|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 326 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 178 of 326:
| 
Jun 5 02:26 UTC 2000 |
I'm going to have to concede your point -- it was not a biotech facility..
My guess is that it was a movie set, and not a particularly thoroughly
thought-out one..
Other things I'd like to know: what were all of those gas cylinders
doing there? Were they there just in case Tom Cruise or McGyver launched
a commando raid on the place?
And what is the facility used for when it's not hosting negotiations with
bio-weapon terrorists? It seems like the personnel costs in security
alone would make it a white elephant if you weren't storing some sort of
bio-weapon or similarly crucial object there. Certainly the corporation
might've been better advised to use some of those security to protect their
main facilities, which both the M:I team *and* the villains had simply
waltzed into not 24 hours before.. But then it's probably pretty hard to
staff a place with the sort of ask-no-questions security guards who will
give up their lives to protect the property of a company that's getting
ready to kill millions of their fellow countrymen, especially in today's
hot job market..
;-p
|
jazz
|
|
response 179 of 326:
|
Jun 5 03:22 UTC 2000 |
Dru, I hated "True Lies" too, and, if I'm reading what you wrote
correctly, we hated it for the same reasons. I'm not really sure what the
difference is between a good mindless action film and a bad mindless action
film - it could be the sensible kinetic and visual language behind a good
mindless action film which is enough to defray the logical understanding of
the rational language of the plot until after it's over, or it could just be
that it's pretty and the soundtrack matches the action of the characters, to
lull the audience into a trance.
|
senna
|
|
response 180 of 326:
|
Jun 5 05:18 UTC 2000 |
I don't particularly like True Lies. They put Arnold into a movie, added
pyrotechnics, and expected it to work. It didn't, so they included Jamie Lee
Curtis and lingerie. Apparently, deadlines prevented them from making it
good...
|
mcnally
|
|
response 181 of 326:
|
Jun 5 05:31 UTC 2000 |
I actually liked "True Lies" except for the creepily sadistic part where
Arnold is psychologically torturing Jamie Lee.. But that was enough to
kill the pacing of the movie and introduce issues that distracted greatly
from the entertainment value of seeing things get "blowed up real good."
|
goose
|
|
response 182 of 326:
|
Jun 5 15:25 UTC 2000 |
Mike, in MI:2 they mentioned that the castle in question was a storage
facility.
IFO also liked "True Lies" despite my aversion to Arnold.
|
ric
|
|
response 183 of 326:
|
Jun 5 17:52 UTC 2000 |
I liked True Lies myself.
When we went down to the keys a few years back, I saw the "bridge" that was
blown up. They actually did blow up that bridge. Of course, it had been
replaced by a new bridge which was magically erased from the shots.
|
jep
|
|
response 184 of 326:
|
Jun 5 18:43 UTC 2000 |
We rented "Galaxy Quest" over the weekend. I didn't like it much. Tim
Allen did a pretty good impression of William Shatner as a has-been
actor touring conventions for his long-dead science fiction show. The
action of the movie was pretty cheesy, though.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 185 of 326:
|
Jun 5 21:08 UTC 2000 |
I think it was... no... I KNOW it was supposed to be horribly cheesy.
<grins> Now if they had tried to be serious I don't think I would have
liked it... but this was a spoof of several different things, it was
intended to drip with cheese.
|
aruba
|
|
response 186 of 326:
|
Jun 6 02:53 UTC 2000 |
Re #184: John, I suspect Galaxy Quest may be the kind of comedy that
benefits greatly from an audience. I saw it in a theater and loved it.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 187 of 326:
|
Jun 6 03:00 UTC 2000 |
I wouldn't say I "loved" it, but I enjoyed it for what it was --
a light-hearted spoof of a target that's ripe for spoofing..
|
omni
|
|
response 188 of 326:
|
Jun 6 03:54 UTC 2000 |
BTW, for those of us who are dim of wit, exactly when and what movie
is Grex sponsoring? I'm thinking about attending.
