|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 112 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 80 of 112:
|
Aug 18 02:57 UTC 2003 |
"The Third Man", from the library's small-but-growing DVD collection. Pretty
cool, although not the most interesting movie from that era I've seen. Mostly
I wanted to be able to comment intelligently on the "Pinky & the Brain"
episode which spoofed this movie. :)
|
krj
|
|
response 81 of 112:
|
Aug 18 17:50 UTC 2003 |
Leslie and I did a double-feature Saturday, so we could stay cool while
helping DTE out by not running our air conditioning. WHALE RIDER was
possibly even better the second time I saw it; certainly the picture and
sound were better at the Q16. A MIGHTY WIND was funny, not as
funny as SPINAL TAP, and very much focused on The Great Folk Scare of
40 years ago.
|
scott
|
|
response 82 of 112:
|
Aug 19 15:23 UTC 2003 |
THe Time Machine (2002):
Better than I thought it would, and at 93 minutes it was easily watchable.
I'm certainly glad they didn't try to stretch it out to 2 hours, though.
The storyline changes were actually OK, too. Some things were hokey, others
cool - I especially liked the library computer character. The fake tribal
pop music during the Eloi scenes just about gagged me.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 83 of 112:
|
Aug 19 17:02 UTC 2003 |
We went to see the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen at the cheap theater
yesterday. It was pretty good, given that the critics had trashed it nearly
as badly as Gigli, and I was surprised that I had a good time. The storyline
was more coherent than I'd expected, and the characterizations were fun, wiht
lots of one-liners and interesting/unexpected interactions that got missed
in the reviews I'd seen (at rottentomatoes.com, I think I saw a hundred, and
maybe 20 gave it grudgingly good marks). I would give it a six, I think.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 84 of 112:
|
Aug 20 07:00 UTC 2003 |
Six out of what?
|
anderyn
|
|
response 85 of 112:
|
Aug 20 12:37 UTC 2003 |
Out of ten.
|
pvn
|
|
response 86 of 112:
|
Aug 21 05:03 UTC 2003 |
Ten what?
|
richard
|
|
response 87 of 112:
|
Aug 23 04:46 UTC 2003 |
SEABISCUIT-- saw this tonight and was pretty disappointed. The acting
is wonderful and the cinematography on the horse racing scenes is
awesome, but the screenplay left out a lot of what happened and took
the edge off the three main characters and "disneyfied" them (made them
more wholesome than they really were) This is a case where you are
better off reading the book than seeing the movie. In the book, a
great book "Seabiscuit: An American Legend" by Laura Hillenbrand, you
see that the three main characters-- Seabiscuit's owner, trainer and
jockey, are dark lonely figures, corrupted by life, who are each in
their own way redeemed for their past failures in their lives by the
success of the underdog horse they come to love.
The movie makes the three characters all wholesome and sweet. You see
Seabiscuit's owner, Jeff Bridges, meeting and romancing his new young
Mexican wife. You aren't told that the woman is his grown son's sister
in law. In fact you don't even see the grown son, because the film's
screenwriter I guess wants you to think the jockey, is the surrogate
son. They cleaned up the character. And the jockey is played as young
and wide-eyed innocent by Tobey McGuire, and yet if you read the book
you read that the jockey was a hard edged man beaten down by life who
looked older, a hard drinker and womanizer who looked older than fifty
when he was thirty. Again they cleaned up the character.
There's a key scene in the movie where the trainer, well played by
Chris Cooper, tells the owner (Jeff Bridges) that Seabiscuit lost a big
race because it turns out the jockey was blind in one eye and never
told them. And Jeff Bridges, all big hearted and sweet, says he
doesn't care and people need to be able to overcome their handicaps, or
something like that. Didn't happen. If you read the book, it clearly
says that Seabiscuit's jockey kept the fact of his being blind in one
eye a secret all his life, because it would have ended his career.
Horse racing is a business and Seabiscuit's owner would have fired the
jockey on the spot if he'd found out he was blind in one eye.
