Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel [Archive] - Page 7?login=1

flippyshark

06-09-2012, 12:48 PM

Prometheus was something really gorgeous to look at. Truly stunning. It left me pretty cold otherwise. I only found one character at all engaging, that being the android played by Michael Fassbender. (Not a spoiler. He's identified as such right up front) He gives an appealing performance, in spite of a confused screenplay that left me unsure how I was supposed to react to his character.

Was he evil? Just following orders? Following his own agenda or someone else's? I have no idea!

The movie wanted me to swallow a pretty enormous faith pill. I would have been more amenable if the token skeptic hadn't been a smug, dismissive asshole, who early on gets a single line of dialogue to express what is really a very reasonable doubt.

Honestly, why would our creators go to such lengths to make it look like Darwinian evolution really happened?! Also, once the protagonist's pet theory turns out to be undeniably true, (and before all the nasty stuff starts happening) nobody acts jazzed about it. Only one guy mentions that their discovery is the most significant in the history of science, and he sounds kind of annoyed by the fact.

So, sense of discovery and wonder FAIL.

Also, the movie's twin missions of being speculative, mystical sci-fi, and also a graphic prequel to an established horror series sit very awkwardly together.

Noomi Rapace is really put through the emotional wringer here, and she's up to the challenge, but I was so disconnected from her story, her valiant acting efforts were in vain.

Also, is there a less believable recovery from trauma in the history of cinema? "A machine just sliced me open, pulled out an enormous squid fetus, and stapled my midsection back together, but I'm good to go, really."

Charlize Theron's character could be edited out of this movie without making a single bit of difference. A one-note bore.

All that said, I'll watch this again when it hits Blu-ray. It really is stunning to look at, with some memorable icky bits.

mousepod

06-09-2012, 01:29 PM

Hated Prometheus. I agree with flippy's criticism's and then some.

Damon Lindelof brought us the last season of Lost, which basically said, "You know all those tantalizing mysteries we've been tossing around for half a decade? We're not going to answer them. Asking the questions is enough."

People defended that move, and now he wrote a crappy Alien prequel that does the same thing. Will there be "answers" in the next two movies? (turns out this is the first of a trilogy.) Who cares? He gave moviegoers Alien: The Phantom Menace (by way of Star Trek V). Screw him.

Spoiler alert: don't believe the lies that Ridley Scott floated about the plot. It's all hack work. If you think know what I'm talking about, you're probably right.

I'm looking forward to hating Lindelof's Star Trek script, too. Let the franchise-killing continue.

Alex

06-10-2012, 05:24 PM

I didn't hate it. I also didn't think there were a whole lot of unanswered questions but I don't know if that is because I saw answers others missed or I missed questions other people saw.

As for the connective tissue with the Alien movies, I don't really care. I'm not a huge fan of Alien, liked Aliens enough but not enough to see it a second time and the rest are trash.

It was pretty. It moved along ok. It dealt in generally well established cliches of science fiction without breaking any new ground or asking any new questions (I'm fine with not answering questions if the question itself is interesting enough). If this is part of a trilogy I'l sure I'd see the next one but won't particularly be waiting for it.

That said, not a great movie for someone who had abdominal surgery a few days ago.

Alex

06-10-2012, 06:44 PM

Moonliner

06-11-2012, 08:14 AM

Though on reflection the biggest unanswered question may be:

Why did they put Guy Pearce in fifteen pounds of mediocre aging makeup instead of just getting an actual old person.

I guess it did embed the notion that he really would be saved by the aliens and they needed a young actor under there.

I assumed that was part of the somewhat over the top homage to Kubrick's "2001 A Space Odyssey". The look of Guy Pearce, his room on the ship, etc...

mousepod

06-11-2012, 08:28 AM

Actually, the reason that they used Guy Pearce under the makeup was that there were scenes shot with him as a young man. Why they used ****ty makeup is anyone's guess.

When I talked about unanswered questions, I'm referring to the basic internal logic of the film. I have no problem with crazy story lines in any movie, but when the the film acts important by addressing "big questions", then I'd at least like for there to be something there for me to hold onto.

The problem with Prometheus for me is that it presents plot points as major revelations without really revealing anything. It plays more like the B-grade horror movie than it is rather than the A-level science fiction film it purports to be.

Moonliner

06-11-2012, 08:32 AM

In response to Flippy.....

Was he evil? Just following orders? Following his own agenda or someone else's? I have no idea!

Good question, I think he's like a gun. It depends on who's holding it. I do wonder how he knew so much about things, like the existence of more ships.

Honestly, why would our creators go to such lengths to make it look like Darwinian evolution really happened?

I assumed they just started the process and let us evolve, of course that would make the Engineers a few billion years old.

Also, is there a less believable recovery from trauma in the history of cinema? "A machine just sliced me open, pulled out an enormous squid fetus, and stapled my midsection back together, but I'm good to go, really."
No, not in the entire history of film.

Charlize Theron's character could be edited out of this movie without making a single bit of difference. A one-note bore.
Yeah, was the "Father" line supposed to be a surprise?

I'm also pretty pissed about how much the trailers gave away. I think there should be a federal law, trailers are not allowed to show ANY footage from the last 30min of a movie.

Alex

06-11-2012, 09:00 AM

Well, this morning I learned that there is about 30 minutes cut from the movie. If that's true, then maybe the Director's Cut will be a much better film. I personally do not think the DC of Blade Runner is an improvement but the DC of Kingdom of Heaven was a huge improvement on what was originally a listless movie.

Ok, unanswered questions. Yes, there are a lot of apparent plot holes, or massive issues that aren't addressed. The only one that I am thinking of that really impinges on the plot, though, is:

Why would the aliens have seeded Earth with a map to their bioweapons lab?

Other stupidities/oddities that I feel aren't necessarily important if the movie otherwise engages:

1. By studying Earth language evolution you can apparently determine, vocally, the single source language. Linguists would be amazed to learn this.

2. When telling Charlize Theron how long she'd been asleep David reported it as X years, Y months, 36 hours, Z minutes.

3. If they'd already found 8 artifacts from 8 distinct cultures, why was it finding a ninth in Scotland that triggered the trip?

4. The use of artificial gravity and interstellar travel being completely unnoteworthy in just 80 years from now is a bit hard to swallow, with zero development in cold weather outerwear.

5. The star charts in the ancient ruins all pointed to a "galactic system" which is apparently a star cluster. A star cluster that couldn't possibly have been seen by acient civilizations from Earth. But the intro graphic tells us they were 3x10^14 km from Earth. That is only about 30 light years. Those would have to be pretty faint stars. Also, Earth based astronomy has apparently improved so much that we can tell that one of those stars has a ringed gas giant and around that gas giant is a single moon and it can support life.

6. Conservation of mass and energy in reproduction of life.

7. Language doesn't really work the way it is shown. You can't really trace back the languages to find a common ancestor of them all and be able to speak it.

8. They arrived at the planet, woke up, and set down all within a day. They apparently didn't do any mapping from orbit (since they were surprised by the giant mountain) and then lucked out to come down right at the military station. This is about as likely as picking a globe of earth and randomly putting your finger on NORAD.

9. They were all really crappy scientists.

Etc.

Moonliner:

I do wonder how he knew so much about things, like the existence of more ships.

This one didn't bother me. As they were coming down it was shown that there were at least a half dozen of the domes in a line through that valley. Presumably there were at least a half dozen facilities and once it is revealed that a space ship lies under one of them it would be logical that a spaceship lies under all of them.

Plus, if David had spend enough time playing with systems that he was confident he could fly a ship solo then it isn't any stretch to imagine he'd learned a fair amount about the facilities they were in.

Kevy Baby

06-11-2012, 09:10 AM

Yeah, I got nothin'. Ain't seen the movie.

mousepod

06-11-2012, 09:25 AM

Alex, I think you touched on many of the logical plot issues.

There were others, of course, which mostly had to do with the behavior of certain characters.

To give one character's example: why did the geologist with the magic mapping orbs get lost if he's the one with the map? And why, if they were spooked by the mural room enough to leave did they decide to sleep there when they were trapped in the structure? And why, if they were creeped out enough to go in the opposite direction of the potential life reading, did they not run when the alien vagina snake appear out of the black ooze?

And as for the internal logic...

After creating a relatively simple gestation cycle for the Alien in the first movie (egg -> face hugger -> implantation -> chestburster -> xenomorph), why did the introduction of alien biology become so convoluted in this one? As far as I can tell, the vagina snake kills one guy outright - the black oil turns another one into a very limber big-headed killing machine - the introduction of the oil (or is it a drop of something else from inside the container) makes a scientist break down but first makes him shoot alien sperm (and is this different liquid that the engineer drinks in the opening shots which seeds earth?) - and then the alien-infected sperm automatically implants into the barren womb of a female human to turn into a creature that skips the egg stage to become an instant giant squid-like face hugger that will then skip the chestburster stage when implanted into an Engineer to become a xenomorph. Why make is complicated? Unlike Alien and Aliens, where the lifecycle is used to create a greater and greater threat as the movie progresses, this one seems to fall into the horror trope of "throw the biggest shock at the audience at any given moment."

I'm sure there's more, but I'm at work now and apparently I have work to do...

Alex

06-11-2012, 10:17 AM

To give one character's example: why did the geologist with the magic mapping orbs get lost if he's the one with the map? And why, if they were spooked by the mural room enough to leave did they decide to sleep there when they were trapped in the structure? And why, if they were creeped out enough to go in the opposite direction of the potential life reading, did they not run when the alien vagina snake appear out of the black ooze?

Yes that bothered me at the time too. But, if I were more engaged with the movie

I might not have a problem with a biologist who was completely creeped out by the overall situation but is then overcome by his professional curiosity when actually presented with an alien life.

As for the reproductive biology

I'm willing to cut some slack there. I viewed the black ooze not as something with a pre-set biological path but rather as a reproductive pragmatist, a proto-ooze that warps its host in some way towards reproduction but not necessarily the same way everytime.

The "Alien" at the end may now have a fixed, simple reproductive path but the black ooze need not yet. And exhibit differently in each host.

But I'd hope some further explanation ended up on the cutting room floor. And I'm sure I'm just fanwanking what was really just a desire to do more horror tropes.

Other issues:

1. If the BBAs in that facility were destroyed by the goo, what contained it again for the arrival of the humans?

2. If the intent was to deliver the goo to earth for some purpose, and the BBAs managed to contain it with just one survivor, why did he go into cryosleep instead of continuing on the mission (which was apparently his first thought on being awoken. It isn't like he killed the humans and went back to bed.

3. Why did the BBAs have such ****ty hologram technology? And isn't video recording all the activity in the faciity but then having it play back in the actual geography of the recording kind of pointless? Maybe some BBA Space Detective would like to know what happened with the 3 BBAs running down the hallway, resulting in a decapitation without actually having to run down the hallway with them.

4. The Death of Charlize Theron was a bad Warner Bros. cartoon. In cartoons, whenever a tree is going to fall on someone the character tries to outrun the length of the tree (say 100 feet) instead of just moving 15 feet perpendicular. Charlize Theron is as dumb as Wile E. Coyote (and Rapace only slightly less so).

5. Why in the world would they invent a self-service surgery machine and then "optimize" it only for women. Is memory storage really so hard to find in the space faring future? Maybe if David had been forced to leave his Blu Ray of Lawrence of Arabia at home. And then after that it didn't seem fazed by the presence of decidedly not male organs.

innerSpaceman

06-11-2012, 10:43 AM

Me? I don't care about the implausibility of scientific procedures and alien processes in a sci-fi movie? Really? The last scientifically-plausible science fiction move was 2001 in 1968. The book has been thrown out since then.

The thing that really, really, super bugged me was:
Why go to the great lengths to precisely set up the exact photo-perfect situation encountered in the original Alien - only to depart from that a few minutes later, and hence make that very careful set up never having happened ... so that the situation encountered in Alien was ... what? Yet another of the buried spaceships that happened to have yet another lone surviving Engineer who was also awakened somehow??? This was a too-cute set-up turned into a giant WTF? for me.

But I actually enjoyed the film up till the last 20 minutes, when it went too far gay. I can buy the Engineer being anti-human, but the murderous rage of killing spree was ridiculous ... and saving the Earth is one sci-fi cliche that I cannot stand anymore. Other than that, the film was fun, gorgeous to look at (and 3-D that was pretty and not overdone), had some fun characters, and fun Try-To-Top-Ripley situations for its heroine. As mentioned above, many things were unbelievably dumb - but I've long since abandoned wondering how such things can get past the script and production stages of a zillion-dollar motion picture.

Overall I liked it. But I went into the, um, Alien Prequel expecting a pulp sci-fi horror film. What was everyone else expecting??

mousepod

06-11-2012, 10:50 AM

All good points, Alex.

