|
Grex > Cinema > #68: Grex goes to the movies - The Summer Movies Review Item |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 323 responses total. |
mooncat
|
|
response 138 of 323:
| 
Jul 26 22:09 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
twenex
|
|
response 139 of 323:
|
Jul 26 22:11 UTC 2004 |
'Twas slated by the critics, but came in at 3 in the States this week, I
hear.
|
richard
|
|
response 140 of 323:
|
Jul 27 01:50 UTC 2004 |
#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?
|
furs
|
|
response 141 of 323:
|
Jul 27 10:01 UTC 2004 |
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. ;)
|
mooncat
|
|
response 142 of 323:
|
Jul 27 12:24 UTC 2004 |
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. ;)
|
twenex
|
|
response 143 of 323:
|
Jul 27 21:52 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
katie
|
|
response 144 of 323:
|
Jul 27 22:20 UTC 2004 |
Didn't at all enjoy "Before Sunset." Bad acting; annoying characters.
|
mfp
|
|
response 145 of 323:
|
Jul 27 22:59 UTC 2004 |
Re. 143: ACtually, those were approrpiate accents for the time period.
|
grexmom
|
|
response 146 of 323:
|
Jul 28 00:00 UTC 2004 |
#145 appropriate
|
naftee
|
|
response 147 of 323:
|
Jul 28 01:29 UTC 2004 |
Yes mom
|
bru
|
|
response 148 of 323:
|
Jul 28 02:42 UTC 2004 |
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?
|
twenex
|
|
response 149 of 323:
|
Jul 28 10:53 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
twenex
|
|
response 150 of 323:
|
Jul 28 10:56 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
bru
|
|
response 151 of 323:
|
Jul 28 14:26 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
twenex
|
|
response 152 of 323:
|
Jul 28 19:23 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 153 of 323:
|
Jul 28 19:49 UTC 2004 |
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?
|
twenex
|
|
response 154 of 323:
|
Jul 28 19:52 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 155 of 323:
|
Jul 28 20:27 UTC 2004 |
Re 153: Well, wouldn't you be distracted if, say, John Gotti was played with
a Southern drawl?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 156 of 323:
|
Jul 28 20:32 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 157 of 323:
|
Jul 28 20:54 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 158 of 323:
|
Jul 28 22:45 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 159 of 323:
|
Jul 28 22:47 UTC 2004 |
I gave a private showing of F911 to my folks this weekend. We all agreed that
Moore is a funny man.
|
ric
|
|
response 160 of 323:
|
Jul 29 01:09 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
richard
|
|
response 161 of 323:
|
Jul 29 01:19 UTC 2004 |
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
.'
|
richard
|
|
response 162 of 323:
|
Jul 29 01:25 UTC 2004 |
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
|