|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 342 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 303 of 342:
| 
Mar 9 00:40 UTC 2006 |
There's a new alternative to Netflix for non-cable users called Movie
Beam, from Walt Disney Co.. Basically you get a hard drive that you
attach to your tv, and the hard drive has an antenna on it and one
hundred movies are beamed into the hard drive for you to choose from.
You rent each movie at the click of the remote, just like cable ppv,
and pay $2 or $3 for each 24-hour rental. The product was reviewed in
today's Wall Street Journal and got pretty good marks. The reviewer
complained that they don't let you choose which 100 movies are beamed
into your hard drive, but that option may soon be available.
Its an alternative to netflix, where you'd never have to worry about
receiving or sending discs, or getting a disc in the mail that stops
playing a third of the way through because there is the tiniest little
scratch on it. It will be interesting to see if Movie Beam succeeds
in taking down Netflix.
|
tod
|
|
response 304 of 342:
|
Mar 9 00:44 UTC 2006 |
We watched Walk the Line this weekend using Netflix. Brand spankin new DVD
release with no fuss. I think Netflix is a piece of cake cuz there's no
late fee.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 305 of 342:
|
Mar 9 00:53 UTC 2006 |
I'm working on something like this for the telephone company I work
for except that the video-on-demand servers live here at the phone
company and not in your living room. The Disney gadget sounds
interesting..
|
nharmon
|
|
response 306 of 342:
|
Mar 9 00:58 UTC 2006 |
The disney gadget sounds like it would be better suited for the one-way
communications that you typically find with satellite TV. My cable
company uses video-on-demand and the videos are kept on the cable
company's servers.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 307 of 342:
|
Mar 9 00:59 UTC 2006 |
So, you buy a $200 box, then pay a $30 activation fee, for the privilege
of paying $2-5 per title.
There is absolutely no chance that Moviebeam could succeed in taking down
Netflix. At best it looks comparable to the VOD offerings from many cable
companies. Personally I don't think VOD will threaten Netflix any time
soon, not for technological reasons but for business reasons.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 308 of 342:
|
Mar 9 01:02 UTC 2006 |
My digital cable box is owned by the cable company, and I didn't pay a
dime to activate it. VOD movies are $3.95/ea and I can watch one for 24
hours after purchasing it.
VOD is better suited for people like me who will only pay to watch 1 or
2 movies a month (if that). And my cable company throws in 4 free VOD
movie passes around Christmas time.
|
slynne
|
|
response 309 of 342:
|
Mar 9 03:23 UTC 2006 |
I think VOD movies would have to get down to around $1-$2 to have a
chance at competing with Netflix.
|
remmers
|
|
response 310 of 342:
|
Mar 9 13:01 UTC 2006 |
And they'd have to offer something comparable to Netflix's huge catalog.
Movie Beam restricts you to 100 current offerings, Netflix offers
thousands of movies. They're simply not comparable services.
|
jep
|
|
response 311 of 342:
|
Mar 9 13:30 UTC 2006 |
I wonder when Netflix will go to distribution by Internet? It would
seem that eliminating shipping costs would be worth a lot to them.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 312 of 342:
|
Mar 9 15:03 UTC 2006 |
This weekend (+ 2 vacatgion days) was busy for movies... Saw a tv-aired
version of 'Gone in 60 Seconds' (when visiting someone with cable) and
it was okay. The cars were awfully pretty.
Also saw 'Unleashed' with Jet Li, Morgan Freeman and Bob Hoskins. The
story is that a small time Godfather (Hoskins) raised Li's character to
be a weapon- a dog to be unleased on those who didn't pay their debts.
Li even wears a collar and when it is removed he goes straight to
ass-kisking mode, until his 'Uncle' calls him off and replaces the
collar. This goes well until Danny (Li) meets up with a blind piano
tuner (Freeman). That meeting begins Danny's journey down the path of
redemption and discovery- of course. It's an entertaining movie, though
nothing particularly new in plot or dialogue. The fight scenes are fun
to watch- especially when remembering that Jet Li alters his fighting
style for every role, to work with the personality of the character he's
playing. That was fun to watch in The One wherein he played two
characters and both fought differently due to their personality
differences. Anyway, 'Unleashed' was entertaining with some fun fight
scenes.
Oh, actually went to the theater and saw 'Chronicles of Narnia.' As the
hubby put it 'It was better than I expected.' I really enjoyed it, and
as one reviewer put it- the humans looked almost as real as the animals!
Aslan was fabulous! Oh, and I discovered that my new eyeliner is indeed
tear proof. ;) The characters were a great deal of fun, even when I
wanted to smack one or two- or just hurry them up. Tilda Swinton was, as
usual, wonderful. I love the story as well, the concept of having a
wardrobe that can take you to a magic land, and they did a wonderful job
in making the movie.
My brain did hurt though... First watched 'Domino' with Kiera Knightly.
It was more twisted than I expected, though not more violent (however, I
had better warning about that part). I'm not really sure I could say if
I liked it or not, but there were some aspects that I really liked.
Watching someone on screen with a wicked right jab- used on people many
in real life would like to hit- was fun. That said, I wouldn't want to
know that person in real life.
Then I watched the newly made 'Pride and Prejudice'- also staring Kiera
Knightly. The brain went ow. This adaptation... there were bits that I
really enjoyed- the casting for Mr Collins, as well as his
characterization decisions, was excellent. The giggliness of the Bennets
was nice to see, and Kiera Knightly did a fine job as Elizabeth Bennet.
Wickham... had the look, but he didn't come across as sympathetic enough
to me. Plus so much of it felt rushed to me in the beginning, even the
speed at which the characters spoke seemed rushed. From the middle to
the end it was better in terms of pacing. There were some extractions-
Mr & Mrs Hurst were no where to be seen, nor was Kitty Lucas. Those I
could live with. Overall I DID enjoy this version quite a bit. Matthew
MacFadyen did an admirable job as Mr. Darcy, even if he is no Colin
Firth. ;) Rosamund Pike as Jane was very well cast, though I spent much
of the movie trying to figure out where I'd seen her before (as the
hubby did when I made him watch a few snippets). Turns out she was in
'Doom.' That probably would have hurt my brain more, but as I didn't
realize this while watching the movie I was okay. Jena Malone, seen in
'Saved' did very well as Lydia. Judi Dench as Lady Catherine was just a
fabulous choice.
And that I believe sums up the weekend. I'm sure others may like doing
more exciting things on their vacations- but I'm a fan of snuggling on
the couch with my hubby and watching movies. :)
|
edina
|
|
response 313 of 342:
|
Mar 9 16:27 UTC 2006 |
Rosamund Pike is also a Bond Girl.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 314 of 342:
|
Mar 9 16:34 UTC 2006 |
That's right, I'm sure I've seen that Bond movie too. Just wasn't coming
to mind- it's been awhile since I'd seen that movie, and only about a
week since I'd seen "Doom." She's quite pretty.
|
slynne
|
|
response 315 of 342:
|
Mar 9 20:47 UTC 2006 |
I think that every version of Pride and Prejudice will have a hard time
besting that BBC version with Colin Firth. I, too, liked this new
version but not as much as the BBC version.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 316 of 342:
|
Mar 9 21:04 UTC 2006 |
Aside from Colin Firth (...takes a moment...) the BBC/A&E version also
has what, 6 hours to tell the story- not 2-3. That's a big advantage
right there. I've seen just about every version I can get my hands on...
the strangest Darcy I've seen was when he was played by Laurence
Olivier... All I'll say is that he would have made an excellent Bingley.
;) Hubby knew MacFayden from MI5- and just thinks he's brilliant, so he
didn't quite agree with my about Colin Firth. But what does he know? ;)
There's a modernized version, titled Pride & Prejudice, wherein the
characters are roughly college age, and I'm guessing Mormon. It was
actually a lot of fun. The 5 girls are roommates not sisters (well,
Lydia is Kitty's older sister), along with a few other changes, but it
worked for me.
|
edina
|
|
response 317 of 342:
|
Mar 9 21:19 UTC 2006 |
Ah, but very little beats "Bride and Prejudice".
|
jadecat
|
|
response 318 of 342:
|
Mar 9 21:23 UTC 2006 |
Very true. As far as modernized versions go- I have to go with Bride &
Prejudice as my favorite. All the way. With the colors and the dancing...
|
edina
|
|
response 319 of 342:
|
Mar 9 21:25 UTC 2006 |
"No life...without wife!!"
|
jadecat
|
|
response 320 of 342:
|
Mar 9 21:41 UTC 2006 |
*laughs*
|
slynne
|
|
response 321 of 342:
|
Mar 10 04:06 UTC 2006 |
I liked Bride and Prejudice too but I have to admit that my favorite
favorite modern (albeit loose) version of Pride and Prejudice is Bridget
Jones's Diary. That also has Colin Firth cast as "Mr. Darcy"
|
jadecat
|
|
response 322 of 342:
|
Mar 10 15:37 UTC 2006 |
I'm not real fond of people making a fool of themselves, over and
over... So Bridget Jones was fun once, but not something I'd want to see
multiple times. Though, I did, of course, love Colin Firth. ;)
|
tod
|
|
response 323 of 342:
|
Mar 10 17:24 UTC 2006 |
I like Lizzy in the latest Pride & Prej
|
slynne
|
|
response 324 of 342:
|
Mar 10 18:17 UTC 2006 |
One of the funniest reviews I read about the latest Pride and Prejudice
was that they thought Kiera Knightly was a bad choice for Lizzy because
she was too pretty. While Elizabeth Bennet isnt ugly, she was generally
considered less beautiful than her older sister Jane. But, I have to
admit that I thought Knightly was well cast in the role. I think she is
very beautiful by today's standards but I think a more soft look was
preferred in the early part of the 19th century. She has angular
features. She also did a very good job getting Elizabeth's personality
across.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 325 of 342:
|
Mar 10 19:29 UTC 2006 |
I agree. Plus they did a good job with clothing in that I thought Jane
Bennett was truly beautiful, moreso than Lizzy. That is one of my
problems with the BBC version- I just don't think that Jane is pretty
enough- in comparison to Lizzy- and the book is quite clear on the fact
that Jane is the best looking of the bunch.
|
tod
|
|
response 326 of 342:
|
Mar 10 20:30 UTC 2006 |
Looks aren't everything
|
slynne
|
|
response 327 of 342:
|
Mar 10 20:40 UTC 2006 |
No, but they are an important part of that particular story.
|