Clearly, they bugged me more than they did you.

I think I was more annoyed with the 'bait & switch' of the marketing than some.

Not sure if I'll revisit it when the "Director's Cut" comes out on blu-ray, or if I'll wait until the trilogy is complete...

Moonliner

06-11-2012, 10:52 AM

Yes that bothered me at the time too. But, if I were more engaged with the movie

I might not have a problem with a biologist who was completely creeped out by the overall situation but is then overcome by his professional curiosity when actually presented with an alien life.

As for the reproductive biology

I'm willing to cut some slack there. I viewed the black ooze not as something with a pre-set biological path but rather as a reproductive pragmatist, a proto-ooze that warps its host in some way towards reproduction but not necessarily the same way everytime.

The "Alien" at the end may now have a fixed, simple reproductive path but the black ooze need not yet. And exhibit differently in each host.

But I'd hope some further explanation ended up on the cutting room floor. And I'm sure I'm just fanwanking what was really just a desire to do more horror tropes.

Other issues:

1. If the BBAs in that facility were destroyed by the goo, what contained it again for the arrival of the humans?

2. If the intent was to deliver the goo to earth for some purpose, and the BBAs managed to contain it with just one survivor, why did he go into cryosleep instead of continuing on the mission (which was apparently his first thought on being awoken. It isn't like he killed the humans and went back to bed.

3. Why did the BBAs have such ****ty hologram technology? And isn't video recording all the activity in the faciity but then having it play back in the actual geography of the recording kind of pointless? Maybe some BBA Space Detective would like to know what happened with the 3 BBAs running down the hallway, resulting in a decapitation without actually having to run down the hallway with them.

4. The Death of Charlize Theron was a bad Warner Bros. cartoon. In cartoons, whenever a tree is going to fall on someone the character tries to outrun the length of the tree (say 100 feet) instead of just moving 15 feet perpendicular. Charlize Theron is as dumb as Wile E. Coyote (and Rapace only slightly less so).

5. Why in the world would they invent a self-service surgery machine and then "optimize" it only for women. Is memory storage really so hard to find in the space faring future? Maybe if David had been forced to leave his Blu Ray of Lawrence of Arabia at home. And then after that it didn't seem fazed by the presence of decidedly not male organs.

If we assume the planet is indeed a weapons research facility, then earth becomes a source for lab rats, which is why we have their DNA.

As for the BBA, If I was a lab worker and woke up to find a bunch of test rats running lose (especially ones who might be carrying the space equivalent of Ebola) I'd kill them first and ask questions later.

You could also view the "star map" as an intelligence test. Ooops, the rats figured out the map. They have gotten smart enough to escape their cage (aka earth). Time to kill this batch off.

The Engineers were stockpiling the weaponized version of the black slime so I don't think anyone/thing had to repackage it after it got loose it was already there. Obviously a little goes a long way.

innerSpaceman

06-11-2012, 11:16 AM

Hahaha. This. (http://enchantedmitten.blogspot.com/2003/12/reading-previous-entries-in-this-series.html)

mousepod

06-11-2012, 11:20 AM

Hahaha. This. (http://enchantedmitten.blogspot.com/2003/12/reading-previous-entries-in-this-series.html)

Yes. Love.

Alex

06-11-2012, 11:33 AM

Damn the next day. I was moderately ok with it yesterday. I suspect I will join mousepod in hatred by the end of the week.

innerSpaceman

06-11-2012, 11:37 AM

I'm liking it less and less in retrospect, but I'm glad I enjoyed it while it unspooled (until the last 20 minutes ... seriously that set-up then ruin-the-set-up seriously unnerved me).

Alex

06-11-2012, 11:41 AM

That said, I'll remain hopeful for the DC. The DC of Kingdom of Heaven really is massively superior.

innerSpaceman

06-11-2012, 12:09 PM

Ditto on that. Usually I loathe Director's Cuts - they add back stuff that was rightly left on the editing room floor, bloating their movies, removing slick tightness, and ruining mood links for the sake of putting in scenes that perhaps are even good in isolation.

Kingdom of Heaven is a different animal entirely - and I can hardly believe the studio forced Scott to release a decidedly inferior film.

BarTopDancer

06-11-2012, 01:18 PM

I am so sad. I had no idea (until I saw Jesse's FB) that this was a prequil to Alien(s). Horror movies are scary, I don't watch them. Is this more sci-fi dark/twisted/fvcked up horror or psychological/clown/gore scary horror*?

*For point of reference, I consider Farscape dark/twisted/fvkced up (but not horror)

CoasterMatt

06-11-2012, 03:17 PM

That's alright, Marla. Prometheus gets confused as to whether or not it's an Alien prequel, too.

Alex

06-11-2012, 03:31 PM

I predict:

Once she gets to the BBA home world she'll discover that the entire thing was a program to develop a new creature capable of doing battle with Predator.

They'll have not heard that the Predator Aliens are so wimpy that one was taken out by 75-year-old Danny Glover.

In the climactic scene of the third movie in the trilogy Rapace will realize that they're needed and send the ship back in time for the events of the first AVP movie to take place.

In other words, this is not a prequel to Alien but rather Alien vs. Predator 3.

Alex

06-11-2012, 03:34 PM

The three episodes I managed to stick through of Farscape didn't tickle any dark/twisted nerves in me. I thought it was supposed to be camp stupidity so maybe I was watching it wrong.

So I can't answer on that scale.

I'd say it is somewhere in between Alien and Aliens on the horror-action spectrum. Nothing was particularly scary but there is some gore and tentacles in orifices type stuff. But the action sequences didn't really have the heft to them that Aliens had.

SzczerbiakManiac

06-11-2012, 03:55 PM

Farscape is not horror and not intended to be scary--it's sci-fi. It also takes a while to get into the groove. I lived the first season, but it really grabbed me by the balls starting in 2nd season.

Alex

06-11-2012, 07:27 PM

Wish I'd seen this Ridley Scott quote (http://www.alexandrosmaragos.com/2012/03/prometheus.html) before going to the movie, would have gone in not expecting any particular intelligence in the story:

NASA and the Vatican agree that [it is] almost mathematically impossible that we can be where we are today without there being a little help along the way... That’s what we’re looking at (in the film), at some of Erich von Däniken’s ideas of how did we humans come about.

Anybody who can say von Daniken's name without smirking is probably an idiot.

katiesue

06-11-2012, 08:10 PM

As Ancient Alien Theorists believe.......

BarTopDancer

06-11-2012, 08:29 PM

That's alright, Marla. Prometheus gets confused as to whether or not it's an Alien prequel, too.

Ha! Love that.

Farscape is not horror and not intended to be scary--it's sci-fi. It also takes a while to get into the groove. I lived the first season, but it really grabbed me by the balls starting in 2nd season.

No, but it's dark, twisted and fvcked the fvck up where some horrific things happen but its not horror. Torture porn moves like Hostel and Saw are considered horror but they're just gross. Trying to get a gauge on how "horror" Prometheus is.

flippyshark

06-12-2012, 07:27 AM

Trying to get a gauge on how "horror" Prometheus is.

I'd say about 56 % "sci-fi horror," with enough gooey or bloody bits to leave that segment of the audience satisfied.

innerSpaceman

06-12-2012, 09:43 AM

Ridley Scott's fairly wacko views about extraterrestrial life and human origins are fairly well known, but I don't see how that matters when using the wacko beliefs as the maguffin of a movie. Who cares? It's an interesting maguffin as far as maguffins go ... but they are NOT the heart of the film - just the thing the characters are interested in that the audience is not really meant to care a fig about.

And I suppose what I thought was the set-up for the situation encountered in the original Alien movie was just a tease for how the actual set-up is going to be revealed in a sequel to Prometheus. UGH. My liking for the movie is plummeting minute-by-minute. At least I enjoyed it while I watched, but I don't think I'll be watching it again.

Alex

06-12-2012, 09:55 AM

It matters because as far as wacko theories go, von Daniken's are internally inconsistent and I'd thus start with an assumption that a story inspired by them would be as well.

Plus, I would assume a mind that can take von Daniken serious would produce coherence only accidentally.

I was unaware of Scott's views so now I must assume any coherence in previous movies was fortuitous accident or the stabilizing result of collaboration.

Moonliner

06-12-2012, 10:08 AM

And we've hardly even touched on the...

Religious aspects. The crosses, taking place at Christmas, 2,000 years since the Engineers suddenly turned on us, etc...

alphabassettgrrl

06-12-2012, 10:09 AM

Plus, I would assume a mind that can take von Daniken serious would produce coherence only accidentally.

Yeah, pretty much. I've no idea how he's had such longevity.

SzczerbiakManiac

06-12-2012, 10:44 AM

While a novel concept, I have a huge problem with the idea of Jesus-as-Engineer. It could work were it not for the "fact" that Jesus was not an eight-foot tall heavily-muscled totally bald albino.

Moonliner

06-12-2012, 11:26 AM

While a novel concept, I have a huge problem with the idea of Jesus-as-Engineer. It could work were it not for the "fact" that Jesus was not an eight-foot tall heavily-muscled totally bald albino.

Says who?

BarTopDancer

06-12-2012, 11:34 AM

And we've hardly even touched on the...

Religious aspects. The crosses, taking place at Christmas, 2,000 years since the Engineers suddenly turned on us, etc...

Great. Perhaps they're really just Cylons. After all, what's happened before will happen again. It could be a new BSG prequel.

SzczerbiakManiac

06-12-2012, 12:09 PM

Says who?Are you saying if he looked like that not one single person would have mentioned his "curious" appearance? come on...

innerSpaceman

06-12-2012, 12:17 PM

Also, re Prometheus, this (http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/prometheus-second-look-digging-deep-into-spoilers-and-questions).

I'm hating the movie more and more, but I'm glad I enjoyed the first hour and 45 minutes of it - and it IS beautiful to look at, with some fun bits that, alas, make absolutely no freaking sense.

Moonliner

06-12-2012, 01:21 PM

Are you saying if he looked like that not one single person would have mentioned his "curious" appearance? come on...

That's the issue you have with that entirely absurd scenario? The impossibly advanced alien's could not make themselves look like a mythical human?

SzczerbiakManiac

06-12-2012, 01:38 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall no evidence that the Engineers could shape-change. They seem fond of exoskeletal armor, but that only makes them look bigger and less human.

flippyshark

06-12-2012, 02:06 PM

I don't think it makes sense for them to have such drastically larger bodies and super strength, if they are in fact 100% genetically identical to us! (They did say it was a perfect match, yes?)

This movie is generating more discussion than many a better summer flick, anyway. (Even if a lot of it is sounding like post-Phantom Menace malaise.)

mousepod

06-12-2012, 02:22 PM

I'm happy to hate the movie based on what I saw on the screen, but if it turns out the Engineers want to wipe out humankind because we killed Jesus, Damon and Ridley are dead to me.

flippyshark

06-12-2012, 02:29 PM

I'm happy to hate the movie based on what I saw on the screen, but if it turns out the Engineers want to wipe out humankind because we killed Jesus, Damon and Ridley are dead to me.

That really would be the most staggeringly stupid thing ever.

SzczerbiakManiac

06-12-2012, 03:16 PM

"To celebrate its 100th birthday, Paramount Pictures assembled 116 of the greatest talents ever to work at the studio." (and are still alive)
click here for a thumbnail you can hover over for a zoom (http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2012/07/paramount-pictures-100th-anniversary-photo)
or
click here for the full-size 4987×2000 pixels image (http://services.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2012/paramount/paramount-namesb.jpg)

Ghoulish Delight

06-12-2012, 03:22 PM

I can only hope that one Mr. Mike White was thinking, "WTF am I doing here?"*

* And probably some others, but he jumped out at me for some reason

innerSpaceman

06-12-2012, 03:36 PM

This movie is generating more discussion than many a better summer flick, anyway. (Even if a lot of it is sounding like post-Phantom Menace malaise.)
Yes, which in itself, makes it almost worthy of existing.

But, having read a lot of that discussion, now including this (http://unfilteredlens.com/a-spoiler-heavy-discussion-of-the-problems-in-prometheus/) particularly fun and scathing piece, I'm amazed I actually enjoyed this abysmally craptacular film. Wow, must have been the 3D glasses pressing against the pleasure centers of my brain. ;)

Strangler Lewis

06-13-2012, 07:17 AM

That really would be the most staggeringly stupid thing ever.

I haven't seen the movie, but it sounds like it could lend some plausibility to the virgin birth.

SzczerbiakManiac

06-13-2012, 10:21 PM

Red Letter Media talks about Prometheus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1YuvUQFJ0) (major spoilers)

innerSpaceman

06-14-2012, 02:08 PM

Oddly, Red Letter has a long-form, 30-minute, straight review where they give it largely a positive marks. Yet in that 4-minute comedy version linked to above, they rip it to shreds to great comic effect.

