|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 348 responses total. |
johnnie
|
|
response 95 of 348:
| 
Jul 15 20:19 UTC 1999 |
Well, it's more than just the seating area issue, I suspect. A year or
two ago in the Toledo area, a stadium-seating theater was built (by AMC,
I believe) that didn't even have the handicap-accessible basics, such as
front entrance ramps or wide bathroom stalls until the authorities came
down hard, and said features were put in *after* the place opened.
Which is to say that AMC seems not to be putting much effort or thought
at all into the needs of the handicapped. Would it be so difficult to
put in a couple of ramps and a few removable seats a dozen rows up?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 96 of 348:
|
Jul 15 20:46 UTC 1999 |
Given the pitch of the typical "stadium" theater, it might well be
very difficult to put in a ramp useful for wheelchairs.
If AMC is really building new theaters without any accomodations for
handicapped access then that's clearly a Bad Thing. Requiring wheelchair
accessible bathrooms, however, is not the same as mandating that the
wheelchair accessible seating be placed so that it has an optimal view
angle.
|
senna
|
|
response 97 of 348:
|
Jul 16 05:25 UTC 1999 |
Quality 16:
This looks like more of a cookie cutter corporate budget model than a
lavish spare-no-expense theater in the tradition of Showcase.
Everything seems to be about half the size, except the price. The price
is only one dollar or fifty cents cheaper, depending on what day it is.
This is not to say that it's a bad complex. The lobby is clean and
funnels traffic well. Decoration will presumably touch up the sparse
interior a bit, and I anticipate the large screen mounted in the most
accessible corner to shortly be filled with previews or show listings or
both.
The movie experience, watching the Matrix, left something to be desired.
Hardly surprising, given the age of the film and the unfamiliarity of
the employees. The main problems involved a periodic appearance of a
vertical string on the screen, and a problem dimming the house lights
in time for the show. Nothing huge. The theaters are substantially
smaller than Showcase's and remind me of chain stadia I've seen in other
large cities. Seats are acceptably comfortable and the view from the
back is good. I believe that this was the smallest theater in the
complex, so I'll have to check out one of their first run houses soon.
It's a nice place, and a good alternative to Showcase. I think United
Artists is getting priced out of the business.
|
scg
|
|
response 98 of 348:
|
Jul 16 05:36 UTC 1999 |
How was the wheelchair accessability? ;)
I've only been in an AMC theater once. Now that I think about it, we may have
entered from the very front of the theater, rather than the middle of the
theater like they do in Showcase, so the wheelchair accessability would have
been considerably worse, but I don't really remember clearly what it looked
like.
|
jazz
|
|
response 99 of 348:
|
Jul 16 16:46 UTC 1999 |
Yeah, is there wheelchair access to the light bulbs abovehead?
|
gull
|
|
response 100 of 348:
|
Jul 16 20:50 UTC 1999 |
Re #97: The 'vertical string' was probably a scratch on the film. It
probably was on the print when they got it, if my short experience working
at a theater was any guide. A lot of places don't clean their projector
every day like they should, and dust gets drawn into the film gate and
scratches the film as it goes past. THat's why the film often looks like
crap by the time second run theaters get it.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 101 of 348:
|
Jul 16 22:53 UTC 1999 |
man...cripples really piss me off.
|
mary
|
|
response 102 of 348:
|
Jul 18 12:10 UTC 1999 |
"Run Lola Run" is a German film that takes "What if..." and tells
a story three ways. It's fresh and clever and the soundtrack is
absolutely right. Unless you simply can't deal with subtitles
don't miss this one. It's at the Michigan through the 25th.
|
richard
|
|
response 103 of 348:
|
Jul 18 22:19 UTC 1999 |
EYES WIDE SHUT-- The last film of master filmmaker Stanley Kubrick, about
a wealthy New York doctor (Tom Cruise) whose adulterous fantasies lead him
to a brief experience with the sexual underworld. Nicole Kidman play's
Cruise's wife (and since she IS his wife in real life, you cant fault the
casting) This is about the search for intimacy in a world where it doesnt
seem to exsist. Its a really dense film which one needs to see more than
once (every scene is filled with imagery-- Kubrick filmed each scene
dozens if not hundreds of times over more than two years)
This is not a film many of you might enjoy, as it is dark, perverse and
kinky. I think it is a great film with one quite obvious flaw-- the
central character (Cruise) has a credibility issue-- if you are married to
Nicole Kidman why would you possibly cheat?
A worthy if intriguing end to Kubrick's career....(four stars) highly
recommended only if you feel comfortable with such provocative subject
matter.
|
senna
|
|
response 104 of 348:
|
Jul 19 00:59 UTC 1999 |
Actually, richard, one of the great parts of the film is deciding what it's
about, and I think you may have gotten it wrong. But that's the beauty of
the film. I, personally, found Cruise's ccharacter quite credible. His
motive is not sexual boredom when he plays with temptation. He's consumed
with jealousy. Or maybe it's *not* jealousy. :)
|
drewmike
|
|
response 105 of 348:
|
Jul 19 11:49 UTC 1999 |
I haven't seen it, so temper my opinions with that knowledge, but, yes,
Richard, I *can* fault the casting! Why would you want to watch a married
couple making out? It's like, okay, yeah, that's probably their "kids at
Grandma's" routine, but so what? Now a married couple fighting? Yes sir!
|
jep
|
|
response 106 of 348:
|
Jul 19 13:15 UTC 1999 |
I heard the exact point in #105 made, on an editorial on NPR's evening
news program, "All Things Considered". It is a silly viewpoint.
|
aaron
|
|
response 107 of 348:
|
Jul 19 16:59 UTC 1999 |
re #104: I think he has it wrong as well, but not because the film has any
great or deep meaning. I think, in many ways, its biggest weakness
is that it lacks a great or deep meaning. It is just a movie --
a pretty one, sure. But not particularly meaningful or memorable.
|
richard
|
|
response 108 of 348:
|
Jul 19 22:19 UTC 1999 |
well if I have it wrong, offer your opinion
|
aaron
|
|
response 109 of 348:
|
Jul 19 23:33 UTC 1999 |
I will share my opinion after more people have viewed the film. Do you
understand the concept of the "spoiler"?
|
senna
|
|
response 110 of 348:
|
Jul 20 02:18 UTC 1999 |
This is a film I would have enjoyed considerably less if I knew what was
going on before I saw it.
|
senna
|
|
response 111 of 348:
|
Jul 20 02:18 UTC 1999 |
If I had known, not if I knew. I can grammar patrol myself to death.
|
richard
|
|
response 112 of 348:
|
Jul 20 23:20 UTC 1999 |
you can talk about the themes of a movie without giving away plot
details-- senna said he didnt agree with my impression of what the
movie was about thematically, but didnt offer an alternate opinion.
|
hhsrat
|
|
response 113 of 348:
|
Jul 20 23:30 UTC 1999 |
A few questions for anyone who's been to the Quality 16:
1) How do the food prices compare to the other theaters in town?
2) Coke or Pepsi?
3) (most important) Are there cup holders on the seats?
|
bru
|
|
response 114 of 348:
|
Jul 21 02:43 UTC 1999 |
I have no interest in seeing the film.
|
md
|
|
response 115 of 348:
|
Jul 21 11:41 UTC 1999 |
If you mean Eyes Wide Shut, me neither.
According to IMDb, Jack Valenti is saying that
the MPAA probably screwed up by giving the
South Park movie an R rather than an NC-17,
so if you've been putting off taking your
kids to see it you might want to hurry.
The two young men responsible for this
masterpiece were on the Dennis Miller show
last week, where Miller told them he thought
the movie was the most subversive thing he'd
seen in a long time. They admitted, only
half-jokingly, that their goal was to bring
down the MPAA.
|
mary
|
|
response 116 of 348:
|
Jul 21 12:10 UTC 1999 |
Regarding Quality 16 theater - I can't comment on the refreshments as I
didn't have any, but I like the theater. The lobby is twice maybe three
times the size of the Ann Arbor, the refreshment stand is also small (buts
looks efficient), and the auditorium I was in was fairly perfect, with
comfortable seats, rows wider than deeper, a big screen and great sound.
This was one one of the smallest rooms they have, no doubt (Lake Placid),
so maybe all spaces won't seem so pleasant.
Yes, there are cup holders and wide, soft, somewhat rockable seats. $4.75
for a Sunday matinee.
"Lake Placid" is camp fun. It was worth the 85 minutes just to
hear *Betty White* say, "If I were a man I'd tell you to suck my dick."
|
omni
|
|
response 117 of 348:
|
Jul 21 13:39 UTC 1999 |
But how is the popcorn? Oil, or Butter? The one nice thing about the Ann
Arbor was that they actually used real butter on the popcorn.
Me, I think I'd rather spend an extra $20 for a movie package on cable, and
be able to be comfortable, have real butter on my air popped corn, and of
course access to the fridge. You can't do that at a multiplex. The only thing
I can see that I'm losing is the chance to get herded like a cow, and possibly
get my pocket picked.
And the best thing about watching movies at home? You can sit there in your
underwear and no one will toss you out for doing so.
|
md
|
|
response 118 of 348:
|
Jul 21 14:24 UTC 1999 |
Recent purchase:
A spiffy new tape of WAR OF THE WORLDS (B) -- This was
the first science fiction movie to show aliens and their
machinery as truly alien. No men in rubber suits here. The
war machines, which the designers modeled after manta rays
and cobras, are sleek, strange objects, and the sound effects
curdled my blood the first time I heard them. The movie is
flawed with period cliches -- the cartoon Mexican, the piously
sappy minister, the wide-eyed screaming bimbo -- which you
have to think the director could've avoided. Some of the
dialog is stilted. The scene where the minister walks slowly
toward one of the Martian machines holding up his bible and
intoning the 23rd psalm, and is promptly fried by the machine's
heat weapon, brings me close to blasphemous giggles every
time I see it. And of course the writers throw H.G. Wells's novel
to the ground and dance on it (no great loss, in my opinion).
But none of his matters next to the astonishing battle scenes.
This movie is the paradigm for all the others that followed.
A must-see.
|
gull
|
|
response 119 of 348:
|
Jul 21 14:54 UTC 1999 |
Re #117: I don't know. Some movies are much better on the big screen. And
I *hate* panned & scanned films.
|
