|
Grex > Cinema > #62: Grex goes to the movies-- the Spring Movie Review item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 278 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 139 of 278:
|
May 21 17:04 UTC 2004 |
Heh.
|
twenex
|
|
response 140 of 278:
|
May 22 15:56 UTC 2004 |
Troy: Excellent.
Saddle my horse, the epic is back!
|
md
|
|
response 141 of 278:
|
May 23 14:47 UTC 2004 |
Two recent rentals we missed in the theaters:
RUSSIAN ARK (A) - A Russian director's loving homage to Russian culture
and The Hermitage, the big museum in Leningrad (St. Petersburg to you
capitalist pigs). The camera travels from room to room -- 37 of them
in all -- following a European snob (Russian actor doing what I suppose
sounds to Russian ears like a French accent) and his invisible Russian
companion (the voice of the director, from whose POV the movie is
seen). There we see personages and incidents from 300 years of Russian
history. The movie is 90 minutes long, and although it took four years
to prepare, the actual shooting was done in one single 90-minute-long
take. I knew beforehand that that's how the movie had been shot, but I
didn't beieve it until I actually saw it. The final 15 minutes, in
which about a thousand actors dressed in period costumes dance the last
dance at a grand ball then make their way down the huge double-
staircase and off the stage of history forever, is one of the most
beautiful things I've ever seen in a movie. (This is one movie where
the interviews and "making of" documentary in the Special Features are
just as interestng as the movie itself.)
CALENDAR GIRLS (B) - A trying-not-to-look-exploitive movie about the
middle-aged English garden club ladies who made a nude calendar of
themselves to raise money for a good cause. Helen Mirren is excellent
as the ageing egotistical wild child whose idea the whole thing is.
Lots of false sentimentality and other commercial phoniness, but really
no worse than most other movies. Plus, the Brit's eye view of American
glitz is priceless.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 142 of 278:
|
May 23 15:24 UTC 2004 |
Troy was pretty well done, especially if you like mass (and individual)
slauterings. Also, the book was better (having survived for a couple of
millenia-plus, which I doubt the movie will). But it was moderately
faithful to the book(s) - except for omitting Cassandra, who killed
Agamemnon *after* he took her back to Greece.
|
twenex
|
|
response 143 of 278:
|
May 23 16:45 UTC 2004 |
In Troy's defence, the director does include the caveat at the beginnign of
the end (credits) that the story was *inspired* by The Iliad, a level of
honesty you don't find in 3rd-rate Tolkien-inspired fantasy.
|
realugly
|
|
response 144 of 278:
|
May 23 17:02 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 145 of 278:
|
May 23 17:26 UTC 2004 |
Haven't seen "Troy", but as I understand it the movie has no supernatural
beings (a.k.a. gods). They were pretty important characters in The Iliad.
|
twenex
|
|
response 146 of 278:
|
May 23 17:27 UTC 2004 |
There aren't any people in the film playing Gods, but it's hardly a secular
travesty of the book; several are mentioned quite often.
|
realugly
|
|
response 147 of 278:
|
May 23 17:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 148 of 278:
|
May 23 17:47 UTC 2004 |
re #142: Agamemnon was killed by Clytemnestra, with the help of her
lover Aegisthus.
Cassandra was pretty much a one-device character, though
it's a great device: always (accurately) foretelling
misfortune and never being believed..
|
rcurl
|
|
response 149 of 278:
|
May 23 19:08 UTC 2004 |
The characters are doing all sorts of things because of and on behalf of
their gods, and statues of them abound. One would interpret from the movie
that much in their society was heavily influenced by their beliefs in gods.
Aha! I will speak to my resident expert on Greek myths, who told me
Cassandra slew Agememnon. However, she was close: Clymtemnestra slew
both Agemenon and Cassandra.
At least it was faithful to Achilles' heel, which everyone knows about
and therefore had to be kept (at least, everyone knows Achilles had a
heel....).
|
twenex
|
|
response 150 of 278:
|
May 23 19:09 UTC 2004 |
Heh. One review my Dad read said they made no mention of the heel. D'Oh!
|
realugly
|
|
response 151 of 278:
|
May 23 19:22 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 152 of 278:
|
May 23 20:01 UTC 2004 |
They didn't *mention* the heel, but it was shown clearly that an arrow
shot by Paris penetrated Achilles' heel.
Did the actor portraying Achilles perform all those calesthetics in
battle, or were some done by stuntmen - or even computer generated?
|
twenex
|
|
response 153 of 278:
|
May 23 20:02 UTC 2004 |
"The actor portraying Achilles"?! Are you telling us you never heard of Brad
Pitt?!
|
realugly
|
|
response 154 of 278:
|
May 23 20:05 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 155 of 278:
|
May 24 05:45 UTC 2004 |
Wasn't Pitt the actor portraying Achilles?
|
twenex
|
|
response 156 of 278:
|
May 24 05:50 UTC 2004 |
I believe I just said that...
|
realugly
|
|
response 157 of 278:
|
May 24 06:15 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
edina
|
|
response 158 of 278:
|
May 24 18:51 UTC 2004 |
Brad Pitt worked out to get in shape to play Achilles for a year previous to
filming.
|
tod
|
|
response 159 of 278:
|
May 24 19:04 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
katie
|
|
response 160 of 278:
|
May 25 20:33 UTC 2004 |
Shrek 2 is wonderful. I'll have to see it a few times to catch all the
stuff.
|
gull
|
|
response 161 of 278:
|
May 26 13:54 UTC 2004 |
Supersize Me - In case you aren't familiar with the premise of the
movie, here's how it works: A guy decides to eat nothing but McDonalds
food for a month. The rules are he can only eat things that are sold at
McDonalds, he has to eat three meals a day, he has to try everything on
the menu at least once, and if they ask him if he wants to supersize it,
he has to say yes. The effects on his health are dramatic -- he gains
about 20 pounds, much of it in the first two weeks; his cholesterol
skyrockets; his liver starts to shut down; he suffers mood swings and
depression that are only relieved by eating more food.
Now, to get the main criticism of the movie out of the way, no, there's
nothing particularly unique about McDonalds food. If he'd eaten 5,000
calories a day somewhere else, he probably would have gotten pretty much
the same results. But there's more to the movie than that -- he talks
about how fast-food advertising is targeted at children, how the
advertising we see favors unhealthy foods over healthy ones, how portion
sizes have expanded over the years, and how school hot lunches are now
mostly reheated convenience foods instead of healthier food cooked at
the school.
It's a funny and thought-provoking movie, and it'll make you wonder
about your own diet. Even the doctors he consults with are astounded at
how dramatic the effects on his body are in just 30 days.
|
tod
|
|
response 162 of 278:
|
May 26 17:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 163 of 278:
|
May 27 03:33 UTC 2004 |
At the screening of "Supersize Me" that I saw here in nyc, the director
spoke afterwards. He made it clear that one reason the effects of all
that eating McD's were so dramatic in his case, is that he did not and
does not regularly eat junk or high fat foods. His girlfriend is a vegan
chef. So his body was not in any way conditioned to that kind of diet.
It is like if you have two guys who decide to go on a booze binge, and one
of the guys is a habitual regular drinker and the other guy is normally a
teetotaler. Who is the binge drinking going to affect more? Answer-- the
guy who doesn't drink normally because his body isn't used to it. So
naturally, a guy who is mostly a vegetarian and never eats fried food, to
all of a sudden eat nothing but fried food for a solid month, is going to
have tolerance issues. As he said, once his body adapted to the high fat
fried food diet, the physical problems would be reduced. He was less sick
at the end of the month than he was seventeen days in. His body was
adapting.
|