:confused: Confusing though.

flippyshark

06-14-2012, 04:08 PM

:confused: Confusing though.

Cognitive dissonance at work. Over time, I suspect the consensus on Prometheus will shift to the negative as people leave behind the fact that they wanted to like it so much. (Kinda like Phantom Menace. I had some friends who spent a year or two coming to grips with that one. Their inner struggle was actually more entertaining than the movie.)

Alex

06-14-2012, 05:43 PM

Using graphics I found at the listed web site, here is the reproductive livecycle indicated in Prometheus:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7076/7188153243_e15e50f95c_b.jpg

mousepod

06-14-2012, 06:42 PM

VAM!

Alex

06-14-2012, 07:56 PM

Not too much VAM. I just took the original graphic and presented it in a different way.

http://9gag.com/gag/4430817

mousepod

06-14-2012, 08:41 PM

Gotcha. Keep the mojo. You can use it if I forget next time.

mousepod

06-15-2012, 11:54 AM

From IndieWire. (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/did-ridley-scott-just-ruin-the-mysteries-of-prometheus-20120614#)

...what did we do to make God/our creators angry? Well, if you theorized that it was because we crucified Jesus, you win! Confirming that at one point the script explicitly spelled this out, Scott says that was the direction they were taking with the story -- at least at first. "We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose," he admits. "But if you look at it as an 'our children are misbehaving down there' scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, 'Let’s send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it.' Guess what? They crucified him."

Screw you, Ridley Scott.

innerSpaceman

06-15-2012, 02:26 PM

I don't care. If it wasn't in the movie, it doesn't exist. It's that simple. How many people will research the director's mcguffin motives vs. how many will see the movie?

For all I know, there could be tons of crazy ideas behind far better films that never made it into those far better films. In much the same way that I don't care at all about the personal lives of artists whose work I enjoy, I really don't care about the backstory inside a director's head that remained hidden there.

What still matters is what a shoddy piece of work Prometheus is ... though I suppose this points out how it could have been much worse. :rolleyes:

Strangler Lewis

06-15-2012, 03:23 PM

Didn't they do that on the original Star Trek? "No, not sun . . ."

cirquelover

06-22-2012, 10:32 AM

I am hoping to go see Brave tonight. I am excited to see how a Scottish princess plays out, lassie!

Alex

06-22-2012, 02:55 PM

I thought it played out pretty well. Not instant classic well, but well.

cirquelover

06-25-2012, 04:57 PM

I enjoyed Brave quite a bit. It was a good story, with good moral values.It wasn't my fav Pixar movie ever but it certainly wasn't the worst either. I liked having an unpolished Princess.

CoasterMatt

06-25-2012, 09:18 PM

Saturday night, Rose and I watched Troll 2 (ranked the worst movie ever on imdb) and a favorite of my twisted childhood - "The Stuff".

"The Stuff" plays even better now than I remembered it.

lashbear

06-26-2012, 05:21 AM

The Stuff!! I remember that one. :)

Today I watched "The Hole" in 3D.

Moonliner

06-26-2012, 06:44 AM

Apparently Cameron is going to film Avatar 2,3 and 4 all at the same time (http://www.showbiz411.com/2012/06/26/james-cameron-will-film-three-avatar-sequels-at-the-same-time).

This news comes from Sigourney Weave (Grace) who kicked the bucket in Avatar so I guess that implies all three will be prequels to Avatar. Unless of course Grace is going all Yoda on us.

Alex

06-26-2012, 09:10 AM

But what's weird is that actors are going to do them sequentially with one year off between each.

Cameron's that good.

Moonliner

06-26-2012, 10:05 AM

But what's weird is that actors are going to do them sequentially with one year off between each.

Cameron's that good.

It's amazing what you can do with CGI these days.

Snowflake

06-26-2012, 03:35 PM

I guess tonight I will finaly see The Artist. I was surprised to see among the film geeks I know, I was not the last person standing who had not yet seen it.

I love that Uggie got his paw prints at Graumann's yesterday. The poor little guy looked stressed out, though. I think I'm glad he's going into retirement.

Prudence

07-10-2012, 02:38 PM

We saw Brave on Saturday. The more I think about it, the more I like it for a few particular reasons:

First, the lead character is a princess, but very specifically does NOT end up with a prince, much less require saving by one. I appreciate that she's not confined to girly-girl activities, but for me it's more impressive that she wasn't subject to the (no longer) inevitable pairing that seems to be part and parcel of Disney-affiliated princess movies. Also, I appreciated that essentially all the main characters were women: Merida, her mother, the witch, and even the primary comic relief. (The boys were annoying slapstick, so I'm pretending they didn't exist.)

Saw Moonrise Kingdom the previous weekend. Had no idea what to expect going in, but loved it.

alphabassettgrrl

07-10-2012, 03:06 PM

"Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter."

Entertaining. A few good lines in it that have stuck with me that I really liked.

Ending? Absolutely impractical. Against every law of physics. But it was funny in its craptacularosity.

Gemini Cricket

07-10-2012, 04:11 PM

I saw "Brave" last weekend and I guess I was underwhelmed by it. I loved certain moments in the film but didn't love it overall.

Random thoughts:

As mentioned, I love that the film broke away from the whole "a prince saves the day" ending.

Meridia was a strong heroine.

I was rather confused if the tapestry had anything to do with breaking the spell at all. (It did come in handy, tho.) If it didn't, what was the purpose of the whole "Meridia has to sew to save the day" scene then?

Pixar keeping the whole bear part of the story a secret was pretty cool, tho. Although, I noticed today on their Facebook page they actually showed a picture of the three bear princes and captioned it "do these bears look familiar?" or something like that. I also saw the bears at Meridia's meet and greet at DL before the movie came out.

I didn't not spot the Pizza Planet truck but found out where it was later. Very cool.

The bear part reminded me of "Brother Bear".

It seems the queen became more feminine once she became a bear (that is until the whole Jekyll and Hyde thing kicked in). It would have been nice if the some of queen's movements/habits were repeated by her in bear form.

I put "Brave" low on the list of Pixar films with "Cars" and "A Bug's Life". I dunno, maybe the film needed more heart or more Pixarishness.

innerSpaceman

07-13-2012, 11:35 AM

Yeah, I was pretty disappointed with Brave.

I don't see what the big deal is about a princess who's not rescued or subjugated by men. I mean, sure, Disney recently told another ancient tale that had a princess/prince thing - but Pixar's never done that, and this hardly seems a groundbreaking thing in Twenty Twelve.

I rather liked the low-key and sorta-surprise way the tale turned out to be. I didn't see any characters at the Disneyland Meet'n'Greet, so I wasn't spoiled and it's not at all the type of road I expected the story to go down.

So while that was a plus, and while it was a really cute story - it was also a bit of a let-down. Just a very low key thing that I somehow didn't feel suited a Pixar TM release.

There's nothing wrong with it ... it just didn't WOW me, and so I also have to group it with the lower rungs of Pixar films, the same ones Gemini Cricket listed above. And I agree with him totally - needed more heart or more Pixarishness (though I did tear up once).

Also ... I didn't really cotten to the main character. She was, to me, quite Meh. Though her hair is awesome.

And in that vein of uber-computer-rendering ... I really find insane levels of verisimilitude in most of the scenery and the horse, Angus, conflicted poorly with the doll-face design of most of the human characters. The few cartoonish characters came off better ... but it was still an odd disconnect, since it seems Pixar went to great lengths to have the backgrounds look photorealistic.

Oh, and I think big nosed nice bod young suitor from the MelGibson clan was kinda hot. But when they next toted out fey prince from the other clan, I began to feel an overload of tropes. If it's something Monty Python made fun with over 30 years ago, it seems a little stale now.

I still put my Funny Scots Cartoon money on How to Train Your Dragon from a few years back (it was about Vikings, but they were all Scottish for some reason).

LSPoorEeyorick

07-13-2012, 01:47 PM

I liked Brave - especially the treatment mother/daughter relationship. But I had a problem with its twist, having been used in another Disney film in the last decade (as Brad noted.)

As for the independent-princess thing, the doesn't-need-to-be-rescued thing, that was incredibly meaningful to me. Is it perhaps a gender divide? Most of the women I've talked to who've seen it have agreed, and it didn't seem to have an effect on the men.

Alex

07-13-2012, 01:56 PM

For me the significant departure was not the "didn't get a boyfriend" but that she was the primary actor throughout the movie. She got herself in trouble, she got herself out of trouble and she took responsibility for the former on her own.

It is far more common in fantasy that the "hero" is extremely passive in their own story. Often they're just living out Calvinist prophecy (Harry Potter, Aurora, etc.) or reacting to events they had no hand in causing.

Then they are guided to the solution for their problems by others with greater knowledge manipulating them. Then maybe at the end they get a little bit of control.

I found a protagonist actually driving their own story to be refreshing in a princess movie/fairy tale.

innerSpaceman

07-13-2012, 02:18 PM

I agree with Alex about the lame passive hero stuff, but that doesn't ever seem to have been the case with Pixar films.

Oft times in tales, the hero is supposed to be our "window" into the story, and thus everything just sort of happens to them. Blech. Yet it's been one of Pixar's unsung hallmarks that I cannot recall a single main character being that way. So that was not really a breakthrough for me with Merida.

Perhaps it is a gender divide ... but I really don't see why anyone would feel such a character being female was a big deal. I was much more impressed when a main character was a robot. I've known tons of women who were complete people, and it's absurd to me that portraying one in an animated film is some kind of triumph. But I lack the proper chromosomes for that opinion, I suppose.

I feel bad being a bit disappointed. The tale was enjoyable. Merida was fine enough. I DID really love the mother-daughter stuff and was heart-tugged at the arc growth of the main character. But minor key where I was expecting something else, I guess. And I really don't think Merida carries a film the way other Pixar leads have done.

Also I have to wonder why they switched directors mid-stream. If they were going for more BIG or less feminine or something, I don't think they got anything of the sort in the finished product.

Alex

07-13-2012, 02:51 PM

It isn't remarkable for Pixar. But it is remarkable for being within the genre they chose.

As someone who doesn't particularly care for most of the classic fairy tale movies, I felt it was a cut above that. But know I don't think it was up there with the Rataouille/Wall-E/Up/TS3 sequence. But leaps better than Cars 2.

alphabassettgrrl

07-13-2012, 03:37 PM

Sure, real women are complete, independent people, but it's nice to see it in "print." It's rare- in a world where so many of the stories (even the Nancy Drew that I read as a kid) require someone to help her get rescued. That's actually the thing that made me stop reading the Nancy Drew- she never was shown as competent and I got annoyed. She should be capable of getting herself out of trouble, at least once in a while!

Male characters are certainly shown to be active, so why shouldn't female ones? But they rarely do show us that way. And it's probably not something the average guy is going to notice. Kind of like a blonde may not notice all the characters are blond, but a brunette will (from feeling left out). It's something you notice by contrast or absence, rather than directly.

innerSpaceman

07-13-2012, 04:50 PM

Well, then was anyone bothered by Merida being a brat and kinda mean and her arc being simply to grow up a little? I know that's a standard arc for a teen lead ... but I hate that kind of thing, because it requires your lead to be a brat and mean, and I don't find that particularly likable in a character.

I know Merida was supposed to be a little naive and in-the-dark about how the witch's spell would change her mom ... but really, she seemed to be taking a rather nonchalant chance about her mother, mad at her or not, and I found that incredibly mean ... even for a teen!

So I guess that's rather in line for fairytale type stories. But isn't anyone more upset about the fairy tale heroine being just as STUPID as every other fairy tale heroine? Perhaps more upset by that than how glad that she's too young or stubborn or lesbian to want to be married off??

Also, her main gender-noncomformity skill seemed to be archery ... but where did that pay off for her? She hit the mean bear 30 times alright, but it didn't effect him one bit. I'm really at a loss at what was supposed to be so groundbreaking about her butch princessness?

LSPoorEeyorick

07-14-2012, 06:51 AM

No more stupid, than, say, Aladdin. I saw her as an impulsive teen trying to break free... and watching impulsive teens breaking free in my family, it rang true to me. I liked that she was complex and flawed, and I understood her. But I didn't love her, either.

As a woman (and a writer) I'm always on the watch for complex female characters in films and television. And they very rarely occur. And when they do, they very, very, rarely are the story-driver. And when they are, they very, very rarely are in a big-budget film. And when - ever - have we seen a big-budget animated picture feature a complex, story-driving woman who is the master of her own fate? The closest we come is Mulan, but she's still leaning on the man for help.

To be clear, I lean on my man for help. As he leans on me. But - also - when do we ever see a man lean on a woman for help, in animated films, or other media? It's pretty rare. If they're leaning, it's generally on another dude.

