response 210 of 269:

May 30 14:27 UTC 2003

Re 206  Number one, I'm not anti-social.  Number two, I don't live on the
Sough Side of Chicago - nor do I want to - but thanks for asking.  Number 3
- please excuse me if the $8-10 I'm shelling out just to see the movie makes
me want to actually watch it.

response 212 of 269:

May 30 14:41 UTC 2003

A certain amount of audience noise is fine with me.  I remember seeing
"Beverly Hills Cop" while sitting next to a black women who kept repeating
"he gonna *fuck* him up!" at appropriate points through the whole movie.
I didn't know her, but she was obviously loving the movie, and I thought
that it actually added substantially to my appreciation of the movie.  I
actually like getting some sense of how other people are responding to the
film.  Whoops, and screams and applause and non-cynical commentary (not
so much the "I'm going to prove how much smarter than the film makers I am"
kind) are all fine with me.

response 216 of 269:

May 31 05:10 UTC 2003

Well, a friend and I finally saw Reloaded tonight.  I'd like to think 
my analysis hasn't been tainted by the msgs. here, but I'd have to 
agree with those that said the pacing was off.  The fight scenes were 
too long and in most cases, meaningless, except to show off martial 
arts moves and special effects.  I also agree with the comment that the 
dialog spent too much time in philisophical riddles.  In hindsight, I 
don't think it's worth the $8.50 ticket.  However, I do plan on adding 
it to my DVD collection when it comes out.

What I did like was seeing Zion and how it works.  And I thought the 
freeway scene was the best of the flashy stuff.  I actually jumped when 
that semi rushed into the screen.  When the movie was over, most of the 
audiance left;  I guess they didn't know about the trailer for 
Revolutions.  From what I saw, It looks to be more of the same.  If my 
friends go, I'll pay full price, otherwise, I'll wait for the DVD.

Summary:  Lots of flash, bu not much plot.

response 218 of 269:

May 31 17:37 UTC 2003

Watched Adaptations last night on VHS. How did they double Cage in the
scenes he was talking with "himself"? 

response 220 of 269:

Jun 1 17:40 UTC 2003

        Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the critical accolade for
either "Being John Malkovitch" or "Adaptions".  They're both billed as
hillarious, but I've yet to see anyone get more than a dry chuckle or two out
of either, and both seem to excel in revelling in ugliness and workmanlike
cinematography.  Both also attempt to tackle reasonably novel or deep ideas,
but fail to really follow up on any of the consequences or implications of
those ideas.

response 222 of 269:

Jun 1 18:27 UTC 2003

I loved both of them. There were parts in both where I laughed so hard 
tears were coming from my eyes...usually during the more absurd parts. 
But I think what really did it for the critics was that they were so 
original and different from other films. I think if one is a critic and 
sees thousands of films, it is more meaningful that the film is 
different. I think this is one reason why Memento got such critical 
acclaim and also why David Lynch movies are so popular with critics. 
And while different does not necessarily mean good (e.g. moulon rouge), 
it certainly counts for something.

response 224 of 269:

Jun 2 02:58 UTC 2003

My son and I, my parents, and my nieces saw "Finding Nemo" last 
night.  It was glitzy, colorful, and funny in many places; repetitious 
and slow in others.

There were no great songs; in fact there were no feature-type songs at 
all.  I was disappointed about that.

My favorite Disney movies, in order, are probably The Aristocats, The 
Lion King, Toy Story, The Little Mermaid, and Monsters, Inc.  I've 
liked all of the Disney/Pixar movies and have been looking forward to 
this one for months.  They've concentrated on excellent stories up 
until now.  I thought they put more effort into glitz and less into 
keeping the story interesting this time.  Maybe I'll like it better 
the next time I see it.

response 226 of 269:

Jun 2 13:10 UTC 2003

I saw _Finding Nemo_ on Friday and I disagree with jep.  I thought it
was hilarious, and really enjoyed it.  The glitz didn't have any real
effect on me, because it wasn't very far in that I stopped thinking
about the fact that it was computer animated.  (They're getting pretty
good at this.  Every movie they've made has had successively fewer
distracting "that looked really fake" moments.)  Pixar hasn't made a
film so far that I haven't liked.

Of course, I've always disliked long musical numbers in movies, so
that's probably part of where we disagree.  Most of my favorite Disney
films are short on songs.  In fact, of the movies jep listed as
favorites, the only ones I've felt the urge to see again recently are
_Toy Story_ and _Monsters, Inc._.  _The Lion King_ just seems so
overblown and full of itself to me, now.

response 228 of 269:

Jun 2 14:35 UTC 2003

...and there's some juicy ones.

response 230 of 269:

Jun 6 13:01 UTC 2003

Valerie has been talking about taking the kids to see "Finding Nemo".  They've
never been to a real live movie theater before.  Most disney type movies are
a bit too scary for them, and the Pixar ones to date have been no exception
(eg, the scaring kids scenes in Monsters Inc, the neighbor kid's mangled toys
in Toy Story, etc).  I was wondering who Nemo rated on that scale.

response 232 of 269:

Jun 6 15:00 UTC 2003

The sharks in "Finding Nemo" are members of a vegetarian support 
group.  "Fish are friends, not food".  They're mildly scary; there's 
also a scene about jellyfish which is mildly scary.  It's not as scary 
as "Monsters, Inc."  The scene to which you referred in "Toy Story" 
would probably not be scary at all to Arlo, and couldn't possibly be to 
Kendra, could it?  "Finding Nemo" is no more scary than "Toy Story".

Didn't you take them to "The Piglet Movie"?  That was as non-
threatening as any movie could be, I'd think.  

response 234 of 269:

Jun 6 19:24 UTC 2003

Vegetarian sharks?  hahahahaha.  I really hope that the irony was intentional.