshipped - or, at most, like mindless automata? Even animals have emotions, and anyone who says they don't probably hasn't spend more than 2 seconds with an animal.
Re #285, I think it's more like some people confusing "evidence" with "anecdotes" or "wishful thinking." There's no reason to suppose there is a connection between consciousness and a "spirit" any more than that there is a connection between emotions and a "spirit" or having eyelashes and a "spirit."
How can my computer do calculations if it doesn't have a spirit?!
It is totally sufficient to consider consciousness as a physical function of the brain. That's what "mind" is too, so why invoke something else? What's "spirit" made of and where does it come from and go? Be real. I can understand ancient humans with little understanding of how the universe functions inventing mystical qualities to explain complex facts, but we don't need them anymore. What's different about emotions? They are functions of mind, which is a function of the brain, which is biology, which is chemistry and physics. Nothing else has ever been found. This understanding does not, of course, in any way make the functioning of mind less awesome (to us emotional creatures). In fact, what I consider most awesome is how the substances created in the nuclear furnaces of stars have properties that led to the initiation of life and the evolution of the brain (and supporting structures). Of course, if they didn't, we wouldn't be observing it.
There is evidence (not proof) that certain people have memories from past lives; indeed, there are accounts of a writer writing fictional books set in Ancient Egypt whose details have been corrobated by independent experts as correct, without doing research but simply by remembrance of such lives. If such accounts are true, then the only reasonable explanation for the existence of a non-corporeal spirit is that the person in question "wasn't quite dead". Given that in this case we are talking not only of a span of thousands of years, but of people whose birth within living memory can be proven, which is more likely? When one does not have proof, one uses evidence which one does have to come to a reasonable conclusion. The only other option is to deny that something is true in the face of evidence to the contrary, which is surely less "real", if you want to be nasty about it, than reaching a conclusion based on the available evidence. We have discovered that even ideas that were arrived at by "the scientific method" have been proven wrong, whilst even that Giant of Scientists, Albert Einstein, is most famous for something which has not even been proven: The Theory of Relativity. If it were proven, it would in accordance with scientific nomenclature be called a "Law". Now, denigrate Einstein on the basis that his theory is not proven, if you dare.
Corrobated=corroborated, of course.
There exist a lot of explanations of that "evidence" other than the existence of a spirit, although that is certainly one possible explanation. There is also "evidence" of several billion people who do not have memories of past lives. How shall we interpret this? Maybe people with souls are rare, and most folks don't have one? I don't accept your "law/theory" distinction as meaningful in this context, but there is certainly much to condemn Einstein for, such as his rejection of much of quamtum mechanics. But that's OK, science is a process and it doesn't depend on individual people to be perfect in order for it to work.
Re resp:285: Evidence is stacking up that some animals have a primitive form of consciousness, too. Many species have been shown to have reasoning and problem solving abilities, and a few have even been shown to have self-recognition and body image. If consciousness is evidence of a "spirit" or "soul", how do you reconcile this with the religious belief that only humans have souls? Re resp:289: Much of the Theory of Relativity has, in fact, been tested with experimental observations. Can you suggest an experiment that will test the theory that God exists?
"science is a process and doesn't depend on individual people to be perfect". True. I also believe that, if we ever develop an ultimate, all-encompassing theory of the Universe/Reality, it will include evidence for the spiritual. It may be that we are never able to produce a theory that explains everything, (and i mean, /everything/), but that's just a function of how small and limited we are. You'll probably find that if it were possible to link the knowledge and/or consciousness of everyone who had ever lived, the knowledge thereby gained would be "greater than the sum of its parts". I don't believe that anyone has no soul. What I do believe is that some people, or at least their conscious, "intellectual" mind, are divorced from it. As for "condemning" Einstein for being wrong about quantum mechanics, I hope you'll be as sanguine if anyone in the future decides to "condemn" you for theories which were proven false. The fact is that the true nature of reality either depends on your point of view (which would seem to fit with the Theory of Relativity, or at least my limited understanding of it) or simply hasn't been discovered yet. If it had there would be no need for philosophers, artists, and poets to explore it, or philosophers, politicians, and scientists to debate it anymore.