Also - I read that under Brenda Chapman, the film was almost entirely set in the snow, and after she was let go they went for lush scenery. I don't know how much that had to do with it, but it's a pretty extreme design change.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-14-2012, 02:18 PM

I have to admit, getting a sitter to go see Brave isn't anywhere near the top of my priority list, even though we've seen every Pixar film in the theater since Monster's Inc (except Cars 2). The first movie we saw in the theater after T was born was TS3.

Something about the advertising and word of mouth isn't making me feel the urgency to see it before it shows up on Netflix.

My MMMusings currently involve NOT seeing films. :rolleyes:

katiesue

07-14-2012, 08:24 PM

Cp totally understand on the movies. We saw TS1 right before Madz was born and I think we didn't go again together for about 5 years.

Madz told me we had to see Brave together since it was a mother/daughter movie. She saw it first with her friends. I really enjoyed it. I agree with the points Heidi made. It's nice to have a girl who doesn't go all squishy when a male shows up. Although to be honest her suitors were kinda scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I don't think its the best pixar movie ever but I already pre ordered it on amazon and I know I will watch it a few more times. Maybe it will replace Maddies current obsession "princess and the frog". Which has a prince but she does pretty much have to rescue him.

alphabassettgrrl

07-14-2012, 09:08 PM

I think having terrible suitors works better for comedy than anybody who's suitable, so I can see why they'd do that.

Morrigoon

07-16-2012, 02:23 PM

Fantastic dissection (http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/just-another-princess-movie/) of Brave's plotlines

Morrigoon

07-16-2012, 02:26 PM

katiesue

07-16-2012, 02:57 PM

Thanks for the article Morri - very interesting.

Ghoulish Delight

07-18-2012, 09:34 AM

This could be epic! (http://splitsider.com/2012/07/wes-anderson-and-johnny-depp-to-make-a-movie/) (in a subtle understated even keel sort of way)

Cadaverous Pallor

07-18-2012, 09:56 AM

Take that, Burton!

Alex

07-18-2012, 10:43 AM

You know how some people just can't do Mamet dialog?

I have a hard time imagining Depp doing the kind of acting that Anderson seems to require.

But hopefully I'm wrong.

Ghoulish Delight

07-18-2012, 10:48 AM

I would have thought the same of Ben Stiller, but I think he's great in Tenenbaums.

I think (hope) Anderson's a strong enough director to get the performance he needs.

JWBear

07-18-2012, 01:00 PM

With that cast, even if they just sit in a room reading the phonebook for two hours, I'd watch it!

Alex

07-18-2012, 01:29 PM

I mostly love Wes Anderson (though I sometimes wonder if it is a good thing to be able to tell who directed a movie by looking at a still from the movie) but my distaste for Willem Defoe is mighty strong.

However, I will hope that Anderson takes his queue from a Craig Ferguson bit and after the movie reveal that it wasn't actually Angela Lansbury in the movie but rather Paul McCartney.

innerSpaceman

07-18-2012, 02:11 PM

I really, really, really loved Moonrise Kingdom (Anderson's most recent ... still in theaters .... catch it) - though I understand it might not be to everyone's taste. It's easily my favorite film of his (I like about half his oeuvre, really dislike the other half).

Oh, and Magic Mike was the most boring piece of wasteful celluoid I've seen in forever ... and that's even with hot near-naked men abounding. Sheesh. What was Soderberg thinking? There was nothing interesting about anyone's character, story, not a hint of insight into the off-the-grid world of male strippers they established, and really no fun to the choreography or male stripping either. What A Waste.

Alex

07-18-2012, 03:05 PM

Yes, Moonrise Kingdom is very good.

But just to make sure that we don't bond too much, I really liked Magic Mike as well.

cirquelover

07-18-2012, 10:31 PM

Alex, you are killing me tonight! Thanks for the laughs, literally sitting her all alone and laughing. The cats think I'm crazy.....maybe they're right!

innerSpaceman

07-20-2012, 12:58 PM

The Dark Knight Rises is rad.

:snap: Saw it last night (this morning) at midnight, at the Irvine Spectrum, because that's the only real IMAX screen in Southern California. Worth seeing it in IMAX once. It's beautiful. It's touching. It's fun. I loved it.

:cheers: Heheh, all 21 screens were showing Batman at midnight, so the place was an awesome geekfest of thousands of people, several hundred in costume or some kind of Battire. Really fun.

I didn't learn about the shooting in Colorado till I got home at 4:30 a.m. And even that did not put a total damper on my experience. It was a fun midnight show, and I really love the movie.

Snowflake

07-20-2012, 01:23 PM

Yes, Moonrise Kingdom is very good.

But just to make sure that we don't bond too much, I really liked Magic Mike as well.

Ahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa

Alex

07-21-2012, 12:30 AM

Just got back from The Dark Knight Rises.

The first two hours were excruciatingly boring. It wasn't until talking to Lani after that I realized I may have completely zoned out for a few minutes.

The last 30 minutes or so were a fine action set piece but unfortunately it hinged on something extremely stupid several times over and all of the big reveals had been obvious almost two hours earlier. But it had enough energy to end on a high note.

But I didn't expect Nolan to actually bore me, to wallow in silly cliches, to treat the last movie in the trilogy like the last episode of a long running TV show where every repeating character along the way has to make an appearance (even a couple of the dead ones) and every core member has to have their dramatic curtain call.

So, overall, blech.

Alex

07-22-2012, 09:17 PM

Those of you who are fans of magical realism and films that may sometimes be more interesting in approach than necessarily good, I strongly recommend checking out Beasts of the Southern Wild.

lashbear

07-24-2012, 12:58 AM

Just got back from a showing of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. I ADORED this movie. Fabby, and only slightly slow in places, but enough feel-good and warm fuzzy quotes to keep me and Stoat and MamaStoat very happy.

Just remember - everything will be all right in the end... if it's not all right then it's not the end.

Strangler Lewis

07-24-2012, 10:51 AM

I finally saw The Three Stooges. The violence was great, and the filmmakers are to be commended for crafting some of the worst child acting performances since the '30s and '40s. However, the Jersey Shore digression was a mistake, the Teddy character seemed more like someone Zeppo Marx would play and, while it's a quibble, I do feel that Will Sasso was physically too large for the part.

Kevy Baby

07-28-2012, 11:08 PM

I'll admit it: I love Forrest Gump. I am watching it for probably the 40 gazillionth time (cable TV this time). I had planned on watching another movie tonight, but got wrapped up in this.

However, this movie has had an unexpected side effect: I hate Robin Wright.

I know she was just the actress playing the part of Jenny (who broke Forrest's heart), but for some stupid reason, I cannot separate them.

It's silly I know, but I hate Robin Wright.

Alex

07-29-2012, 06:52 AM

It's understandable. Forrest Gump made me hate Tom Hanks, Gary Sinise, shrimp, the mall in Washington, helicopters, candy, Sally Field, black guys met on the bus to basic training, Robert Zemeckis, ping pong, etc., for a while.

Eventually I got over it (except for the Zemeckis mistrust).

Cadaverous Pallor

07-29-2012, 12:25 PM

VAM

Moonliner

07-30-2012, 02:59 PM

It's silly I know, but I hate Robin Wright.

Go right now and watch The Princess Bride (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/)

Kevy Baby

07-30-2012, 05:59 PM

I always thought the Princess was a bit of a beeotch in that movie as well.

JWBear

08-13-2012, 11:18 AM

They've remade Red Dawn (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234719/) (with North Korean invaders this time around).

I weep for our civilization.

Moonliner

08-13-2012, 11:36 AM

They've remade Red Dawn (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234719/) (with North Korean invaders this time around).

I weep for our civilization.

As long as the heavy weapons expert is still a hot chick, we'll get by OK.

EDITED TO ADD:

Ahh ha! No worries mate. They got it covered.

http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/vv243/stevesphotobook/bfg-sm.png

flippyshark

08-13-2012, 08:56 PM

JAWS on Blu-Ray tomorrow. I'll have trouble sleeping tonight. :D :D

Moonliner

08-13-2012, 09:17 PM

JAWS on Blu-Ray tomorrow. I'll have trouble sleeping tonight. :D :D

Just in time for shark week. I wonder if that is coincidence?

Kevy Baby

08-13-2012, 11:01 PM

No, they've had Shark Week planned for some time now.

innerSpaceman

08-14-2012, 10:33 AM

JAWS on Blu-Ray tomorrow. I'll have trouble sleeping tonight. :D :D
I have Jaws on VHS, laserdisc, DVD and some later-released uber-DVD. Please let me know whether the blu-ray is that much better and should be purchased. I like living long, but I'm really sick of having to buy the same beloved movies in format after format.

Sometimes the blu-ray is not really an improvement in picture quality, especially with older films.

Moonliner

08-14-2012, 10:49 AM

I have Jaws on VHS, laserdisc, DVD and some later-released uber-DVD. Please let me know whether the blu-ray is that much better and should be purchased. I like living long, but I'm really sick of having to buy the same beloved movies in format after format.

Sometimes the blu-ray is not really an improvement in picture quality, especially with older films.

It's been lovingly restored for Universals 100th anniversary (http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/jaws-has-been-digitally-remastered-looks-stunning-in-hd-20120414/). Amazon just shipped my copy.

flippyshark

08-14-2012, 03:09 PM

Trust me, the picture quality on the JAWS Blu-Ray is stunning and revelatory. There's no going back.

Also, the very interesting fan-made documentary The Shark Is Still Working is included (in standard definition, but exclusive to the Blu-Ray.)

The other extras are all ported over from previous releases, and they look it. But, the real news here is that JAWS has never looked this good before, perhaps ever.

Happily, original mono soundtrack is included and preferred. No revisionist CG monkey business either.

innerSpaceman

08-14-2012, 03:34 PM

Yay! Thanks. Gonna need a bigger boat(load of money), but - though I swore to stop buying movies - this is going to be one of the exceptions!

Kevy Baby

08-15-2012, 04:27 PM

That’s a Big Boulder, Indy: Steven Spielberg on the Imax Rerelease of ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’...“Raiders of the Lost Ark,” the 1981 adventure film that introduced that globe-trotting archaeologist, will receive a one-week Imax release next month, Lucasfilm said on Tuesday.And yes, it is being converted to Imax, not just being shown on a bigger screen.

Article (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/raiders-of-the-lost-ark-to-receive-imax-re-release/)

lashbear

08-16-2012, 07:19 AM

Moonliner

08-16-2012, 08:03 AM

That’s a Big Boulder, Indy: Steven Spielberg on the Imax Rerelease of ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’And yes, it is being converted to Imax, not just being shown on a bigger screen.

Article (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/raiders-of-the-lost-ark-to-receive-imax-re-release/)

Best part of the article...

When “E.T.” was reissued for the third time and I made some digital changes in the picture. I’m not doing that any more. I’ve resigned myself to accepting that what the film was at the time of its creation is what it always should be for future generations. I’m no longer a digital revisionist.

So Indy will still shoot first, just on a digitally enhanced print with re-engineered sound.

innerSpaceman

08-16-2012, 09:20 AM

Then it will be interesting to note if they restore such things as the reflection of the cobra in the glass that separated H. Ford from the deadly snake.

If they don't, I call shenanigans on Spielberg's pledge. :p

Moonliner

08-16-2012, 09:45 AM

So exactly how do you convert a film to Imax?

"Digital Enhancement" is just a fancy term for drawing stuff in. So do they go in frame by frame, blow it up to Imax size and then draw in all the missing details?

Alex

08-16-2012, 11:06 AM

Not by hand most of the time, but essentially yes (http://gizmodo.com/5250780/how-regular-movies-become-imax-films).

Kevy Baby

08-16-2012, 01:34 PM

Oh, I thought he was going to reshoot the movie frame-by-frame in 70mm Imax format.

innerSpaceman

08-16-2012, 02:41 PM

Alas, Raiders won't be playing in the L.A. area at the real IMAX or the two fake IMAX's, but only at the tiny "digital IMAX" neighborhood AMC theaters. Raiders plays often enough in L.A. on much bigger screens. Bah.

Moonliner

08-16-2012, 05:04 PM

cirquelover

08-21-2012, 12:54 PM

The teen and I are going to Paranorman tonight. I really liked Coraline and am hoping since it's done by the same studio that it will be great too. I just love tightwad Tuesday at our local little theater, we can get tickets, drinks and popcorns for $20!

cirquelover

08-23-2012, 07:31 AM

We really enjoyed the movie. I love the claymation style, it gives it life or something. Anyway, it was a lot of fun except for the power going out in the theater. I enjoyed the characters and they made them seem real, maybe because I have known people like them. We even waited after the credits to see how they make a claymation figure, it would have been nice if it was a little slower but was interesting little after piece. It was a fun and funny movie.

alphabassettgrrl

08-23-2012, 09:14 AM

"The Bourne Legacy" -

Entertaining, maybe a little thin on plot, and I found a few things inappropriately amusing. As in, normal people maybe wouldn't be amused, but I was nearly laughing. Chase scene at the end had edit-cuts too quickly together. I prefer more of a flow to the scene and this was choppy and broken.

