|
Grex > Cinema > #23: ---<<<< AT THE MOVIES >>>>--- |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 146 responses total. |
dino1
|
|
response 16 of 146:
| 
Sep 27 12:30 UTC 1998 |
I saw 'The Fifth Element' on Friday. It is one of the few movies that i can
watch more than once. I really enjoyed it.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 17 of 146:
|
Sep 27 13:32 UTC 1998 |
#3 million? Maybe that time travel tourism agency has been using
Woodstock as a destination point too much?
<tpryan hears Joni Mitchell singing...by the we got to Woodstock
we were 3 million strong>
|
eieio
|
|
response 18 of 146:
|
Sep 27 16:05 UTC 1998 |
Letterman had a top 10 list about Things Learned From Woodstock. The only two
I can remember are "Not everyone looks good naked" and "If you have three days
to fill, you can probably find room for Sha Na Na".
I actually have not seen "Schindler's List". And I'm not sure if I want to.
Before you all start raiding my apartment, looking for armbands and Zyklon,
let me explain.
At the time "Schindler's List" came out, one of my film genres classes covered
"Evil". While, for the most part it covered works of fiction ("Boyz N The
Hood", "Apocalypse Now") we had an especially indepth examination of "Shoah".
"Shoah" is a documentary by Claude Lanzmann, in which he speaks to Holocaust
survivors (one of whom spared his own life by acting in complicity with the
Nazis), unrepentant former Nazis, and the people of the towns with
concentration camps, who knew what was going on, but chose not to do anything
about it.
When I was through with this unit, although I was heartened to know the human
spirit could survive such atrocities, it also profoundly saddened me to
realize that this same human spirit could do these things in the first place,
and I really didn't want to see anything more about the Holocaust for a while
after that.
And now, I think the film I would go back to is still "Shoah", rather than
"Schindler's List". I'm not saying that Spielberg, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes,
et al aren't capable of telling their story well. But when I watch a
recreation like this, no matter how painstakingly researched, no matter how
sincere everyone involved is, I still know fully well that this is a work of
art. It's a construction.
No matter how well they tell someone else's story, it's still exactly that:
someone else's story. And that can't touch me nearly as much as someone, in
his own words, telling me what's in his heart.
(For example, a few of the interviews are in English, most are German, and
there's some more in other languages. When I had to read subtitles to
understand the interviews, I didn't feel the impact as strongly as I did for
the English and German scenes. Simply knowing there was another layer
distancing me and the people on the screen was enough to remove me.)
|
eltegus
|
|
response 19 of 146:
|
Sep 28 17:54 UTC 1998 |
I went to see "Ronin" on it's premiere (9/25/98), starring Robert Deniro.
Great performance by Pryce, McElhone, and Reno; among other notable actors!
The cast was excellent, and having Deniro as the leading character, makes this
movie worthwhile! I give it "two thumbs up". (expect wild car chases, massive
killings, and a host of betrayals.) I give it ***** !
|
giry
|
|
response 20 of 146:
|
Oct 2 02:15 UTC 1998 |
Agora 15 <-> Cinema 23
|
bjorn
|
|
response 21 of 146:
|
Oct 5 00:35 UTC 1998 |
"What Dreams May Come" - B+, too much of the scene-jumping reminiscent of
"Deconstructing Harry", but other than that an excellent movie.
|
mary
|
|
response 22 of 146:
|
Oct 6 21:08 UTC 1998 |
"What Dreams May Come" is an extraordinary movie. Not all scenes worked.
The philosophy is right out of a hemp haze. But it takes so many risks it
is forgiven the lapses. See it for the sets, the cinematography, the
computer generated art, and the opening scenes of Hell.
|
krj
|
|
response 23 of 146:
|
Oct 9 15:30 UTC 1998 |
D.W. Griffith's silent film INTOLERANCE is showing at the Michigan
Theatre next week. If I remember correctly, it's Tuesday October 13
at 4 pm. Live organ accompaniment. I managed to miss this last
time it was here, so I'm hoping to make this show.
|
bjorn
|
|
response 24 of 146:
|
Oct 9 16:36 UTC 1998 |
Actually, I did mostly see What Dreams May Come for the backgrounds, and that
aspect I give an A+ to.
|
mary
|
|
response 25 of 146:
|
Oct 10 02:35 UTC 1998 |
Re: 23 John and I saw it a few years ago, at the Michigan. It was the
first time I'd seen it and I was blown away. It is a magnificent movie.
From time to time I still find myself thinking about the closing shot.
|
scg
|
|
response 26 of 146:
|
Oct 11 20:45 UTC 1998 |
I saw Antz last night. It's animated, and rated G, so I was expecting it to
be a childrens' movie. It's not. It's both very Woody Allen and very
Spielberg, with an excellent story and spectacular cinematography.
|
krj
|
|
response 27 of 146:
|
Oct 12 03:55 UTC 1998 |
(Can you really call it "Cinematography" when it's an animated film?
I thought it was rated PG.)
|
senna
|
|
response 28 of 146:
|
Oct 12 15:27 UTC 1998 |
My understanding is that the difference is sometimes difficult to discern in
this movie.
|
jep
|
|
response 29 of 146:
|
Oct 12 15:53 UTC 1998 |
We borrowed a copy of "Titanic" on videotape and watched it on Saturday.
