|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 327 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 21 of 327:
| 
Dec 26 23:15 UTC 2002 |
I never found it confusing, I just wanted so much for each story line to
continue that it was mildly frustrating when it jumped to a different
one. Of course, by the time it jumps back, I'm reinvested in the next
one. It's a very effective way of keeping my attention, and frankly I
can't think of a better way to carry multiple divergent storylines along
in roughly the same timeframe.
|
bru
|
|
response 22 of 327:
|
Dec 26 23:34 UTC 2002 |
I don't see what the divergence from the novel adds to the story. If it had
added soemthing, I would have been more comfortable with it.
|
katie
|
|
response 23 of 327:
|
Dec 27 01:01 UTC 2002 |
I saw "Two Weeks Notice." It was not nearly as good as I expected. One
weird thing: a scene I saw in trailers on TV wasn't in the movie, and
one scene I saw in trailers was similar but not the same as the trailer.
|
tonster
|
|
response 24 of 327:
|
Dec 27 01:24 UTC 2002 |
That happens fairly often, actually.
|
scott
|
|
response 25 of 327:
|
Dec 27 02:19 UTC 2002 |
Re Two Towers: I can accept a fair amount of adaption, so things like the
more densely interleaved storylines didn't bother me a bit. Other stuff, like
the Rohirrim (mentioned in the movie also as the "horse lords") not having
very many horses drove me nuts.
There were a few neat things for those who'd read the books thoroughly, like
the statue at Helms Deep - a warrior with a big hammer, therefore he'd be Helm
Hammerhand, although nobody said anything about it.
|
danr
|
|
response 26 of 327:
|
Dec 27 04:01 UTC 2002 |
Enough about The Two Towers already! :)
Silvia and I just got back from seeing Catch Me If You Can. It's quite
a good story. At one point, it really did have me on the edge of my
seat. It also made me want to find out about what really happened.
|
gull
|
|
response 27 of 327:
|
Dec 27 04:38 UTC 2002 |
I haven't read the books, and I didn't feel like I had any trouble keeping
track of the cuts between storylines.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 28 of 327:
|
Dec 27 05:41 UTC 2002 |
Just got back from seeing "The Two Towers" and my personal opinion is
that the film drags almost as much as the book does. And while I would
not consider myself a story purist, I thought that the plot alterations
added little or nothing to the film (so far as I could see -- I'll allow
for the unlikely possibility that some of them might have been setting
up for necessary alterations in part three of the story) and found myself
in agreement with most of the previous objections from folks who may be
more invested than I am in adherence to the original story. In particular
I thought the transformation of Gimli into a comic-relief character didn't
add anything worthwhile, the fake-death scene for Aragorn was bafflingly
unnecessary, and Legolas' shield-riding scene just looked like an
embarrassingly prominent video-game tie-in.
In addition I thought the movie was about an hour too long (I'd've cut the
warg attack and most of the footage of the two Rohirrim children and the
pillaging of their village) but perhaps I'm just feeling uncharitable
because I was in a rotten mood most of the day..
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 29 of 327:
|
Dec 27 05:54 UTC 2002 |
I liked Catch Me If You Can. Read the book, too. And Abagnale's website (not
hard to find if you search on his name).
Just saw Die Another Day, and enjoyed it, despite some offenses against the
laws of physics.
|
goose
|
|
response 30 of 327:
|
Dec 27 13:51 UTC 2002 |
I loved Abagnale's book, and can't wait to see the film. Dan, if you want
to borrow the book, let me know....
|
md
|
|
response 31 of 327:
|
Dec 27 18:01 UTC 2002 |
16: Theoden wasn't a wimp at all. He was depressed and deeply
pessimistic, almost to the point of immobility. That's the way he was
in the book, too. He starts getting his courage back toward the end,
and, of course, turns into a fearless hero in The Return of the King.
I didn't notice Merry and Pippin drinking any "ent draghts" in the
movie. In the book, they drink too much of the stuff and have become
several inches taller when they next meet Frodo and Sam.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 32 of 327:
|
Dec 27 19:45 UTC 2002 |
I would have liked to have seen the Ent draughts. Bruce is more unhappy with
the movie now that he's reread the relevant passages in the books. (We found
the Red Hardcover that was my wedding present to him, lo, these 25 years ago,
and he's been re-reading.)
|
mxyzptlk
|
|
response 33 of 327:
|
Dec 28 13:23 UTC 2002 |
If Merry and Pippen did indulge in ent draughts, it'd be another
marketing opportunity to sell "short" and "tall-short" action figures.
