|
Grex > Cinema > #68: Grex goes to the movies - The Summer Movies Review Item |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 323 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 113 of 323:
| 
Jul 14 01:37 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
pgreen
|
|
response 114 of 323:
|
Jul 14 02:39 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gregb
|
|
response 115 of 323:
|
Jul 16 13:37 UTC 2004 |
Re. 113: I think I'm gonna be sick. B-p
|
jvmv
|
|
response 116 of 323:
|
Jul 18 08:32 UTC 2004 |
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!
...
|
tod
|
|
response 117 of 323:
|
Jul 19 14:56 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
fitz
|
|
response 118 of 323:
|
Jul 19 16:19 UTC 2004 |
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?
|
twenex
|
|
response 119 of 323:
|
Jul 19 16:21 UTC 2004 |
My advice on Spiderman 2? Wait for hte DVD.
|
edina
|
|
response 120 of 323:
|
Jul 19 16:25 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 121 of 323:
|
Jul 19 16:32 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 122 of 323:
|
Jul 19 17:18 UTC 2004 |
re #121: it had plenty of tentacles and arachnids.
|
tod
|
|
response 123 of 323:
|
Jul 19 17:25 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gregb
|
|
response 124 of 323:
|
Jul 19 21:52 UTC 2004 |
Re. 120: The book is nothing like the movie, which is understandable as
the book was an anthology of robot-related stories.
|
jvmv
|
|
response 125 of 323:
|
Jul 26 07:22 UTC 2004 |
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.
...
|
ric
|
|
response 126 of 323:
|
Jul 26 13:40 UTC 2004 |
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)
|
edina
|
|
response 127 of 323:
|
Jul 26 14:31 UTC 2004 |
Heh. In the credits, it flat out says it's adapted from the book.
|
gregb
|
|
response 128 of 323:
|
Jul 26 15:47 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
glenda
|
|
response 129 of 323:
|
Jul 26 16:31 UTC 2004 |
Re #127: The credits say that it's "suggested" by the books.
|
gull
|
|
response 130 of 323:
|
Jul 26 16:58 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
ric
|
|
response 131 of 323:
|
Jul 26 17:31 UTC 2004 |
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"
|
edina
|
|
response 132 of 323:
|
Jul 26 20:06 UTC 2004 |
Suggested, adapted, either way I know it's not a literal rendering.
|
twenex
|
|
response 133 of 323:
|
Jul 26 21:39 UTC 2004 |
I'd prefer that people were honest about that, like they were in "Troy".
Stuff like 1953's WAR OF THE WORLDS was ridiculous.
|
tod
|
|
response 134 of 323:
|
Jul 26 21:49 UTC 2004 |
So the scene in Ten Commandments when Heston raises up the tablet and you can
see his spidel wristwatch wasn't VERBATIM?!?
|
twenex
|
|
response 135 of 323:
|
Jul 26 21:53 UTC 2004 |
Don't know, haven't seen it. Probably not!
|
tod
|
|
response 136 of 323:
|
Jul 26 21:58 UTC 2004 |
Yul Brynner as Ramses II!
How could you not see it?!?
|
twenex
|
|
response 137 of 323:
|
Jul 26 22:06 UTC 2004 |
An oversight!
|