It was still a good movie; a good story, but the special effects much,
much less impressive on TV than on a big screen. It was a lot more
obvious to both of us that the graphics were computer generated -- the
water looks flatter and more fake. Some of the background images of the
ship looked like the mountains in old Westerns, where there was just a
painting of a mountain in the background.
Also, it was much more obvious on the 2nd showing that almost the entire
last hour of the movie, when the stars are dashing from place to place
around the ship, is just a demo of how impressive the ship was. The
story wouldn't suffer at all from that part being clipped.
It's still a great movie, in my opinion. I'm glad I didn't buy the
videotape, though.
Does anyone know if it's possible to get "The Poseidon Adventure" on
videotape? I've asked for it at our local Video Connection, and at
another video store in Tecumseh, but neither had it. I'd like to see it
again.
|
other
|
|
response 30 of 146:
|
Oct 12 17:49 UTC 1998 |
***The Apostle***
We suffered through the whole thing waiting for the good parts, and finished
it convinced that the academy awards were a purely political nod to the right
wing, and perhaps even to the moderate forces who are tired of the industry's
glorification of sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, smoking, violence, car chases and
all the other good stuff. If you're an evangelical sort, or an anthropolgist
studying evangelical movements, you might have a more interesting time with
this one. as for me, even the human drama was buried under an unpleasant crud
pile of saccharin religiosity. i give it a resounding "bleah" (with
appropriate nods to charles schultz)
|
agro
|
|
response 31 of 146:
|
Oct 12 18:03 UTC 1998 |
fdfd
|
remmers
|
|
response 32 of 146:
|
Oct 12 18:23 UTC 1998 |
Re #30: Hm, I came away from "The Apostle" with a very different
impression. Although I didn't think it was all that great a film,
it didn't seem to me that it was endorsing the evangelism and
religiousity that it depicted, and more than "The Godfather"
endorsed organized crime. The main character, played by Robert
Duvall, was a pretty un-virtuous guy..
|
maeve
|
|
response 33 of 146:
|
Oct 12 18:37 UTC 1998 |
Oh that was such a painful movie. It was awful. I don't mind movies
about scum as long as they have good reasons for being scum, this was
just bad. He was stupid and arrogant and preying on that woman who was
being just as stupid in falling for him. Nasty nasty man. At any rate,
it sparked a discussion about kissing with a hat on, and it was decided
that it might be quite a talent to have, and that discussion in turn
gave me a good idea for a library poster. So it wasn't a complete waste
of a movie, but very very close.
|
scg
|
|
response 34 of 146:
|
Oct 12 18:59 UTC 1998 |
re 27:
Yes, I can call it cinematography even though it was animated. With
most animated films I couldn't, but with this one, I can.
|
remmers
|
|
response 35 of 146:
|
Oct 12 19:09 UTC 1998 |
"Touch of Evil" - FOUR STARS
When Orson Welles' noir thriller about crime and corruption in a
US/Mexico border town was released in the 1950's, alterations
were made that were contrary to Welles' wishes as expressed in a
long memo that he wrote to the studio. Despite this, the film has
achieved classic status over the years.
Now, forty years later, "Touch of Evil" has been re-edited -- with
Universal Studios' cooperation -- to conform to what Welles wanted.
The incredible three-minute-long single-take tracking shot that opens
the film no longer has the credits and Henry Mancini's music super-
imposed on it. Key scenes that explain characters' motivations have
been added back in. Overall, the film seems more unified and
consistent.
It's not a perfect film. Welles and Charleton Heston are too limited
as actors to quite bring off the monumental clash of wills that I
think was intended. Welles' character is supposed to be tragic, but
as written and played he's a pretty one-dimensional villain.
But things move along so fast that you hardly have time to notice
the flaws. For atmosphere and camera pyrotechnics, "Touch of Evil"
has few rivals. With its rapid editing and pacing, its gallery of
bizarre characters and situations, it's a continually engrossing
wild ride that shouldn't be missed. Highly recommended.
|
remmers
|
|
response 36 of 146:
|
Oct 12 19:12 UTC 1998 |
Re #33: Hm... I'm curious what the good reasons are for being scum.
|
omni
|
|
response 37 of 146:
|
Oct 12 19:39 UTC 1998 |
I really want to see Touch of Evil now that it's been restored.
|
other
|
|
response 38 of 146:
|
Oct 13 00:17 UTC 1998 |
i don't mean to imply that i thought the film endorsed the evangelical idea,
but merely that its portayal of it was overbearing in relation to the story...
|
md
|
|
response 39 of 146:
|
Oct 13 11:29 UTC 1998 |
A web reviewer (Salon, I think) recently referred to "What Dreams
May Come" as a "hideous explosion in the cosmic kitsch factory."
That's what the TV commercials for it make it look like, but I'd
still like to see it and make up my own mind. If only Robin
Williams weren't in it . . .
|
mary
|
|
response 40 of 146:
|
Oct 13 12:53 UTC 1998 |
Williams is very subdued in "What Dreams...". The computer
animation and special effects *are* the movie.
|