<sigh> I guess the LOTR folks don't know how to make money.
Deviating from the book and all. And of course people _should_
feel disappointment about a perfectly entertaining movie because
it lacks the slavish plot of the book.
If you can't leave them laughing, leave them wondering what the
hell you ent.
|
giry
|
|
response 34 of 327:
|
Dec 28 15:46 UTC 2002 |
Agora 14 <-> Cinema 52
|
remmers
|
|
response 35 of 327:
|
Dec 28 16:06 UTC 2002 |
Loved "Adaptation". See, it's about orchids. No, it's about being
passionate about orchids. No, it's about being passionate about
anything. No, it's about writing a book about all of the above.
No, it's about trying to write a screenplay from the book about all
of the above that won't bore the audience to tears and suffering the
deadliest case of writer's block of all time.
Well, whatever it's about, I loved it. Nicholas Cage does a great
job playing twin screenwriter brothers (one of whom has the same name
as the actual author of the movie's screenplay), Meryl Streep is
excellent as the author whose book one of them is trying to adapt,
Chris Cooper is ditto as the redneck orchid hunter, in a movie where
it's hard to tell where reality ends and fantasy begins.
The director is Spike Jonze, of "Inside John Malkovich" fame. That
tells you something right there.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 36 of 327:
|
Dec 28 21:41 UTC 2002 |
s/Inside/Being/
|
md
|
|
response 37 of 327:
|
Dec 28 22:15 UTC 2002 |
33: Having read the book adds another element of enjoyment to seeing
the movie. A certain type of reader, the author would probably say the
best type, has already already produced a movie of the book in his
head, and will come out of the theater happy about some things that
were added or changed or left out and disappointed about others. Can't
be helped, but doesn't mean he didn't enjoy the movie. Some of us like
George Pal's _War of the Worlds_ movie better than H. G. Wells' novel.
|
remmers
|
|
response 38 of 327:
|
Dec 29 02:59 UTC 2002 |
(Re #36: Thanks for the title correction.)
|
slynne
|
|
response 39 of 327:
|
Dec 29 17:19 UTC 2002 |
I wanted to go see Adaptations or Catch Me If You Can but was talked
into seeing Gangs of New York instead. It was the worst movie I have
seen in 2002. Yuck. The acting was terrible. They had a 1/2 hour plot
stretched out into almost 3 hours of torture. There was a lot of
violence and gratuitous gory parts. I was with someone I dont know too
well otherwise I would have suggested leaving. I wish I had suggested
it anyway as the person I was with felt the same way as I did.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 40 of 327:
|
Dec 29 19:06 UTC 2002 |
I enjoyed "Catch Me If You Can." The story was unusual, the characters
were well-played, and the movie was full of little humorous cut-aways,
some more effective than others. Fun without being total fluff..
|
goose
|
|
response 41 of 327:
|
Dec 29 23:51 UTC 2002 |
I saw Catch Me If You Can last night, I concur with mcnally. ;-)
Read the book if you get a chance, the movie changed a lot of things, but
that's not all bad. I really enjoyed the book when I discovered it about
three years ago.
|
richard
|
|
response 42 of 327:
|
Dec 30 07:16 UTC 2002 |
GANGS OF NEW YORK-- Saw this, the new Martin Scorcese movie about the
gang wars that took place in the streets of New York in the mid 19th
century. Scorcese paints a picture of a truly dark time, full of
classism and bigotry. The central conflict is between the newly arrived
immigrant irish, and the british descendants whose families had been in
America for generations and considered the Irish to be low class.
Leonardo DiCaprio plays the irish son of a murdered priest, who grows up
and vows to murder the warlord who killed his father, the bloodthirsty
evil gang leader, Bill the Butcher, played by Daniel Day Lewis. This
movie is worth watching just to see the amazing performance of Day Lewis,
who breathes fire and treachery, and manages to embody the entire conflict
within his character. His performance just scorches the screen and I
think he's going to win another best actor oscar for it. The
cinematography in the fight scenes is awesome and this is a top notch
production all around. Movie is three hours long and didn't seem like it
at all. Very entertaining!
|
slynne
|
|
response 43 of 327:
|
Dec 30 15:21 UTC 2002 |
Dont listen to him. It is a trick.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 44 of 327:
|
Dec 30 17:15 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 45 of 327:
|
Dec 30 17:53 UTC 2002 |
It's hard to say what's standard Spielberg fare, given that he did Schindler's
List.
|