But this is the Disneyfied version of the Seabiscuit tale, where the
characters are wholesome and nobody keeps secrets and everybody's
reedemable and there are no skeletons in anybody's closets. The story
of Seabiscuit is amazing, its a lot more real and moving than what they
show in the movie. Save the money on "Seabiscuit" the movie, and use
it to buy Laura Hillenbrand's book that its based on instead.
|
tod
|
|
response 88 of 112:
|
Aug 23 13:11 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 89 of 112:
|
Aug 25 18:03 UTC 2003 |
OPEN RANGE - I don't think I've intentionally gone to see an oater in
a theatre in years, usually getting my fill from the box. But I will
say the lack of ad interruptions, and the vastness of the scenic panoramas,
do add to the theatre experience. Otherwise, this is a pretty standard
one of its genre, with the twist that the usual good guys are the bad guys
and vica versa. While overall I enjoyed it for what it was, I did get
the feeling that they filmed several endings and then used bits of all of
them. The female lead was also kind of wooden, but the villains were
adequately snarly and villainous. The moral I got from the tale was, always
befriend the man with the dog.
|
tod
|
|
response 90 of 112:
|
Aug 25 18:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 91 of 112:
|
Aug 25 20:08 UTC 2003 |
Something like that would fit Costner's role.
|
tod
|
|
response 92 of 112:
|
Aug 25 20:20 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 93 of 112:
|
Aug 25 20:46 UTC 2003 |
Make it a double-feature with a film where Arlond Schwarzenegger,
Jean-Claude Van Damme, and Stephen Seagal struggle to get in touch
with theirinner feelings and you'll have a truly dreadful evening..
|
scott
|
|
response 94 of 112:
|
Aug 26 01:45 UTC 2003 |
Perhaps a movie where Lee Marvin kills them all?
|
pvn
|
|
response 95 of 112:
|
Aug 26 06:07 UTC 2003 |
Is he still alive?
|
scott
|
|
response 96 of 112:
|
Aug 26 12:34 UTC 2003 |
(blustering) Well, Lee's a pretty tough guy...
|
remmers
|
|
response 97 of 112:
|
Aug 26 12:44 UTC 2003 |
Lee Marvin: 1924-1987
|
katie
|
|
response 98 of 112:
|
Aug 26 18:42 UTC 2003 |
I thoroughly enjoyed "Pirates of the Caribbean." And I understood the
dialogue and the plot better the second time around.
My friend and I were the only people left in the theatre when the
(lengthy) credits finished and the movie continued on for a minute
or so.
|
mary
|
|
response 99 of 112:
|
Aug 26 21:57 UTC 2003 |
I like when that happens.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 100 of 112:
|
Aug 26 23:00 UTC 2003 |
I meant to mention in #88, re OPEN RANGE, that there were only five (5)
at the 9:45 p.m. showing last Saturday at Madstone. An attendant said it was
because everyone was in SEABISCUIT. I still thought it was pretty strange.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 101 of 112:
|
Aug 27 04:50 UTC 2003 |
resp:99 Me, too. I feel rewarded for my quirk.
|
edina
|
|
response 102 of 112:
|
Sep 9 18:02 UTC 2003 |
I saw "Finding Nemo" last week. I really liked it. Ellen DeGeneres is
hysterical.
I've also watched more rented movies than I can begin to list. Here's ones
that stick out:
"Bowling for Columbine" - Kind of all over the place, but I loved it.
"Solaris" - The only thing remarkable about this movie was Clooney's ass.
And I assure you, for $4, there wasn't enough of it.
"Big Eden" - Great movie about relationships.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 103 of 112:
|
Sep 9 19:24 UTC 2003 |
regarding Solaris, I paid full price to see it at the theater when it came
out. I left soon after the ass sighting, and tried to console myself on money
wasted.
|
remmers
|
|
response 104 of 112:
|
Sep 9 22:50 UTC 2003 |
Being who I am, I didn't even find *that* aspect of "Solaris"
worthwhile. The movie was a major disappointment from a director
I normally like.
|