Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Ugh! I DON'T like that I have to use the movie forum now. We saw five new movies this weekend and if I can't post about them in here, there's no way I'm starting five new threads-- so I just won't talk about them. *huff*

[€uroMeinke]

Ugh! I DON'T like that I have to use the movie forum now. We saw five new movies this weekend and if I can't post about them in here, there's no way I'm starting five new threads-- so I just won't talk about them. *huff*

So post about them here - Anarchy Rules!

[innerSpaceman]

It's ok to talk about new movies here. Let's just use some common sense on what's a big film that "deserves" a unique thread.

And it might all depend on a particular poster's enthusiasm. I said I was going to start a "Happy Feet" thread, but I just wasn't that impressed with the film (though I liked it). It opened bigger than Bond, but it wasn't threadworthy imo.

Also, if we talk about a new movie here and that film garners a lot of discussion, I may move those posts to a new thread (ahem, if GD or someone will give me actual instructions on how to move posts ... the options offered earlier existing for admins and not moderators.).


In any case, € is right about anarchy - in a sense. We like to keep things freeflowing here. Don't worry about hard and fast rules ... there are only loose guidelines. Post how you please, and I'll moderate as I like.


.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Ugh! I DON'T like that I have to use the movie forum now. We saw five new movies this weekend and if I can't post about them in here, there's no way I'm starting five new threads-- so I just won't talk about them. *huff*Sorry to put you in a huff....never meant for that to happen.

Curiosity - what's the big difference between starting a thread and posting here?

[Prudence]

Gone with the Wind still makes me swoon. So there!

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Sorry to put you in a huff....never meant for that to happen.

Curiosity - what's the big difference between starting a thread and posting here?

By the way, I had hoped it was sort of clear that my *huff* wasn't really an angry huff. It was said with a smile (since, as has been stated, this is sort of an anarchic place.)

I just don't like starting threads. Unless it's something I feel worthy of an actual discussion or something I feel strongly about. Because if I have little to say about a movie, what is the use of posting a brand new thread that consists of a one-line "meh" review?

I started a thread about Little Miss Sunshine this summer because I truly wanted to recommend the movie. But something like Babel (which I don't wish to spend any extra energy on other than to say "we saw it; I thought it was a waste of my time") not so much.

By the way, we saw Babel and I thought it was a waste of my time. Bobby was only good in the sense that I love hearing everything that man had to say. Happy Feet was a strange experience. And Fast Food Nation gave me nightmares--literally.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Heh. Well, I'd start threads with a one-liner "meh" review, just because it sparks conversation.

Movies I need to see immediately, not necessarily in this order:
The Departed
Borat
Casino Royale
The Fountain

[innerSpaceman]

I'd get to some of those fast, CP.

Departed may soon be departed from theatrical cinemas. It's nearing the end of its practical run ... and I for one regret not seeing it at the movies (but have decided ultimately, it's an ok Netflixer).

I'd imagine Borat would be best to see with a lively audience. Since that movie has already been seen by most people on the planet (sans yours truly), full and laugh-filled audiences may soon be harder to come by.

And Casino Royale because .... well, because it's so good you must see it Right Now. Matter of fact, I'm off to see it a second time in an hour or so. I suggest you do likewise. ;)




.

[Alex]

Yeah, it isn't the best of those you listed but if you see just one in a theater then it should be Borat since I think crowd reaction is much more important for that one. Of course, in it's fourth weekend there may not be much in the way of crowds anyway.

[Not Afraid]

I ALWAYS read this thread. If there were separate threads about every film, I probably wouldn't read them. I'll agree that certain films require their own thread, but, really, I'd prefer stuff here.


Case in point - My comment "who makes the HOT sunglasses Bond wears when he gets out of the rental car?" would never be heard because the Bond thread has fallen off the radar and my comment is not worthy of me searching for the thread.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Heh. Well, I'd start threads with a one-liner "meh" review, just because it sparks conversation.


Well and good if anybody else has seen the movie yet. But as we are frequent moviegoers (by which I mean that we see every Oscar contender before the year ends, usually.) There's often little discussion to be had about the movies we just saw that nobody else has seen. Unless I talk to myself.

Oh, that Babel. What on earth was the director thinking with the frequent p*ssy shots of an underage teenage character?

I know. I'm not a prude, but I really like for there to be a reason for nudity when it's used. (Really, I like for there to be a reason for ANY gimmick/concept/idea to be used, nudity or not.)

Yep. one shot would have been OK as she was clearly obsessed with sexuality and trying her darnedest to explore that, but when it gets to six, maybe seven distinct shots of her p*ssy, it starts to feel exploitative and ooky.

Well, at least it made you less bored. Or less annoyed because you were being forced to follow characters you really didn't care about.

Oh, it wasn't just that I didn't care about them, it was that I disliked them and their choices in such a way that made me uninterested in watching them. I actually wanted to leave.

We've never left a movie early, though. Never. Why are we even spending time talking about Babel, Heidi? We hated it.

I dunno. But I definitely don't think Babel deserves its own thread until somebody else has seen it and wants to discuss it.