But it was fun, and I'm glad we saw it. I'm glad they went with a different agent, not sticking with Jason Bourne, who I think is pretty well played out. Some of the visual scenes are beautiful, especially in the beginning.

Snowflake

08-27-2012, 02:46 PM

I can't remember if I posted about this or not. I recently caught up with a few foreign language Oscar films. The most recent was 2008 Japanese film Departures. It was wonderful, touching, sweet, and funny. The arc of the story was somewhat predictable, but in the end, I did not care, it's a beautiful film. A quiet film and I absolutely loved it.

Trailer can be seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtdENmR6jKw)

Moonliner

09-19-2012, 02:16 PM

Raiders of the Lost Ark is finally out on Blu-ray. However it looks like you can only get it by purchasing the "Complete Adventures" set including all four movies for $64,999.00

Yeah, I get it. Two and Four were so stinking bad few people in their right mind would ever purchase them so you are trying to force feed them on people. Sorry, but I'm not going for it. I'll just keep waiting until I can add 1 and 3 by themselves.

* OK, I might have fudged the price a bit to make my point but still... This is BS.

JWBear

09-19-2012, 03:31 PM

Sixty Five THOUSAND?!?! :eek:

Moonliner

09-23-2012, 08:18 PM

Now that's a tad unfortunate.

In the new Bond movie "Skyfall" bond trades his shaken not stirred martini for a Heineken as part of £28million product placement deal.

€uroMeinke

09-23-2012, 08:40 PM

Thats a pretty expensive beer

innerSpaceman

09-24-2012, 11:37 AM

I'm with Moonie. Raiders may be perhaps my favorite movie of all time that I religiously buy in every format - but I will not be forced to purchase films I don't really like in order to get a slightly better-looking version of one I do. BS indeed.

Oh, and a beer-swilling Bond is sacrelige!

mousepod

09-24-2012, 12:28 PM

"Heineken - shaken, not stirred."

Alex

09-24-2012, 01:08 PM

Eh, non-English-car-driving Bond was sacrilege too and it turned out we didn't care.

Moonliner

09-24-2012, 01:36 PM

Eh, non-English-car-driving Bond was sacrilege too and it turned out we didn't care.

Indeed, I had to look it up. While non English vehicles have been featured since the start of the series, the first official bond car not to be a British make was a BMW featured in in 1994's Goldeneye. Coincidentally, one of my least favorite bond films.

If the film is otherwise enjoyable I'll quickly forget the issue and move on. If not the issue of what he's drinking will be just one more straw for the camels back.

innerSpaceman

09-24-2012, 06:46 PM

It has to be good because the last one sucked. :D

Kevy Baby

09-26-2012, 11:14 PM

We discovered this evening that even when a theatre sells no tickets to a particular showing of a movie, they still show the movie. For this, we are grateful as we got to see The Dark Knight Rises (after watching ParaNorman).

alphabassettgrrl

09-27-2012, 10:54 AM

It's probably automated and more effort to go shut it off than to just let it run. Keeps everything else in line, next movie will know when to start and all that. If you go shut it off, you have to pay attention to the time and start the next one when it's supposed to go. Just let it run, and you don't have to pay attention.

innerSpaceman

09-27-2012, 11:15 AM

In a sort-of corollary, the Spectrum did not take anyone's ticket for the first midnight IMAX showing of The Dark Knight Rises, so technically any or all of us could have gotten a refund of our admission price or a re-admit to a later show.

Kevy Baby

09-27-2012, 12:34 PM

I know I don't follow movies nearly as much as many of you, but we saw the extended preview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVxfyBumtm4) last night for the upcoming Les Miserables highlighting the "Live Singing" aspect of the film (which they are claiming has "never been done before"). I have to say I am rather intrigued by this and may actually go to see this movie. Since we were fortunate enough to see Les Mis on Broadway (and I *think* Colm Wilkinson was Jean Valjean), I did not think that any movie version would ever compare. However, based on this preview, I think that this version may be pretty good!

innerSpaceman

09-27-2012, 12:42 PM

I'll go you one better, I might actually like it more than I did the show (because, well, I was not all that impressed with the show).

Normally, if I don't really care for a show, I won't go see the movie. But the "live singing" has me intrigued.

Ghoulish Delight

09-27-2012, 01:23 PM

It's my favorite musical. I've seen 3 productions (Broadway, San Diego, London).

I was very skeptical when I heard about the film version. But that "preview" has me excited. The in-camera singing aspect is novel, and the snippets they show hint at some amazing performances. But what grabbed me the most was seeing the scenes on location in the streets of Paris. I think that will really bring it alive.

Kevy Baby

09-27-2012, 01:43 PM

Since we were fortunate enough to see Les Mis on Broadway (and I *think* Colm Wilkinson was Jean Valjean)...Thanks to Katie Sue on Facebook, I was able to confirm that we did see Colm. Cool.

BTW: we were in the fourth freakin' row for the performance!

mousepod

09-27-2012, 01:45 PM

I did and do love Les Mis. I'm always worried when one of my favorite musicals is made into one of my not favorite movies (I'm looking at you, Sweeney Todd). Unlike adapting a book or TV show, I expect a move from stage to screen to capture some of the essence of the original. This one looks good, though. Here's hoping...

Alex

09-27-2012, 02:04 PM

Love the book, not a huge fan of the musical, intrigued by the movie.

The live signing thing is somewhat hyperbolic. For one thing, prior to sufficient technology it was the norm for musicals to record live, so it was definitely done way back when. But it has been done to various degrees since, though possibly not in a major mainstream musical.

I did find it interesting that Russell Crowe was never shown singing (in the extended preview thing).

SzczerbiakManiac

09-27-2012, 03:18 PM

Did y'all know Russell Crown played Eddie/Dr. Scott in an Aussie production of The Rocky Horror Show in 1987 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=somEd35Xz2Q)?

Alex

09-27-2012, 03:20 PM

I won't hold that against him.

flippyshark

09-27-2012, 05:13 PM

Much ado was made about the live on set singing in the disastrous Seventies Cole Porter musical At Long Last Love. so, if Les Mis starred Burt Reynolds, Sybil Shepperd and Madeline Khan, it wouldn't be very good at all!

Strangler Lewis

09-28-2012, 11:56 AM

If they could get Madeline Kahn to do the film, that would be quite a coup.

Snowflake

09-28-2012, 12:06 PM

If they could get Madeline Kahn to do the film, that would be quite a coup.

Madeline Kahn was fabulous, even in that really LOUSY musical. The only real singer in the bunch and she could act rings around anyone. I still miss her, she brightened many a dull moment in an otherwise not great film.

Kevy Baby

09-28-2012, 12:58 PM

If they could get Madeline Kahn to do the film, that would be quite a coup.If Madeline Kahn were alive today, she would be wondering, "Why is it so dark in here?"

Alex

09-28-2012, 01:38 PM

If Madeline Kahn were alive today she'd either be wondering "how'd they fit me in here" or "where exactly would I consider myself to be" depending on her ashes are still in an urn or were disbursed.

Strangler Lewis

09-29-2012, 07:28 AM

. . . depending on her ashes are still in an urn or were disbursed.

If I were an aspiring actor, which I suppose I still am, and a low budget filmmaker said he couldn't pay me in cash but could pay me with some of Madeline Kahn's ashes, I'd be suspicious about whether they really were her ashes.

Alex

09-29-2012, 08:05 AM

I get the lamest autocorrects.

Ghoulish Delight

09-29-2012, 08:58 AM

I get the lamest autocorrects.

Your phone was just guessing based on your industry.

LSPoorEeyorick

09-30-2012, 06:39 PM

Had such a GREAT movie marathon today. The Perks of Being a Wallflower (see it), Pitch Perfect (rent it), and Looper (why aren't you watching it right now!?)

Strangler Lewis

10-01-2012, 05:43 AM

I get the lamest autocorrects.

I hardly consider myself to be automatic, but I do try to be vigilant.

RStar

10-01-2012, 07:52 AM

Saw Looper myself yesterday. Not bad, a pretty good time travel and moral story. Good acting, and interesting near future tech. Love the cell phones, and the gas to solar car conversions.

My fave line is Bruce Willis (older John) while at a diner talking (intensively, BTW) with the younger John, whom he calls "Boy":

"I'm not going to sit here and talk time travel with you, and make little diagrams with straws."

innerSpaceman

10-01-2012, 03:41 PM

Yep, great line. I really liked it.

I was very impressed they bothered (and largely succeeded) with JLG looking like a young Willis via make up/prosthetics and imitational performance.

Aside from that plus, and a particular casting bonus, it succeeded by not being what I expected, and by still being a fun time travel / noir tale with plenty of heart.

SzczerbiakManiac

10-09-2012, 12:14 PM

Since 1980 I've been a fervent Rocky Horror fan & collector of all things Rocky Horror. So it came as a huge shock to me that there was behind-the-scenes footage shot during the filming of RHPS! I have literally never even heard such this existed. I know there were stills shot by Mick Rock (http://www.amazon.com/dp/3896026666), but never film. For Rocky fans, this is amazing.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF9cZUuvYt8
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ab_haeNICA
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9HYqfkYKQ0
I don't know why it's split into three parts, but I'm so thrilled this has been unearthed I'm not going to kvetch about it. ;)

Moonliner

10-09-2012, 02:32 PM

innerSpaceman

10-09-2012, 04:44 PM

Ooh, I've seen part 1 and forgot about looking for the second two parts. Thanks, SM.

RStar

10-09-2012, 10:12 PM

Very interesting!

I actually listened to the music and had all of the songs memorized before I saw the movie. This was around 1978 or so. My roomate had the album (yes, kiddies- it was vinyl back then), and we use to just sit and listen to it over and over. There may or may not have been something smoked at the time, I don't remember. ;)

Alex

10-14-2012, 03:23 PM

On paper I should be a huge Martin McDonough fan. In theory his style should tickle me but something about it just falls flat.

There was much that I admired as clever about In Bruges but ultimately I found the movie a bore with some good dialog and performances. I just got back from Seven Psychopaths and it didn't even have the good dialog, I was just bored throughout.

innerSpaceman

10-15-2012, 09:42 AM

I've no interest in Seven Psychopaths, but I hold In Bruges in very high regard. I think most people missed that, and I consider it a semi-secret gem that I recommend everyone check out.

Alex

10-15-2012, 03:19 PM

Yeah, so many people I respect loved the movie that I assume something was wrong with me. It just didn't click for me.

Almost kept me from seeing Brendan Gleeson in The Guard, which I very much did enjoy (and also almost nobody saw).

innerSpaceman

10-15-2012, 03:23 PM

I enjoyed that one, too. That's a total of 17 people who saw The Guard.

Alex

11-10-2012, 03:31 PM

Oh, and a beer-swilling Bond is sacrelige!

Even less of a deal than I expected. The word Heineken is never uttered. Bond is lounging in a beach resort hotel room after months of inactivity and is seen drinking from the distinctive green Heineken bottle. The name is visible but they never gave it any prominence.

Having him in a tux and drinking martinis wouldn't have really fit the scene.

Anyway, the movie.

It a couple days too long. It relies on the omniscient villain to an excessive degree (I expect that from Bond films but there was one scenes that broke the camel's back).

It has a standing up sex scene against a raw stone wall. Apparently everybody making fun of that in Road House didn't make it to England or Sam Mendes.

The best action set piece is the opening action set piece.

It is better than Quantum of Solace but nowhere near so good as Quantum of Solace, partly because it doesn't really ever let up on the seriousness.

Way above average Bond movie but still just an above average action movie.

innerSpaceman

11-10-2012, 06:01 PM

I found Skyfall to be a far better than average Bond movie, but a so-so action movie - which makes it all the more coolsville that such a thing does not prevent it from being that far better than average Bond movie.

Perhaps that's all I should say about it until a few more people have seen it. I respect general spoiler rules during opening weekend. I was not bothered by the omniscience of the truly fun villain. It was stated as a given, and I don't need my Bond movies more serious than that. So I was perfectly pleased when it turned out to be a pretty darn seriously-themed and dramatically well acted film ... not really typical - and very welcome - in this 50-year-long series.

Of the Daniel Craig Bonds, It was not as knockout fun and gangbusters as Casino Royale, but so much better than Quantum of Solace. Bond fans are used to the films being literally hit and miss (not necessary alternating perfectly), so it was nice to have a genuine hit after such a lousy miss.

There are things in the movie leading me to feel this is the last time Daniel Craig will be appearing as James Bond. If so, it's a nice send-off. I liked it.