Re: #292. I don't believe that only humans have souls. If what I have said implied it, then that was bad wording. No, I can't suggest a scientific experiment that will prove that God exists. But then I can't suggest a (practical) scientific experiment that will prove that you're not a computer, or that homosexual marriage is either beneficial or detrimental to society, either.
A practical experiment to prove I'm not a computer would be to obtain my address, visit me, and punch me in the nose. Computers don't bleed. ;) Homosexual marriage is a social issue, and that's an entirely different realm of science. If you're going to compare religion to the Theory of Relativity and to Quantum Mechanics, you're saying that it's a basic component of how the Universe works. As such, it ought to be testable, just like those theories are. The interesting thing about scientific theories that are widely accepted, then proven wrong, is that they often turn out to be correct for certain situations. For example, the equations derived from the Theory of Relativity agree quite nicely with Newtonian physics if you assume an unaccellerated frame of reference. Newtonian physics wasn't *wrong*, it was just limited. I suspect some day quantum mechanics and relativity will both turn out to be similarly limited explanations of something more complicated. There really isn't much overlap (and hence conflict) between them; quantum mechanics deals primarily with very small scale effects, and relativity with large-scale ones.
I don't know if "religion" is a basic component of how the Universe works, but that part of religion that attempts to explain Man's connection to his wider world is, in my opinion, just that.
C'mon guys! This is the MOVIES thread. How 'bout creating a metaphysics thread for this discussion.
Good idea.
There are some who say that Einstein's rejection of much of quantum
mechanics was not driven by scientific skepticism but religious
superstition ("God does not play dice with the universe.") I see no
problem with criticizing others for being irrational and would want
others to do the same to me.
Yes, Newtonian physics is correct for those limited frames of reference
where it is correct. So is phlogiston theory and flat Earth theory.
And a broken clock is right twice a day. So what?
This discussion has been moved to Item #1041. Religion plays to emotions. It's arguable that without emotions, much of our society (it's ills and its boons) would not exist. I have never understood the presence of religion and mysticism in Vulcan philosophy, as it's supposedly based entirely on logic (not that it matters, Vulcans being fictional), but I believe that true harmony can only exist with a balance between the emotional and the rational.
The Special Theory of Relativity follows from Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic fields if you insist that they apply in the same form in different inertial coordinates. The intermediate concept was the Lorenz Contractions. The experimental support for this came from the Michelson-Morley experiments. I would say that General Relativity is a Law, if you want to be fussy. However scientists are not hung up with what they call a theory and what they call a law. After all, the existence of atoms is called the Atomic Theory. These are just word games of no significance. Scientists know what the supporting evidence is for their "generalizations", whether called laws or theories. The central scientific quandry currently is reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Theory (which should be called a "law", as it is vastly more precisely confirmed (to something like 11 significant figures) than General Relativity or anything else that is called a "law"). In regard to people having memories from past lives...I go along with Thomas Paine who wrote "Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie?" (from Paine's "Age of Reason", Part I).
Past lives neither require that nature "go out of her course", nor that people who have them are telling lies, if one defines lie as "a statement made with deliberate intent to deceive". It could be (a) that they are mistaken, or that (b) the connection to past lives is a normal part of nature. One would expect nature, by our reasoning, to always "work", but the fact that I am disabled doesn't prove that I don't exist.
Finally saw Harry Potter 3 at the Village Theater in Ann Arbor. Well worth the $3 and the drive from Plymouth. Now will read the book...