|
remmers
|
|
response 189 of 326:
|
Jun 6 14:05 UTC 2000 |
"Galaxy Quest". Top of the Park, Sunday, July 9.
|
omni
|
|
response 190 of 326:
|
Jun 6 17:38 UTC 2000 |
I'm there.
|
edina
|
|
response 191 of 326:
|
Jun 6 17:39 UTC 2000 |
Galaxy Quest was great! I loved Sigourney Weaver going on about what the
computer was saying. It cracked me up.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 192 of 326:
|
Jun 6 17:48 UTC 2000 |
<grins and nods to Brooke> And the engineer guy! "yeah... just an
FYI..."
|
otaking
|
|
response 193 of 326:
|
Jun 6 20:03 UTC 2000 |
I saw a couple of movies last night.
BEING JOHN MALKOVICH: This movie was incredible. Even though people told me
about some of the movie, nothing prepared me for what I saw. Wow.
FREE ENTERPRISE: Fun movie. It was good. I liked the constant SF movie
references and, of course, Shatner sings.
|
other
|
|
response 194 of 326:
|
Jun 6 23:57 UTC 2000 |
TWINE - Wow. Sophie Marceau has a really beautiful face.
|
ric
|
|
response 195 of 326:
|
Jun 6 23:59 UTC 2000 |
Have I yet mentioned that I like almost every movie that John Cusack has been
in? "High Fidelity" being the most recent.
|
aruba
|
|
response 196 of 326:
|
Jun 7 01:03 UTC 2000 |
My new laptop has a DVD drive, so we rented the DVD version of The Abyss the
other night.
It's great. Not only does it look and sound great on DVD (even watched on
a 15-inch laptop screen), but the disk contains a lot more stuff. It has
both the original version and the director's cut, and you can watch
subtitles which tell you throughout how the special effects were created, as
they appear. But then there's a whole other section which contains slide
shows explaining different aspects of the production in depth. I went
through the one on the pseudopod sequence. It took me about a half an hour.
It included all the original storyboards for the sequence, and a description
of all the steps the graphics guys went through to create it. (It took them
8 months to do a 3-minute piece.) Really, really interesting.
|
jazz
|
|
response 197 of 326:
|
Jun 7 15:58 UTC 2000 |
I'm curious as to the reasons that those who liked Being John
Malkovitch liked it - everyone that I've discussed the movie with was
thoroughly disappointed, even if they hadn't read the reviews or heard any
of the hype surrounding the film.
|
scott
|
|
response 198 of 326:
|
Jun 7 17:29 UTC 2000 |
I loved it. Very funny! As to why... I dunno. The willingness to take truly
odd plot twists? The acting?
|
mooncat
|
|
response 199 of 326:
|
Jun 7 17:45 UTC 2000 |
<pokes John> You obviously didn't discuss it with me. <grins>
|
edina
|
|
response 200 of 326:
|
Jun 7 18:46 UTC 2000 |
I wasn't disappointed by "Being John Malkovich." I frequently wondered how
big the hit of acid was that the writer dropped to produce such an idea. We
also paused the movie several times to go "What the Fuck?". I give it an A
for originality - and A for acting. But I can't say that I liked it. By the
way, Cameron Diaz deserved an Oscar for it - not Catherine Keener. She was
amazing.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 201 of 326:
|
Jun 7 19:31 UTC 2000 |
re #200: I think the problem was that people didn't even realize
that that *was* Cameron Diaz. She's nearly unrecognizable if you're
looking for someone who looks like her other roles..
re #197: I liked it because it was an original and pretty surreal farce
peppered with bizarre sight jokes that it didn't get too heavy to enjoy.
|
scg
|
|
response 202 of 326:
|
Jun 7 19:42 UTC 2000 |
I came out of Being John Malkovich thinking, "wow, that was weird..." It kept
me thinking about it for quite a while.
|