Alex

11-10-2012, 06:28 PM

One of the movie related podcasts I listen to is a BBC radio show and they had Craig on a couple weeks ago. During that he was talking about ideas he has for Bond and hoping to get to collaborate on them, especially with Mendes if he returns.

I was fine with omniscient villain until:

Serious spoilers in here so don't read if you don't want to know.

He apparently so perfectly planned his escape from MI6 that he had planted an explosive in the roof of an unused station, apparently knowing that Bond would catch up to him in that room and exactly where he would be when it happened and that a train would be coming along at the right time.

A moment of lightly showing the diabolical nature of the villain could have been had if they'd shown him waiting around in that abandoned station until warned that Bond was almost there and then he starts scurrying up the ladder.

Of course, all of that relied on knowing that Bond would shoot at him three times and each time hit a 2 inch wide strip of metal instead of the bad guy.

All the other omniscience didn't bother me*, but at that moment it went a step too far.

*And that is apparently considering that Bardem's diabolical plan was apparently this:

1. Steal hard drive but don't have your guy get away so clean that Bond isn't in pursuit.
2. Arrange that pursuit so perfectly that Bond will be shot by his own team and put out of commission. But first your guy will shoot him with a bullet that will leave shrapnel behind but not fatally or seriously impair him.
3. Wait until Bond has healed enough to implement the next part of the plan.
4. Assume that Bond will return to service after seeing the news.
5. Assume that after six months M will lie so that he can return to service.
6. Assume that Bond will finally have the shrapnel so that it can be used (making sure your bad guy used a type of bullet that apparently only three people in the world use) to track down your bad guy).
7. Arrange a job for your bad guy that hopefully MI6 will learn about from the Americans, who want your bad guy but apparently not enough to pursue him when they know where he is going to be.
8. Assume Bond will be sent to track him down.
9. Assume that once Bond catches up to him he will kill the bad guy rather than capturing him.
10. Assume that Bond will not wonder why a casino chip was actually given a special space in the glass cutter case and smell a trap.
11. Bond will go to that casino and survive an apparently very serious attempt on his life.
12. Bond will offer to kill you so that your sex slave will bring him to you. Bond will then do the extremely creepy thing of announcing his arrival to a woman he deduced has been a sex slave since 12 years old by joining her in the shower.
13. Bond will capture you (not kill you) once on your island. So that you can, from custody, engage in an escape even more improbable than the plan so far.

Alex

11-11-2012, 01:51 AM

Oh, one other thing.

There is an island in the movie that I assumed was CGI. It wasn't. So I'm grateful to the movie for making me aware of its existence.

innerSpaceman

11-11-2012, 11:39 AM

innerSpaceman

11-11-2012, 11:51 AM

Spoilers wherein I discount Alex's problems with plot holes and raise the one that instead bothers me a lot:

For what it's worth (i.e., I don't think the absurdly perfect plot of Silva merits real dissection), I did not figure his plan relied on Bond specifically, but only that he would allow himself to be captured and taken to London. And I will allow for the tube station roof explosion to be the only part planned, perhaps to cover his tracks or perhaps to thwart any live pursuit, but that the train timing was coincidental in the context of the film ... and such "coincidences" in action films were hardly invented last week for Skyfall.

No, the one that really bugged me was the elaborate assassination of the dude viewing the painting on the high floor of a skyscraper. Everyone in the room with the target was in on the plot, so why bother having the assassin in a tower across the street? Why not have him in the bedroom or the closet or under the sofa in that very room?

Even if I go so far as to assume the room was secured and the personnel checked for weapons by the cautious target (when nothing in the film eluded to this), it's hard to believe the three of them could not simply kill the target with a bottle or by strangling or by really poor art depression. The complex assassination was just absurd ... and struck me way moreso than the main villain's super-elaborate London plot.

But neither detracted me from the enjoyment of this Bond movie, and rare is the one without absurd plot holes.

Alex

11-11-2012, 12:21 PM

Battling spoilers!

It may not have needed to be Bond specifically but it was only through the actions of Bond that any movements towards Silva's confrontation of M was achieved. Plus not only did he have to get captured but he had to get captured at just the right time so that he'd be transported to London, interrogated, have Q infect the network at just the right moment so that he could escape and not just assassinate M but do so while she was testifying before the parliament committee.

Seriously, it was a plan that make Heath Ledger's Joker look feeble minded.

But the part that bothered you doesn't bother me because it was part of the horribly unlikely and convoluted plan. The assassin needed to be separate from everybody else in on it because the assassin was bait for Bond (or whoever else) so that Bond would find the casino chip and follow it to Macau and from there get to Silva. The thing I wonder is if the assassin knew everybody else was in on it.

And one thing has really settled poorly with me over the last date. One horribly wrong emotional note:

Seriously, as it has settled, I find Bond getting naked and sneaking up on her and groping here without warning, even though he knew her to be a horribly sexually damaged person. One who, so far as he knew, would consider sexual submission to him the cost of seeing Silva killed. Just a horrible scene from the point of view of what the character of Bond believes he knows at that point and what it says about him that he'd act that way.

That isn't sexually promiscuous it is very nearly sexually predatory. Especially when the next day she is killed and he barely bats an eye. Surely he enjoyed his night with an attractive woman who had learned many great skills in her 20 years of forced sexual labor.

Alex

11-11-2012, 12:23 PM

Heheh, I assumed many of the stunts in the digital age were CGI, but the Bond crew apparently prides itself on doing everything live. This is very impressive for some of the stuff - - but it's too bad most people will just think it's CGI. Double-edged sword that technology is.

[quote]Alex, can you shed some further light on Craig's ideas for Bond, other than quitting?

No I can't, as I don't remember specifics other than that he was talking about future films and his involvement.

Oh, and I didn't mind the product placement in Skyfall, supposedly setting a record number. A lot of ballyhoo has been made of it, and the modern Bond films, in particular, make a habit of it. But the Heinekin beer seemed totally natural, the Sony Vaio logo ditto (though obviously selected as the brand to model), and I never noticed that the motorcycles were Hondas, or any of the other 20 product placement deals that were so lucrative for the studio.

In that same interview he addressed this, saying essentially: "Look, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to open a movie globally and you aren't going to get anybody to take the risk if you don't pay for a lot of it up front and we try hard to fit it in naturally."

innerSpaceman

11-11-2012, 01:14 PM

Well, Alex, you're interpretation of the plot is so elaborately ridiculous, that it's simply not one I share. Your's requires absolutely every element of chance to fall one particular way. Whereas I'm assuming the villain is playing things much more as-they-go ... meaning the results must be the same, but he adjusts his game based on how things occur in real time, because ...

... there's no way to have predicted Bond would be the victor in the fight with the Shanghai skyscraper assassin, or that he'd even be in place at that moment, much less that he'd be shot by future Moneypenny and knocked off that train, or that he'd even be shot with the uranium bullets that ultimately led him to the assassin in Shanghai. Counting on all that happening is just so insane ... and so I believe it's far less of a stretch to assume Silva is adjusting to events as they happen, but is prepared to be captured by Bond or whoever MI6 sends after him, however that plays out.

The timing of new-Q's computer investigation is pretty much tied to his captivity (i.e., Q would attend to that as soon as practical), so I find Silva's plot much less of a stretch as it gets closer to execution.

* * * * *

If the Art-Lover assassination was all an elaborate trap for Bond, then he's the stupid one for falling for it. Or, at the very least, the film never implied Bond was following the clues even though a trap was likely. That kind of thing can be done with a facial expression in a proper shot, so it's absence was telling. Also, as I said above, the outcome of a fight between Bond and the same assassin he lost to last time could hardly have been a given.

It works better for me if it's not a trap, but rather a real series of clues. And that also could have been established with a single shot of Femme Fatale's face in the Art-Lover's target suite. The people in the room could all have been properly freaked out by the shooting, and she could have shown in a filmed glance that her freak-out was fake (see, e.g., Catwoman's similar revealed play-acting in the recent Batman finale).

Lazy filmmaking is what I chalk it up to. Plot holes that can be remedied with a single shot of an actor's face, but are not ... that's one of my movie pet peeves.

Alex

11-11-2012, 03:53 PM

No, it was all plan. He had explosives set in a specific room. He had a very specific moment planned for when he'd assassinate M. All of required knowing, before he was captured the exact moment he'd escape from MI6. He had two fake cops in a tube station set to hand him his disguise at a specific moment in time. he had a car waiting at a specific spot at a specific moment to take him to parliament.

All of this ha to have been planned before he was captured since he never communicated with anybody after that. And not just knowing that he would be captured but exactly when he'd be captured because everything about the latter half of the plan was extremely time specific.

And to know when he'd be captured with such specificity he'd have to have even manipulating Bond (or whatever agent ended up on his tail) from the beginning.

Now, perhaps he didn't know Bond was alive, but ten the curious question would be why Silva waited months after capturing the drive to begin phase two of humiliating M before killing her.

The problem beyond excessive villainous omniscience is that the events make even less sense without it.

Alex

11-11-2012, 03:57 PM

and talk about omniscience, his entire escape plan required knowing that MI6's top computer expert would jack an unknown computer, recovered from someone who had already cracked every computer security system they had, directly into th MI6 network.

Predicting that level of idiocy is true omniscience.

Damn, you're talking me into liking it a lot less than I did at the time.

Strangler Lewis

11-11-2012, 08:45 PM

I liked [I]Argo[I].

innerSpaceman

11-12-2012, 12:28 PM

On a less nitpicky note about Skyfall, it seemed a little odd to me that we've seen only the beginning and what's feeling like the end of Daniel Craig as James Bond.

Much was made about his aging in Skyfall (he's still hot stuff, but time is not being kind to his particularly craggy looks), and the film is not subtle about him being too old to be a Double Oh (in fact failing the tests for reinstatement as an MI6 agent).

Since Casino Royale was his debut as a Double Oh, and Quantum of Solace took place immediately after that ... will there be a web series or an animated take on this James Bond's actual exploits? His obituary in Skyfall mentioned he's a Commander, and in the other two films he was barely above a recruit. What have we been missing? :D

Also ... the overt nod to Goldfinger was one thing. But the "Circle is Now Complete" ending just reeks of goodbye to Daniel Craig as James Bond. Reportedly he wants out of his 5-film contract, but Alex heard him muse on future installments of the series. I don't know what to make of it. But at the very least I feel we've been gipped out of Daniel Craig's prime James Bond adventures. (Le sigh.)

Alex

11-13-2012, 07:03 AM

All the stuff about Craig wanting out seems to come from a single quote to Rolling Stone which reads to me like standard self deprecating talk. He said he's wanted out since he first got the role. So if that is true, he hasn't been very effective to date.

I don't know about in the Craig-as-Bond universe but in Fleming's-Bond universe his rank of Commander had nothing to do with his MI6 service but was his Royal Navy rank before becoming a secret agent. If that carries over he was a commander in Casino Royale as well as in Skyfall.

innerSpaceman

11-13-2012, 08:37 AM

Ah thanks for that. I'm not familiar with the book history. My familiarity with the film history is hardly comprehensive ... but as I faintly recall, Bond's navy service and his commander rank wasn't mentioned until You Only Live Twice, which was Connery's first (of three) "final" James Bond movies.

But even if Craig's Bond has the same naval history, we still seem to be coming into Skyfall at the end stage of his 007 career, while his other two films were the very beginning. Just an oddment, imo.

Strangler Lewis

11-13-2012, 10:27 AM

I liked "The Perks of Being a Wallflower."

alphabassettgrrl

11-13-2012, 04:04 PM

Seeing "Skyfall" tonight! So very excited.

innerSpaceman

11-13-2012, 05:17 PM

On a different note, I think I kinda hated Cloud Atlas, but my bf loved it. He thought it was romantic, but I hear the filmmakers added in those elements of love surviving through eons of time. I found it cheesy and trite, though I was entertained enough.

The theme of reincarnation did not have to be hammered home by having the same gang of actors appear in different roles in each of the six stories. They were shoehorned in, and some of the accents and especially the make-up was just cringe-worthy.

Some of the stories were interesting, too many were not. It's a pretty film to look at, and the mix of genre's is interesting. But I really hate it when a novel told in a certain way is made suitable (i.e., dumbed-down) for cinema by constant cross-cutting.

As I understand it, the novel tackles it Story A, B, C, D, E and F - each to a certain point, and then wraps them up F, E, D, C, B and A. To me, that's a much more interesting structure, and I contest the assumption it can't work on film and instead all six stories must be constantly intercut. That's hack work. Quite literally. Sure, it prevents boredom. It also prevents getting more than mildly interested in any of the stories.

As I also understand it, there is only one character reincarnated from story to story in the novel. The casting suggestion that everyone is reincarnated was silly, imo, and it was actually distracting trying to figure out who was playing who in each story under tons of make-up.