Getting back to movies, I saw Vincent Gallo's "THE BROWN BUNNY" over the weekend. Vincent Gallo is a very talented young director who lives here in Brooklyn. He directed the wonderful if quirky "BUFFALO 66" among others. In this movie, he stars as a professional motorcycle racer driving across country from New York to California for a race. He is a lonely introvert haunted by guilt over an old relationship, a guilt which makes it impossible for him to commit to relatonships in the present. So he races motorcycles, a metaphor for racing from his past. The movie is a cross country roadtrip where he is heading home to california and back into his past, and meeting women along the way, whom he wants to be with but can't because of his overwhelming guilt over this past relationship. It leads to where we meet his old girlfriend, Chloe Sevigny, and discover the reasons and source of his guilt. The key scene in the movie is a graphic oral sex scene involving Sevigny and Gallo, and while it sounds er..excessive if you read press reports...the scene is artfully done and key to understanding Gallo's character and the demons he hides within. This is a dark movie about how some people are trapped in the past and can't ever escape it, they can never live in the moment, in the present, because the past is always there. "BROWN BUNNY" is a really good movie, not as good as Gallo's earlier effort, "BUFFALO '66", but Gallo remains one of the best, most cutting edge directors out there working today IMO. Worth seeing.
re #304 Is that the one with John Doe, Iggy, Tim O'Leary, etc?
On Morning Edition today, one of the stories was on film restoration. 'Twas noted that Star Wars was so popular that so many copies were made from the negative that the original is now unusable. There is so much dirt and so many scratches on _every_ frame that restoration is impossible.
Oy.
That's bull. From what I've seen on Bravo and other channels, the original is used only to create a master copy which is used to make distributed copies. Also, if restoration was impossible, that means the DVD set coming out would be pretty crappy, and you know that's not gonna happen.
The DVD set is based on the 1997 release, not on the original one. I still think Lucas has a good copy stashed away somewhere that he'll trot out when it's financially convenient.
I doubt it. He was never really happy with the original outcome, which is why he kept fiddling with it. To go back and re-release the original would be like selling a draft version, in his eyes.
re #310: Consensus opinion seems to be that when George Lucas's artistic integrity has to duke it out with conflicting financial incentives the artistic integrity rarely wins the fight. I believe if there's enough money involved he'll overcome his perfectionist streak.
#311...McNally, that is ridiculous. George Lucas is a billionaire or close to it. Why would he pick financial incentives over artistic integrity when he doesn't need the money? He'll never be able to spend the money he has now in his lifetime. His motivations are artistic, these films are his legacy and he wants both trilogies to fit together so that future generations will see the films as a WHOLE six film arc. So he tampers with the older films to make them fit better. It makes artistic sense.
George Lucas's ten year delay in making the first trilogy
was totally financial. The wife he divorced would have California
'community property' of the intellectual property.
Jedi mind trick. Palpatine could do it. After all, Anakin's
mom was the hottest *woman* (with a speaking part) in Episode I.
Sporting wood at Star Wars is just *wrong*, Tim! ;)
re #312...Lucas busy during the delay between the two trilogies. He was producing the Indiana Jones trilogy. Spielberg directed those movies, but Lucas was the producer in charge of everything and co-scriptwriter. Those movies also made a ton of money. Funny he didn't stop working altogether during his divorce isnt it?
Anakin's mom was the only woman (with a speaking part) in Episode I. (There was a child-queen that had a bigger part).
Interesting, I just read a CNN article about the changes Lucas made for the DVD editions of the first trilogy. It appears that in the Empire Strikes Back, the Emperor is in fact (trivia question!) played by a woman wearing an Emperor mask, with the voice being done by actor Clive Revill. In Return of the Jedi of course, as well as in the first trilogy, the Emperor is played by actor Ian McDiarmid. So now, by the miracle of modern technology, McDiarmid now has the part in Empire Strikes Back. Lucas has also been tinkering with Jabba the Hut, and we get a new, improved, and better Jabba.
Sigh. I liked the original three movies in their original form. I didn't think the gee-whiz special effects were an improvement.
Personally, I would have preferred to get the movies as I saw them originally. Why mess with success?
The song that Sny Snootles does in Jabba's Hut is also different, as is the Ewok Celebration.
You might not have noticed, but the "victory song" from #3 (ROTJ), with the Ewoks and all, which I did think was "funky", was replaced by a different song when episodes 4-6 were re-released prior to episode 1.
This response has been erased.
Re resp:320: That was the worst change of all. It doesn't move the plot along and the aliens are about as convincing as Muppets.
You have several choices: