|
Grex > Cinema > #60: *<*<*<*<*< AT THE MOVIES >*>*>*>*>* |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 306 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 32 of 306:
| 
Dec 31 18:07 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 33 of 306:
|
Dec 31 18:26 UTC 2003 |
It was fun till they gouged Johnny Depp's eyes out, and he spent the
rest of the movie with dark glasses and blood-like gooeyness flowing
down his face. Yucky.
|
tod
|
|
response 34 of 306:
|
Dec 31 18:50 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
giry
|
|
response 35 of 306:
|
Jan 2 18:17 UTC 2004 |
Agora 30 <-> Cinema 60
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 36 of 306:
|
Jan 2 19:03 UTC 2004 |
Mona Lisa Smile. (IF you haven't seen the movie, and plan to do so,
skip this)
Watched Mona Lisa Smile last night. Chick flick, yes. Mushy and sappy,
no. Starring Julia Roberts, Julia Stiles, Kirsten Dunst and a couple
of other women that gave pretty good performances. Some men too, but
they were more extras than anything else
Mona Lisa Smile is set in Wellesley College, a conservative women s
university with the brightest female minds of the country. Here
they re taught physics, pre-law, art history and a variety og highly
intellectual subjects. And they re also taught elocution, poise, and
how to be a good wife. The girls are expected to marry and raise
families, never mind their own aspirations. Catherine Watson is the
bohemian teacher from Oakland State, who comes here to make a
difference, and teach these girls that there is more to life for a
woman than marrying and raising a family. And that you can do both, if
you have to.
The movie was interesting on many angles. The costumes were great. And
the bright red lipstick seemed to be the norm of the day. Today,
bright red seems to be sported mainly at parties and the like, very
rarely in schools and businesses. But back in 1953, it seemed the most
natural thing for women s lips to be blood red, never mind that it
clashed with their clothes. Then you have the course where the girls
are taught to be good wives, and mothers, for that is the role they
were born to fill . Divorce was frowned on, and all a woman had to do
was appear to be happy. She s smiling, of course she s happy. (Hence
the title Mona Lisa Smile).
While the movie s main thread was women s liberation and getting women
to learn that they too can pursue careers, it did touch upon the fact
that women s liberation is about equality, and the right to make the
choice between home and work. And it s ok if she decides that a home
and family are more important than law school. I m glad they touched
upon that aspect of the whole issue, because too often it s overlooked
when one considers what women s lib was all about.
And what surprised me was that it was ok for a teacher to sleep with
his student. While pre-marital sex, and promiscuity was frowned upon,
it wasn t illegal for a teacher to sleep with his students. Though it
was illegal in the State of Massachusetts for the school nurse to
distribute condoms. Go figure.
Watching the movie, I realize we ve come a long way in terms of
women s emancipation. This really struck a note in the scene where
Betty asks Joan if she has asked her beau if it s ok for her to go to
Yale. I remember telling not asking my fianc that I was applying
to grad school and what my choices were. This movie explained why my
mother was so concerned about what the fianc had to say about my plns
for further education.
The movie takes place in 1953-1954, exactly 50 years ago. It s
heartening to see women come a long way in half a century. A lot of
the sentiments displayed in the movie are still evident in present
life in India, but I m hoping in another 50 years mothers won t have
to worry whether their daughter s choice to go to grad school won t
spoil her chances of a good match.
Technically, the movie could have been better. The transition from the
student s derisive behavior toward their teacher to one of respect and
admiration wasn t well defined. Joan s deciding to get married rather
than go to law school (which was a good point to make) seemed
incongruent with her character. And the last scene with Betty cycling
along side the teacher s car with tears running down her cheek was so
Bollywoodesque, it was almost laughable. Though not a great movie,
this one is definitely worth watching, if only to learn how far
womanhood has come in the last 50 years
|
richard
|
|
response 37 of 306:
|
Jan 3 02:03 UTC 2004 |
That sounds like a female version of Dead Poets Society or Goodbye Mr.
Chips...*yawn*
|
rcurl
|
|
response 38 of 306:
|
Jan 3 06:50 UTC 2004 |
I once organized an "acquaintance dance" between MIT (then all male) and
Wellesley (then all female) students. Generally, though, the Wellesley
students preferred Harvard men and the MIT students Radcliffe women. I
haven't seen the movie, though, to check on its versimilitude.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 39 of 306:
|
Jan 3 07:07 UTC 2004 |
IIRC, there are coming soon a Shrek 2 and Scooby 2.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 40 of 306:
|
Jan 3 07:22 UTC 2004 |
Over New Years we rented Pirates of the Carribean and League of
Extraordinary Gentlement. They are both (Violent) Action Fantasy
Historical Comedies. We thought Pirates was much the better of the two.
Pirates had interesting (thought stereotypical) characters and a modest if
fantastic story line, and of course the boy got the girl (or vica versa)
in the end. I was sorry we didn't have the "making it" DVD as I would have
liked to have seen how they created the mobs of skeletons. However the
whole thing didn't take itself too seriously.
League, on the other hand, was heavy-handed and ponderous, with Sean
Connery playing Sean Connery, along with a bunch of fictional characters
from past literature but largely untrue to their original
characterizations. One recognized the 007 genre by the nature of the "evil
guy tries to blow up the world" theme. The humor was superficial and
juvenile ("Bomb voyage".. 8^{ ), and the violence overdone but mostly
irrelevant. I noticed in the credits at the end there were some two dozen
or so "Digital Effects" companies, with a dozen or so emplyees each,
involved. Someone should have pulled some plugs sooner.
|
krj
|
|
response 41 of 306:
|
Jan 3 08:04 UTC 2004 |
"Bandits," 2001, directed by Barry Levinson, starring Bruce Wills,
Billy Bob Thornton and Cate Blanchett. Very nicely done bank robbery
romance; can't tell you much more without spoiling the development
of the story. I think this failed commercially because it was
marketed as a farce, which it's not; I hadn't realized it was a Barry
Levinson project, which means it's much more of a people story
than a caper story.
It's good to see Bruce Willis in a movie where things
aren't blowing up all the time. Leslie and I both recommend this one.
|
aruba
|
|
response 42 of 306:
|
Jan 3 14:04 UTC 2004 |
Re #38: Rane - I wonder if you met my Mom then. She was a student at
Wellesley from 1947 to 1951.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 43 of 306:
|
Jan 3 19:15 UTC 2004 |
She might have been at the dance 8^}. I don't have a specific name
recollection at all from that event, not even the Wellesley student who
was my co-organizer there. I do recall dating a Wellesley student - she
invited me to regular dance there - but also don't recall her name.
Generally, though, if one didn't have a car, which I didn't, it wasn't
practical to find a regular date at Wellesley (unless *she* had a
car.....). Anway, the joke was that Wellesley students preferred law and
med students, not nerdy engineers.
|
flem
|
|
response 44 of 306:
|
Jan 5 21:58 UTC 2004 |
Whenever anyone mentions Wellesley, I always think of this, from the
fortune program:
'Twas orgy, and the hip and mod
Did groove and trip out at the pad:
All whimsy were the slamming chicks,
And the Radcliffe undergrad.
"Beware the Radcliff girl, my son!
The looks that mell, the claws that catch!
Beware the Byrn Mawr deb, and shun
The uppity Wellesleysnatch!"
He took his venerable staff in hand:
Long time the cool young stuff he sought --
So rested he among the spree
And paused to smoke some pot.
And as in raffish thought he sprawled,
The Radcliffe girl, no idle flirt,
Crept past the hippies getting balled
And doffed her miniskirt.
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The venerable staff went snicker-snack!
He left her bred, sans maidenhead,
And went galumphing back.
"And hast thou laid the Radcliffe girl?
Come to my arms, my horny boy!
O spaced-out day! Calooh! Callay!"
He cackled in his joy.
'Twas orgy, and the hip and mod
Did groove and trip out at the pad:
All whimsy were the slamming chicks,
And the Radcliffe undergrad.
|
other
|
|
response 45 of 306:
|
Jan 5 22:00 UTC 2004 |
*THAT* is a true gem!
|
aruba
|
|
response 46 of 306:
|
Jan 5 23:21 UTC 2004 |
Wow - who wrote that, Greg?
|
tod
|
|
response 47 of 306:
|
Jan 5 23:23 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
edina
|
|
response 48 of 306:
|
Jan 6 17:24 UTC 2004 |
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen had some great characters (I was rather fond
of Captain Nemo and Dorian Gray).
I caught "Bruce Almighty" on rental. We turned off our brains and laughed.
Then spent the rest of the weekend cracking up when saying "Anal dwelling butt
monkey".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 49 of 306:
|
Jan 6 17:49 UTC 2004 |
Those League roles took the names but to lesser degrees the personas of
the original characters. I watched most of the 1941 Dr. Jekyll and Mr.
Hyde (with Spencer Tracey, Ingrid Bergman, and Lana Turner) last night.
There Mr. Hyde was truer to the book, and actually more "evil" rather than
just a brute. Likewise Capn Nemo (and his craft) departed significantly
from Verne's, and the original Dorian Grey was more evil and was destroyed
by destroying his own portrait, not just by looking at it. Of course, much
of the current audience would not be familiar with the originals except by
hearsay, so these identity mutilations would not be as noticed by many.
However I did wonder why they did it for this movie.
|
edina
|
|
response 50 of 306:
|
Jan 6 19:43 UTC 2004 |
Why not? Why does it have to go straight with the book? Hello - they already
stretched it by having all of those characters together. I will never
understand how people can't just turn their brains off. If you were expecting
some cinematic tour-de-force totally keeping with the spirit of, what, 6
authors, then you deserve to be disappointed.
|
other
|
|
response 51 of 306:
|
Jan 6 19:48 UTC 2004 |
Some of us are just disturbed at the ease with which we *can* just
turn our brains off. ;)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 52 of 306:
|
Jan 6 20:15 UTC 2004 |
I think it is somewhat pityful to invent new cartoon characters using the
names of some of the most dramatic characters from literature. Of course
the basic conceipt was to bring them all together on a rinky-dink, but it
would have been much more effective to have retained what the inventors of
the characters had given them.
What was the point of even using their names from the literature if it was
meant to just have a bunch of superficial echos?
|
edina
|
|
response 53 of 306:
|
Jan 6 21:22 UTC 2004 |
Why don't you ask Alan Moore, the man who wrote the comic book? Did you know
there was a layover from books to film?
And yes other, it sometimes disturbs me too - but then, it also makes grex
far more enjoyable at times.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 54 of 306:
|
Jan 6 22:27 UTC 2004 |
I suspect if you ask Alan Moore questions about the film adaptation
you won't get much more response than a sigh of disgust.. Not that
the comic was particularly good, but the film was just terrible.
Given what I assume to be a fairly large number of relatively talented
writers just dying for paid work, I'll never understand how a movie
can make it to the screen with tens of millions of dollars in set and
costume design and special effects and apparently not have enough to
pay a decent scriptwriter to provide a coherent plot..
|
rcurl
|
|
response 55 of 306:
|
Jan 7 01:17 UTC 2004 |
I didn't know it came from a comic book. Should have guessed. Here is part
of a review from Lights Out Films:
"The problem with the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie adaptation,
is that it takes the comic's expertly crafted plot and twists it into
something that the filmmakers thought would be more consumed by the
illiterate masses. Gone are the subtleties of finely crafted literature,
replaced instead with simple-minded action. And not to wave my nerd flag
too much, but the substitution of characters is really what cripples this
movie. They stick in Tom Sawyer and Dorian Gray as substitutes for
perfectly interesting characters. They switch around the roles, taking
Alan Quartermain (a dottering Connery) and casting him as the lead. They
simply neuter the entire intent of the book, completely changing the plot
and character motivations. Connery's Quatermain is no longer a washed up
heroin addict, the invisible man isn't a sexual deviant with a violent
streak. They add a huge, magical car and make Nemo's ship look like a
cruise liner.
"The number of mistakes at every single turn astounds me. It's a movie
that it isn't faithful to its subject. It's not so much the cast, they'd
actually be good choices given the right script. Director Stephen
Norrington and his screenwriter are really the ones to blame here. His
idea to do Mr. Hyde as a practical effect, and simply paint the Invisible
Man with obvious grease paint (we can even see patches of pink skin -
that's how lazy this makeup is) will go down as two big mistake in a
movie filled with mistakes.
"It's not a movie that's so bad it's good, or jaw-droppingly horrible
(like Scooby-Doo). It's just bad. Gods, this movie had such potential as
in the comic form - an epic and clever literary rumination with streaks of
violence and utter coolness. The reports of distress in the creation of
the movie simply come across here. We see a film without direction,
without subtlety. It's a simple-minded action film that's an insult to
the source material."
Of course, that's about what I said in 1/10 the number of words.
|
flem
|
|
response 56 of 306:
|
Jan 7 18:50 UTC 2004 |
Mark, I have no idea who wrote that originally. It is distributed
without attribution with the fortune cookie program that comes with
pretty much every Linux distribution.
|