I'm going to read the book. Bah on the movie.

alphabassettgrrl

11-13-2012, 09:56 PM

Enjoyed Skyfall a whole lot. It's absolutely beautiful to look at, they give you locator shots to tell you where you are, Bond rocks, the opening chase scene is everything I love about the Bond chase scenes (namely, that they show Bond solving what the bad guy did that was going to let him get away, rather than just teasing us that they were going to catch the bad guy and things happen to let him slip away again and again), the theme song and animations are beautiful, and that house!!! I want to go take a zillion pictures.

Judi Dench is of course amazing as M. Not so fond of Q but that's ok. I get what they were doing. Javier Bardem (so that's what the comment was about "best Bond girl ever" meant) is fabulous as the bad guy.

I don't like that Daniel Craig's Bond gets beat up so much. Bond isn't supposed to get hammered like that. But his suits always look great! And only once did I spot the matte painting background.

LSPoorEeyorick

11-14-2012, 10:21 AM

...the Sony Vaio logo ditto (though obviously selected as the brand to model)... or any of the other 20 product placement deals that were so lucrative for the studio.

Sony Vaio isn't a sponsor, per se. The film is made by Sony. I know first-hand that any footage or marketing of a Sony film that includes any gadgets other than Sony (Vaio computer, Ericsson phone, etc) is not permitted. Like, "completely redo your CGI immediately" not-permitted.

innerSpaceman

11-14-2012, 11:38 AM

Wow, that's way creepier than actual product placement.

Cadaverous Pallor

11-14-2012, 08:20 PM

Sony Vaio isn't a sponsor, per se. The film is made by Sony. I know first-hand that any footage or marketing of a Sony film that includes any gadgets other than Sony (Vaio computer, Ericsson phone, etc) is not permitted. Like, "completely redo your CGI immediately" not-permitted.That's pretty damn smart. Thought I did see a (very long and rather dumb) Sony VAIO commercial featuring Bond recently, so this one is technically a tie-in.

cirquelover

11-14-2012, 09:21 PM

I think Cloud Atlas looks fascinating. I didn't read the book so maybe I will still like it.

JWBear

11-17-2012, 03:49 PM

Bill and I were discussing the rumor that Daniel Craig may be giving up the Bond roll. Then we thought; wouldn't it be cool if the next 007 was a woman? It's about time MI6 hired a woman for the position! "Bond, Jane Bond."

Alex

11-17-2012, 05:15 PM

If Craig does leave there has been a lot of talk for Idris Elba getting the role (none of it from people who'd make the decision). So black is probably as radical a choice as is likely to happen.

Besides, this movie demonstrated that women are really suited to field world.

cirquelover

11-18-2012, 10:51 AM

Oooo I love Idris Elba!

Ghoulish Delight

11-21-2012, 12:17 AM

Finally saw Moonrise Kingdom.

I can give no objective analysis of whether that was a good movie or not. Wes Anderson simply gives me a raging cineboner and I love every color-filtered, socially awkward, dysfunctional frame he flickers in front of me.

Alex

11-21-2012, 06:29 AM

I'm pretty sure you can get a cineboner at your local mall's food court. Way too many calories. And it is unlikely to actually use the best cinnamon in the world.

innerSpaceman

11-21-2012, 08:38 AM

Cineboner distraction or not, Moonrise Kingdom IS a fantastic movie. I'm not an automatic Wes Anderson tumescencer, so this is an unbiased fact.

innerSpaceman

11-24-2012, 05:49 PM

Two biopics. Both slice of professional life, one famous project each. One was surprisingly meh to me, the other nearly as surprisingly delightful.

I hate to say it, but Lincoln is a bit dry. It's an important film about an important piece of history. It's got fantastic performances throughout, most especially and obviously that of Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln. Any time he was on screen, I was captivated and the film soared. But when he wasn't, it started to fall decidedly flat and get a bit tedious.

The problem, of course, is that the film concerns lobbying and political machinations behind attempts to pass the 13th Constitutional Amendment - banning slavery - through the raucous House of Representatives. If passing a bill through Congress sounds like it might be a challenge to make cinematically interesting, you'd be right. It's a bit of a chore, and it left me feeling that every movie about passing a bill through Congress should be a musical (*cough*1776*cough).

Later in the film, when passage of the Amendment looks in doubt, A. Lincoln gets more personally involved with the project and the film picks up tremendously. But it's a little too little too late, and Lincoln, the film, left me a little disappointed. (Mindful, though, that Lincoln, the character channeled by Daniel Day Lewis, left me enthralled.)

* * * * *

Hitchcock, on the other hand, is breezy, charming, funny, and a pure delight. Reportedly, the biopic takes liberties with history and with the personal lives of its protagonists, Alfred and his wife & collaborator, Alma - wonderfully portrayed by Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren, during the making of Psycho. But it hardly matters. It's a really enjoyable romp through an interesting bit of film history, with some really interesting characters.

Sure, it's a lazy shortcut that Hitchcock's personal psychology is typically assumed to be starkly reflected in his own work. But Hitch himself worked hard to make "Alfred Hitchcock" a pop-culture character, and few directors have an ouvre that paints such a clear picture of obviously consistent personal obsessions.

The supporting cast is great, and the actors playing the actors from Psycho deliver a fine combination of imitation and inspiration. Hopkins appropriately leads the way with a performance that by definition requires such a strong reliance on impersonation.

I should also mention I enjoyed Hitchcock far more than I did The Girl - an HBO television production about Hitch's relationship with Tippi Hedron during the filming of The Birds and Marnie, that also debuted recently. Toby Jones doesn't fair nearly as well in tackling Hitchcock as does Hopkins, and The Girl is kind of creepy in portraying a slightly older Hitch as far more threatening and harassing.

Hitchcock is a bit more subtle with Hitch's dark side, often using the concepit of imagined scenes of the director communing with the spirit of Ed Gein, the serial killer who inspired Psycho, to hint at his own inner creepiness.

In both the cinema and cable TV movies about Hitchcock, a highlight is the director's personal and sadistic involvement with getting the most horrified reactions from his leading ladies when it counts. Fun, fun.

But there are too few delights in the TV movie, and a multitude of them in the movie movie, about the making of a movie ... and one of the best is seeing Hitch in the theater lobby while the shower scene plays for the opening night crowd. Priceless.

If you like slice-of-life biopics, both Lincoln and Hitchcock are worthy of your time. But if you've stomach only for one, I recommend it be Hitchcock.

Tellingly, Lincoln will take two-and-a-half hours of your time, Hitchcock barely more than 90 minutes.

€uroMeinke

11-24-2012, 06:16 PM

For Thanksgiving we pulled out the Ice Storm to get in the Holiday Spirit. I was surprised by how much better the film seemed since my last viewing. Such a delightful morality tale about people's failure to communicate - and the whole Key Party sequence is worth the price of admission.

Strangler Lewis

11-24-2012, 09:39 PM

ISM, next you'll be saying you don't like Shakespearean histories.

Remember, this was a Spielberg/Kushner thing. The film was not about passing the Thirteenth Amendment. It was about the horrors of the Holocaust and Israel's need to stand up to Hamas. It was also about the imminent universal legitimization of gay marriage. That's why the Congressman who accuses Stevens of caving on broad principle was played by a fairly flamboyant actor and why Stevens's quadroon housekeeper lover whom we saw him in bed with was played by a notorious lesbian.

There. You can enjoy it more, now.

Alex

12-15-2012, 07:36 AM

Hated pretty much everythign about The Hobbit. Seeing it in 48fps certainly didn't help it out (I thought it resulted in everything looking more fake, not more real and I never got used to it; but this is why I've never been interested in Bluray, the demo movies at the TV store look awful and cartoony and fake to me; wouldn't mind seeing it for something that isn't almost pure CGI).

There is 80 minutes, maybe, of move expanded to 170 minutes. All the worst excesses of the last half of the LOTR trilogy and King Kong without much in the way of narrative or character progression.

About halfway into the movie I actually got into my normal airplane seat sleeping posture and tried to go to sleep as a form of escape (I was in the middle of the row due to the 3D and couldn't tell if Lani was enjoying it). Didn't work for more than a couple minutes. Though I did manage to jump suddenly from Gandalf, Cate and Future Bad Guy having a talk in Rivendell to suddenly watching cartoons cling to Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Rock Bots.

So let me condemn this movie in the strongest way: I'd rather have to spend a weekend watching the Transformers trilogy over and over (and some of you may recall how much I hated each Transformers movie) than sit through half of this one again.

=====

Conversely, I'm surprised by how much I loved Lincoln. The opening scene is bad and the epilogue is Spielbergian glurge but I adored everything in between.

innerSpaceman

12-15-2012, 09:28 AM

I really enjoyed Life of Pi.

I may not even bother seeing The Hobbit. Unless I'm suddenly in the mood for a three hour train wreck.

flippyshark

12-15-2012, 01:10 PM

I enjoyed a fair chunk of The Hobbit, but big swaths of it washed past me as the late night wore on. I just don't like gimmicky action sequences, and there is no shortage of them here. Three movies out of this slender book was a bad decision, made for craven reasons. I really like Martin Freeman as Bilbo, though.

Alex

12-15-2012, 04:58 PM

Saw Hitchcock. It was fine. Didn't much care for the gimmick of it and Hopkins' performance never stopped feeling like an impersonation to me.

Mirren was very good and she'll get a nomination simply for her 45 seconds of telling off Hitchcock.

Of interest to me was seeing Michael Stuhlbarg in minor parts in both Lincoln and Hitchcock. He jumped off the screen both times while not having much to do. He was good in A Serious Man (a film I didn't fall for like a lot of people did) a couple years ago.

I'd like to see more of him.

innerSpaceman

12-16-2012, 11:44 AM

Ditto that. He's got a recurring role on Boardwalk Empire.

alphabassettgrrl

12-16-2012, 05:15 PM

I rather enjoyed the Hobbit, though I let the pointless action sequences and the CGI unreasonable falling scenes wash past me. Couple of times I nearly burst out laughing at inappropriate times (my mind is a terrible place to watch movies).

This should probably have been one movie, maybe two at most. Three seems like he's pushing it, not to mention it shouldn't have been a three hour movie.

But it was fun, and fairly pretty, and the three hours went by only feeling like two. :)

flippyshark

12-26-2012, 09:29 AM

Some thoughts on my viewing of Les Mis.

It was almost exactly what I expected, which is fine but never the best thing.

I am waaay too familiar with the score. I couldn't get caught up in it, because I was too busy cataloguing what was new, what was different, and so on.

I didn't mind the extended long takes in head-and-shoulders close-up as much as I feared I would.

Packed house. About two-thirds of the audience I saw it with applauded throughout, could be heard sniffling here and there, and gave a solid ovation at the end. But that other third? They HATED it!!! Quite a few walk-outs, and lots of post-movie comments such as "I was bored every effing millisecond!" and "Why didn't you tell me this was three hours of singing!?"

I think I will enjoy it more on a subsequent viewing, as I'll be more at ease with it. But I'm not in a hurry. (Alas, I'm a little burned out on the show, even though it is a long time major fave of mine.) I suspect I'll own it when it shows up on Blu-ray in a few months, and I'll be glad I have it, but it isn't going to be in heavy rotation.

Amanda Seyfried's warbly trill caused a lot of giggles.

Eddie Redmayne deserves award consideration as much as Anne Hathaway.

Overall, a marginal win, and I hope it grows on me a little more.

innerSpaceman

12-26-2012, 12:37 PM

The Hobbit wasn't as bad as I feared, despite some really stupid and poorly-timed additions that are not from the book, and a really large plot hole featuring the made-up villain. I call shenanigans on that, because if you are going to make things up that Tolkien never wrote, you might want to make sure it doesn't leave a gaping plot hole that is patently absurd (not to mention lazy, as it could have been fixed with a camera shot or a line of dialogue).*

Other than that, though, when the film was sticking to the book, I found it a perfectly credible - if not spectacular - adaptation of The Hobbit. Not bad, and I have higher hopes for the remaining episodes. In fact, if there's ultimately an "un-extended" director's cut released for home video, it might be rather good. :D

* The invented bad guy, an albino orc named Azog, is shown harrasing and chasing our heroes on one side of an immense mountain range, the Misty Mountains. Our gang is then shown going through a series of intense adventures and adverse conditions crossing the mountains - - only to find that same bad guy magically and unexplainedly on the other side. WTF?

There was also little need for TWO prologues. The one featuring cast members from LotR was useless and should have been ditched. Oh, and one wholly-invented tangent backstory just as the plot gets going was bad enough. But to have a second one barely five minutes later really stalled the plot just as it was starting to pick up steam.