[Gemini Cricket]

Watched 'Shaun of the Dead' yet again tonight.
I love that movie.
:)

[flippyshark]

Hmm, I guess I'm different than a lot of folks here. I seldom come to this thread because I don't know where within it I will find discussion of what movie, and I have to work backwards to figure out what the current topic is. It's open-endedness (and ever increasing length) make me woozy. I guess I like things categorized and titled. Oh well.

Shaun of the Dead is a wonderful movie!

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

It was a movie filled 4-day weekend, a bunch of which was laying in front of a tv that has cable. At the theaters, I saw Stranger Than Fiction and The Fountain.

Stranger Than Fiction was, for me, a perfectly lovely movie in every way, and includes one of my now favorite on screen love stories. I adored every performance, every inclusion of "animation" and just about every line of dialogue. It also make great use of its soundtrack.

The Fountain was delightfully ambitious and gorgeous to watch. I appreciated what it attempted to do more than it actually did, I think. It's essential flaw may be that the story needed more time. It deserved at least four hours and I think it needed at least that amount of time to tell the story it was trying to tell. I felt like there were pieces missing, like I was watching an exciting but early cut of the film. A scene would end and I'd be left thinking, "But, but, but...more, more, more."

[innerSpaceman]

Saw two Queen movies, care of screeners coming my way.

Marie Antionette was far better than I'd expected, and actually made me look at the infamous last French queeen in a different light.

The Queen is a wonderful film, with Helen Mirren in the title role - in top form. A week in the life of the British Royal Family ... heheh, what a week, following Diana's death in 1987.


I recommend either film if you're in a Royal mood, but The Queen is the finer of the two.

[wendybeth]

I saw 'Happy Feet'- twice. Adorable penguins, great music and beautifully animated. I really loved it. The ending was a bit rushed, but overall it was a lovely movie.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Second votes on "The Queen" and "Stranger Than Fiction." We saw both a few weeks ago, and both were lovely. Mirren's performance is a marvel, so is Ferrell's. Writing for both films shines.

Can't give my vote on "Marie," though-- there were fleeting moments of loveliness, but not much else, I thought. Parallels to the eighties were clever, at least.

[innerSpaceman]

I think I liked it because it gave me a different motivation for her playland of peasant life at Versailles. From visiting the lush palace, I had assumed the Let Them Eat Cakery attitude of mockery in Marie's pretending to be a peasant, with an entire village set up for her faux-poverty pretence on the vast grounds.

But the movie easily portrayed a different option ... that the peasant village was a true escape from the stiffling ritual and empty luxury of palace life, an escape to the true happiness of a simpler existence that could reasonably be longed for after years of pampering and vacuousity at the pinnacle of the French court.

I found that rather sweet, and I liked Kirsten Dunst in the role.


Not a candle to The Queen, but hardly the disaster I was led to expect.



.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I saw 'Happy Feet'- twice. Adorable penguins, great music and beautifully animated. I really loved it. The ending was a bit rushed, but overall it was a lovely movie.Really? Everyone else I've spoken to says Happy Feet was a preachy environmentalist movie (this from liberals, btw) that was nothing what they expected and, well, bad.

We watched Bednobs and Broomsticks the other day (GD hadn't seen it). I never realized before that this was a pretty sad grasp at Mary Poppins The Sequel. It has fun moments and the actors are great but there's a looming shadow over all of it....from the out of control inanimate objects to the street performer to the jaunt into an animated world....I'd know that sill-ya-wett anywhere. I loved it as a kid....

[CoasterMatt]

I still love Bedknobs and Broomsticks...

[wendybeth]

Really? Everyone else I've spoken to says Happy Feet was a preachy environmentalist movie (this from liberals, btw) that was nothing what they expected and, well, bad.


Everyone I know (locally) who has seen it liked it. Maybe it's because we're closer to a polar region than you.:p It could also be that we have sat through a slew of really awful kid's movies and our standards have fallen.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I still love Bedknobs and Broomsticks...
Don't get me wrong, it's still a good movie and fun to watch.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I thought Happy Feet was pretty amusing in an absurd way... and though it was pretty heavy-handed with the message, it was really only the last part of the movie that played host to it. The directing and animation was great, and the story was interesting... but stop-and-sing musical numbers are less interesting to me than numbers where people have a REASON to sing (i.e. they are so filled with emotion that they can't hold it in anymore) and it moves the story forward.

My other big problem with it was the incongruous name and voice of the maternal penguin. Norma Jean? Nicole Kidman's simpering whisper made me cringe. Don't they know Norma Jean's history? It could never be made into a happy penguin movie. (Or a sometimes dark one, even.)

[Alex]

Well, I can tell you that the circle of top movie critics in this country are overwhelmingly liberal and they overwhelmingly liked it (84% according to RottenTomatoes). Not that this means much.

I'm overwhelmingly libertarian and I liked it very, very much.


I find it interesting that some are turned off by the conservationist message (which isn't, in my mind, any worse than in dozens of other movies). Essentially it is the same message as Open Season a couple months ago: animals, if given their druthers, would really prefer us human stop screwing with them.

