|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 289 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 212 of 289:
| 
Nov 27 03:47 UTC 2002 |
not only is John Clees the new Q, but M is now played by the woman considered
the greatest living british stage actress, Dame Judy Dench (who won the best
supporting actor oscar as Queen Elizabeth in Shakespeare in Love) Pretty
strong casting there!
|
lynne
|
|
response 213 of 289:
|
Nov 27 04:07 UTC 2002 |
<oops...should have noted that 211 was in response to previous comment about
Kenneth Branagh, not John Clees. John Clees is divine, even (maybe
particularly) when the role calls for making an ass of oneself.>
|
mxyzptlk
|
|
response 214 of 289:
|
Nov 28 13:45 UTC 2002 |
I guess I'm the only one who wishes that Helen Mirren would've gotten
the role of M.
|
scott
|
|
response 215 of 289:
|
Dec 1 02:42 UTC 2002 |
"Standing in the Shadows of Motown"
Valuable story about the group of studio musicians who made up the "Motown
sound" back in the 60's, but got little or no credit. It's great to see the
surviving musicians playing, telling stories, etc, but the re-enactments of
various anecdotes with actors got rather annoying.
Well worth seeing if you don't know the story, and if you do know the story
it's still worth a peek.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 216 of 289:
|
Dec 1 04:07 UTC 2002 |
Saw "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" this afternoon. I think they
did a better job with this one; it wasn't as disjointed and jumpy. They left
out some things, as they needed to, but they got the plot complete. I liked
it.
|
scott
|
|
response 217 of 289:
|
Dec 1 13:57 UTC 2002 |
BTW, the record store shown early in "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" is
actually Encore Records here in Ann Arbor.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 218 of 289:
|
Dec 1 15:39 UTC 2002 |
I, too liked the 2nd Harry Potter. He got off to school
and into his adventure much quicker this time. Well he could, since
we now know his backstory from the first movie. Passing of seasons
are just a background change to let you know the story is taking up
much of the school year.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 219 of 289:
|
Dec 2 01:45 UTC 2002 |
Bruce and I liked it quite a bit. The only thing I might have liked was a bit
more of Lockhart's idiocy at school (and I missed his long flowing locks, as
well). What was shown was well-done, but some of the more inane episodes from
teh book were missed.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 220 of 289:
|
Dec 2 01:56 UTC 2002 |
Uuuhh. Yeah. The ladies never could get enough of him, could they?
|
other
|
|
response 221 of 289:
|
Dec 2 02:34 UTC 2002 |
Did you stay past the end of the credits?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 222 of 289:
|
Dec 2 02:37 UTC 2002 |
Yes, we did. There were maybe eight people left in the theater by then.
|
other
|
|
response 223 of 289:
|
Dec 2 02:50 UTC 2002 |
Too bad. Nice little treat for those who stayed.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 224 of 289:
|
Dec 2 02:55 UTC 2002 |
Yup.
|
mary
|
|
response 225 of 289:
|
Dec 2 12:20 UTC 2002 |
"Solaris" Way over-acted. Way, way over-acted. I would have
laughed but mostly I was busy thinking of how much I wanted to
leave. ;-)
|
scott
|
|
response 226 of 289:
|
Dec 2 14:15 UTC 2002 |
Boy I am glad I saw the original Russian "Solaris" only a few months ago -
now I don't have to bother with the Clooney version.
And if you can live with a couple bad spots on the tape, the downtown A2
library has the Russian version!
|
edina
|
|
response 227 of 289:
|
Dec 2 16:22 UTC 2002 |
Damn it!! Now I have to go see it again to stay for the end of the credits.
I am currently rereading "Prisoner of Azkaban". The movie won't be out for
two years and the only people they have committed are the three kids and
Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, though I've heard that Ian MacKellan has committed
to playing Dumbledore (and let's fact it - he'll be great in Goblet of Fire).
I'm thinking Daniel Day Lewis for Professor Lupin.
Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of fun watching the three kids grow
up?
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 228 of 289:
|
Dec 2 18:12 UTC 2002 |
I have to agree with everything in resp:227....which is a hell of a lot
easier than retyping it. :p
|
russ
|
|
response 229 of 289:
|
Dec 3 01:34 UTC 2002 |
The jacket in the trailer was a nice touch.
|
edina
|
|
response 230 of 289:
|
Dec 3 14:40 UTC 2002 |
Huh?
|
russ
|
|
response 231 of 289:
|
Dec 4 01:14 UTC 2002 |
Re #230: At the end of the Harry Potter credits, I meant. (Sorry.
Context changed during delay between authorship and posting.)
|
anderyn
|
|
response 232 of 289:
|
Dec 4 01:26 UTC 2002 |
Darn. I wanted to wait, but we were on teh end of a row and couldn't stay
against the crowd.
|
janc
|
|
response 233 of 289:
|
Dec 4 02:03 UTC 2002 |
I rented "Arthur Conan Doyle's Lost World". This is a movie based on
the book that inspired the book that inspired "Jurasic Park." In other
words, the original dinosaur-surviving-in-the-modern-world adventure.
This is a 2001 BBC production, originally broadcast in two parts, so it
makes a rather long movie. I came to it with low expectations, but
ended up enjoying it a lot. It's definately a PC-ified version of
Doyle's original book. Two characters were added. A woman joins the
expedition so that we don't have to spend a whole long movie with
nothing but guys to watch but she's remarkably capable and
self-sufficient and shocks everyone by wearing pants (with a rather
modern form-fitting cut too). A missionary (Peter Falk) shows up to add
a creationism vs. darwinism debate to the story line. He's a bit of a
villian, but then again, no, not really. The expedition is lead by
Professor Challenger, who is rather more mellow than Doyle's version. A
big game hunter, a skeptical fellow professor, and a reporter round out
the expedition. And there are, of course, dinosaurs, produced on a
slightly more modest budget than those in "Jurasic Park" but
nevertheless convincing. What really distinguishes this from "Jurasic
Park" is that the dinosaurs are not the focus of the film. The people
are - their adventures, their interactions, their development. There is
actually a plot here, some very able acting, some three dimensional
characters, some thinking about life and morality. The movie constantly
teeters on the edge of both PC-cliches and adventure story cliches, but
never quite falls into them. This isn't the greatest movie ever made,
but it's a good solid piece of light, intelligent entertainment.
|
richard
|
|
response 234 of 289:
|
Dec 8 05:18 UTC 2002 |
"Analyze That"-- pretty good. the script wasn't anything spectacular, but
it is always fun watching Robert DeNiro and Billy Crystal hamming it up.
Not as good as "Analyze This" but watchable
,
|
mcnally
|
|
response 235 of 289:
|
Dec 8 05:25 UTC 2002 |
I cannot, to this day, recall what ever possessed me to see "Analyze This",
especially given my general dislike of both Billy Crystal and Robert de Niro,
but I find the idea that they've made a sequel that's worse than the original
very disturbing.
|
jep
|
|
response 236 of 289:
|
Dec 8 06:42 UTC 2002 |
I went and saw "Die Another Day" this evening, and found it disjointed,
unbelievable, and disappointing overall. I wish I'd gone to see
something else.
I'll be watching a lot of movies this month. I'll be going to
see "Harry Potter", "Treasure Planet", and as soon as it comes
out, "The Two Towers". I expect all of these will be better than "Die
Another Day".
|