Another non-book introduction of LotR stars at Rivendell was also stupid. But the sour points were few, and everything else was decidedly Not Bad. I did not brave the 48fps version. The normal, 24fps 2-D film looked suitably pretty.

innerSpaceman

12-26-2012, 01:39 PM

Though The Hobbit did not drag at nearly 3 hours, I found Django Unchained really breezed by at that same length. Full of mayhem, horror, violence and black comedy, it's the perfect Christmas Movie!

Quentin Tarantino is back in fine form with this revenge-plot send up of spaghetti westerns. Everyone in the cast was having a ball, and there are great performances by Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christoph Waltz, and Samuel L. Jackson.

Also digging delightfully into the depths of Tarantino's beloved B-movie casts, the supporting players included the likes of Don Johnson, Franco Nero, Tom Wopat, Russ Tamblyn, Bruce Dern, Lee Horsley, James Remar, Michael Parks and Ted Neely! Bwahahah, I missed most of these, and will have to try and spot them on very warranted repeat viewings.

Tarantino did not overdo it on the dialogue scenes this time, which are perfectly interspersed with action bits. The film is brutal in its depiction of American slavery two years before the Civil War, but the violence is by-and-large comic-book gory, and comedy is paired nicely with action and suspense.

I loved it. Not Tarantino's best work, but that leaves it better than many other's. A whole lot of fun. Five stars from me.
:snap: :snap: :snap: :snap: :snap:

Alex

12-26-2012, 06:32 PM

I like Django Unchained for the most part. Unfortunately (fortunately?) the non action parts were working so well for me that I was kind of sad to see it descend into a John Woo gunfight.

Also had no problem with the length but will admit that when it became clear the movie was not ending when it first look like it would that I was concerned.

Strangler Lewis

01-05-2013, 01:43 PM

High recommendations for Promised Land.

Alex

01-05-2013, 10:53 PM

Saw Les Miserables. Liked it about as much as the stage production.

Kevy Baby

01-05-2013, 10:57 PM

How did you like the stage production?

Alex

01-05-2013, 11:06 PM

About as much as I liked the movie.

Both much less than I like the book.

They're fine, no complaints. But I'm not particularly engaged by the musical.

Ghoulish Delight

01-06-2013, 12:15 AM

I love Les Mis. It is my favorite musical.

Saw the movie. Despite a few glaring flaws, the elements that are good are stellar (assuming you like the show to begin with). Jackman is powerful, the production is lovely, and the story and characters come through crystal clear.

The negative points (Crowe, HBC, SBC) were disappointing, but did not at all keep me from being enthralled.

However, I do not recommend seeing it before attending a party. Not exactly the best emotional state to put yourself in in preparation to celebrate.

Alex

01-06-2013, 05:56 AM

I'd say it is one of the worst-filmed big budget movies I've seen in a long time. Everything being in extreme closeup kind of rendered breaking the confines of a stage pointless.

Therefore I give Russell Crowe the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he just had trouble singing with a camera up his nose. It was like Tom Hooper figured that rather than using the opportunity of film to expand the stage he'd instead use it to make the audience feel like they were sitting in the front row.

And, Anne Hathaway was very good. But if she wins an Oscar because she sang one song reasonably well I'll be disappointed. I know the precedent is set by Jennifer Hudson, but still. (Also sad to learn that even in heaven she didn't get her hair back.)

Castle in the Clouds and Master of the House are my two favorite numbers and they both came of kind of flat in the movie. Things did start to click in the last 45 minutes or I'd have ended up hating it a fair amount.

Oh, one other minor distraction. By the end, Hugh Jackman was looking an awful lot like Michael Landon on Little House. Especially the one scene where he comes out in an undershirt, wearing suspender. "Who am I? I'm Charles Ingalls!"

http://pollysays.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/charles-ingalls.jpg

Ghoulish Delight

01-06-2013, 09:59 PM

Oh, agreed for sue on Master of the House. By far the biggest disappointment for me. Completely sucked all the energy and humor out of it. Bleh.

I had been warned nasal-cam, but was totally okay with it. I suppose because when I heard about it the first thing I thought was, "Well, at least it's not like the Phantom movie where the cast was so bad at emoting that they shot all of the heavy emotional song solos from a helicopter so you didn't have to look at their faces." Being in their face worked for me in a show that's so dependent on the individual characterizations and their intense emotional struggles.

flippyshark

01-06-2013, 10:09 PM

Les Mis was much kinder to its stage source than the Phantom movie. That said, I adore the live Royal Albert Hall production of Phantom released to video this past year. It squashed all memory of the Gerard Butler version. I kind of hope that eventually, a really good complete live staging of Les Mis will happen. (Not a concert.) I'm going to take in a second viewing soon, because I had mixed reactions to it, but now that I've calibrated, I might enjoy it more next time. (So much do I enjoy the show, I really want to get as much out of its imperfect film incarnation as I can.) The close-ups didn't bother me, either. Reviews had led me to expect something much more drastic than what I saw on screen. ("You can count their nose hairs and give them a thorough oral diagnostic exam!")

Alex

01-07-2013, 06:40 AM

I don't see how the camera could have been closer. Often it was so close that the actors entire face didn't fit on screen. I think I achieved first name status with some of the pores on Jackman's face.

The reason it doesn't work great for me is that it is redundant. So much of the lyrics are expository. So you end up watching the actor go to great lengths to emote while they are verbally telling you how they feel and why. They're showing AND telling. Completely, in my opinion, undercut Redmayne's number at the end after he'd recovered.

Watching him grieve quite demonstratively while he is also telling me, quite explicitly, how much he is grieving. The result is like one of those literal videos on YouTube.

innerSpaceman

01-07-2013, 12:25 PM

I hated the show, so I'm not going to bother with the movie till its out on disc.

Some friends saw it last night - but there was a popcorn fire in the theater, so the audience was evacuated before the final half-an-hour. They can go back for free, but have to sit through the whole thing again in order to see the ending. Sounds like torture to me.

Kevy Baby

01-07-2013, 01:43 PM

Reminds me of when we saw Born on the Fourth of July and a man had a seizure during a particularly intense moment. They stopped the film for a half hour while paramedics came in. This was back in the old-school film projection days.

innerSpaceman

01-28-2013, 11:57 AM

Catching Up on Oscar Nominated Films, I'm a tad disappointed.

Beasts of the Southern Wild was very sweet, but Best Picture material? Not unless standards have drastically slipped. And I seriously don't understand all the general buzz about this movie. The young thing with the child Oscar nom was very good - but since most of her "acting" was voice-over done in studio, I look a bit askance at an Oscar nom. This film is Highly Over-Rated IMO.

Silver Linings Playbook was adorable. A sweet piece of RomCom fluff with a flavoring of mental illness, which was a cute theme affecting many of the characters - and not just the central couple - which I appreciated. But sweep of the actor categories AND Best Picture? Um, not if this movie had been released before November. No one would remember it. It's an adorable trifle. And just because actors are playing mentally ill does NOT mean those performances are automatically Oscar-worthy. I'm very tired of that trope.

BUT - I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It's just Very Overrated, IMO.

Argo was a very well-told, 70's-era true espionage tale. Very well done. Very entertaining. Also slightly over-rated imo, but only because there's such gushing about it. I've got nothing bad to say about the movie, but it didn't strike me as OMG Fantastic.

Oh well, at least I'm catching up on Oscar noms.

alphabassettgrrl

01-28-2013, 04:50 PM

Just watched "The Lovely Bones." Interesting movie. Lead actress was *very* good. I'd read the book, and I'm glad the movie was done so well. Maybe it wouldn't ring so well with someone who didn't grow up in the 70s or in the Midwest, but I did both, so those scenes brought up a lot of memories.

Cadaverous Pallor

01-29-2013, 10:57 AM

Les Mis is not ironic (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/les-miserables-and-irony/?smid=fb-share).

Reminds me of this piece (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?t=1658) I wrote on having to let go of being distant if you want to embrace all things Disney.

It's so much easier to judge things from afar than to let yourself be moved by someone else's art.

Ghoulish Delight

02-06-2013, 11:44 AM

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118049265/

Hey Lisa!

Moonliner

02-06-2013, 12:14 PM

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118049265/

Hey Lisa!

Interesting end note:

He's also working on a heavy metal version of "The Nutcracker"

€uroMeinke

02-06-2013, 12:26 PM

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118049265/

Hey Lisa!

You'll have to ping her on Facebook, she rarely shows up here these days.

alphabassettgrrl

02-06-2013, 04:26 PM

Heavy-metal version of the Nutcracker might be quite entertaining!

innerSpaceman

02-13-2013, 11:24 AM

Three Movies.

:snap: Warm Bodies. A completely charming RomCom take on the zombie genre. Really sweet, not too dumb. Completely worked, which I think is quite an achievement. Nicholas Hoult, an adorable teen zombie with an inner mind quite alert and self-aware, is trapped in a zombie body that can only grunt and shamble - until he falls in love with a human girl, becoming more human in the process. The only quibble is Hoult is way cuter as a zombie and becomes kinda less attractive as he becomes more human. But that's a quibble without a complaint. The movie is adorable and funny, and you should go see it. (Besides, I have personal experience proving it's easier to be a cute zombie than a cute boy.)

:cheers: Bernie. Jack Black's finest hour as an actor. Yeah, not a particularly high bar - but this under-appreciated film is quite remarkable. And in a more perfect world, Black would have received some serious acting nominations for major awards. It's the bizarre true story of an East Texas mortician who becomes a community superstar and gets involved in a co-dependent relationship with the town's bitchy rich widow, played by Shirley Maclaine.

Alas, the good times eventually end, the bitchiness returns with a vengeance and Shirley makes Jack her lackey pet. But not before she's already entrusted him with power of attorney over her huge fortune. In a spat, Jack shoots Shirley in the back four times, killing her. But most bizarrely - and TRUE - he successfully conceals her death for NINE MONTHS.

Jack Black is insanely awesome as the title character. Do yourself a favor and rent Bernie.

:( Lastly, I finally got around to seeing Les Miserables.

What a frelling mess!

I fault the source material, and not necessarily the film. There was nothing particularly wrong with "nasal cam," as the close-up-heavy style has come to be derisively known. Also, I can't find too much fault with the decision to have all the music sung "live" and not lip-synched to prerecorded vocals. It was fine for most of the cast and arguably added an urgency and drama to the proceedings.

Much has been made of Russell Crowe's inability to sing - all too sadly true - but not enough has been made of his inability to act. He conveyed far too little menace or obsession as the intractable pursuer Javert. A very weak link in a wobbly chain.

And that's because, as a piece, and despite its vast success, Les Miserables sucks as a musical, or as anything. It's boring. The "songs" such as they are, reek of interstertial meandering and sing-songy inbetweeny droning on. There are only two what could properly be called Songs - one is a misconceived, poor-man's Sweeney Todd rip-off that is the show's only legitimate "number," but falls flat and stands out like an unwelcomely sore and third thumb. The other is a nice enough song, sung by Anne Hathaway as Fantine - - but it's absurd that she's sweeping all the awards and will likely win the Oscar for her 4-minute performance.

She's fine. But Best Supporting Actress? Pulease! She's in the film for 10 minutes, and has one song - albeit the only decent melody in the entire long piece. Yes, she sings with a swollen red crying nose. And she dies. Give her the Oscar!

I think the problem with the piece is its basically four vignettes (and Hathaway indeed features strongly in one of them), that become increasingly less interesting as they progress. Not the preferable arc of a story. Hugh Jackman is fine in the lead role as Jean Valjean - but his character completely disappears for the 3rd vignette and he hasn't really had much chance to cement his character by then - as each vignette suddenly stops and flashes forward by 10 years or so ... and it left me feeling I kept getting cut off just as I was getting to know him. Then he reappears for the last vignette, but it's too late. His whole arc has been choppy and then he comes back after being gone for a whole segment of the story. Just weird.

But an even bigger problem with the piece is, of course, the music is horrible. That's a bad thing for an operatic piece where 95% of it is sung. Yet it's also a common trap of opera, where there's too little tunefulness and too much sing-songy droning. I think Javert and Valjean each had a couple of what could be called songs - but I really couldn't tell when they started or ended. The whole piece seemed to be droning on in a vaguely musical vein of low-key dirge - except for two actual songs - as I said, one horribly ill-conceived, and the other inexplicably Oscar-bait.

Despite the purportedly epic scope of the 40-year story, it was ultimately boring. It would have been ok if it were depressing, or emotionally resonant in any way. But it was just dull.

Again, mostly due to the source material. The filmmaking was really ok. Yeah, I know it's a widely beloved piece. But it sucks. I'm a gay man, and I know musical theater. Quasi-Operas are a bit more difficult, but there are good ones and bad ones. Les Miserables is one of the worst. I can't believe this is nominated for best picture. It's a decent version of one of the worst musicals ever conceived. Do yourself a favor and skip the movie ... read the book.