The conclusion of the conflict is really bizaare, but to my mind a good kind of bizarre.

Like I said in the Bond thread it pretty much all worked for me (particularly how the humans were handled at the end) but I can understand why people don't like it. I had the same reaction to Babe: Pig in the City. I loved it, most hated it, and while I could understand why still think they are wrong.

[Alex]

but stop-and-sing musical numbers are less interesting to me than numbers where people have a REASON to sing (i.e. they are so filled with emotion that they can't hold it in anymore) and it moves the story forward.

Interesting. To my view, the penguins in this movie had better reason for their singing and dancing than in any musical ever made (primarily, it is how they find their true love and mate; though a secondary nicely absurd purpose is found in the end).

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Interesting. To my view, the penguins in this movie had better reason for their singing and dancing than in any musical ever made (primarily, it is how they find their true love and mate; though a secondary nicely absurd purpose is found in the end).

I think what interested me most about Happy Feet was the unexpected blend of live action and animation, which was done very, very well.

The music itself kinda bored me when it wasn't cute or amusing. The dancing sequences I loved.

The biggest issue I had with the film, and that I have with a lot of contemporary animated films, was the shoddy voice work. A talented screen actor is not necessarily a talented voice actor. And the only voice work that seemed at all top notch was Robin Williams, because he seems to get that the *voice* is the actor. More voice work for guys like Futurama's Billy West, and less for Nicole Kidman and Elijah Wood, etc.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Interesting. To my view, the penguins in this movie had better reason for their singing and dancing than in any musical ever made (primarily, it is how they find their true love and mate; though a secondary nicely absurd purpose is found in the end).

Yes, I would agree-- but the stop-and-sing numbers weren't necessary, and slowed the action a bit. (I'm thinking primarily here of "Somebody to Love.")

[innerSpaceman]

It was sorta Moulin Rouge on ice. If that movie hadn't been a predecessor, I don't think the pop tunes medley-after-another sung by the penguins would have worked for modern audiences. But I agree with Alex that they do have a reason to sing medlies, explained quite nicely in the film.

The Moulin connection was the only reason for Kidman to be involved with the project ... and now I quite agree her voice work for animation must cease with this film. Elijah was nominally better, but not by much. I wouldn't put his work in the "Truly Awful" category, tho.


What surprises me about the spate of famous actors doing voice-work is how many are good at it. Used to be that famous actors were a death knell for animated projects ... and professional voicers the only quality way to go. But many an actor realizes how much work can be done with the voice, and quite a few are up to expressing a character through voice alone.


Not so many in Happy Feet though. But I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and did not find it preachy in the least. Is Bambi preachy? I rather like films starring animals to express that animals would like us to stop fu<king with them. And I didn't find the Happy Feet approach to be too heavy-handed.








Get it? Feet? Handed? Tee-hee-Hee-hee



.

[flippyshark]

I'm glad that the extended cut of Bedknobs and Broomsticks is available, but I can see why the studio trimmed it. It's leisurely to a fault. About two thirds of the running time is devoted to tracking down a spell that the characters are already carrying with them, for Pete's sake.

The resemblances to Mary Popins are no accident. Walt secured the rights to the book "Bedknob and Broomstick" when he wasn't sure if P.L. Travers was going to let him make Poppins. He figured B&B was similar enough that it would be a suitable replacement project. (it ended up being made after Walt's death, spurred by Poppins' monumental success.)

This one has high nostalgia value for me, but I can see it being a tough sell for someone coming to it new.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Having never seen it, I saw the appeal. It was a fun movie. Of course, I was going in with positive thoughts because I remember rather liking the book, even though I have no recollection of anything in the book. Those fond feelings definitely carried over.

I'd be interested to know exactly what was added. I did notice the rather silly fact that they had the necessary info with them the whole time. So that's not as superfluous in the orginal version? Is the interminable dancing scene in Portabello shorter? Or gone?

Sigh, another DVD that proves, once again, that deleted scenes are by and large deleted for very good reasons.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

It was a pleasure watching David Tomlinson throw himself into this much-more-fun-than-Mr.-Banks role. I love him! He does a great bunny impersonation too...

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I saw: Lucky Number Sleven last night on DVD.

I think this one flew by alot of people in theatres. It's got a great cast, Morgan Freeman, Ben Kingsly, Stanley Tuci, Lucy Lui and the not so great, but was good in this Josh Hartnet.

I enjoyed the movie and thought it was a good ride. Well shot and even though the plot is fairly A typical, it was fun getting from one point to the other. It's one of those suprise twist type films where you figure it out pretty early on, but IMHO it was a good time getting to the results.

8 bornieo's out of 10

[mousepod]

I loved the script. Tarantino might be able to put a Silver Surfer reference into Denzel's mouth in Crimson Tide, but Smilovic's Shmoo monologue as delivered by Morgan Freeman is sublime.

[Strangler Lewis]

Richard Gere's character in "Breathless" lived by the Silver Surfer.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

Richard Gere's character in "Breathless" lived by the Silver Surfer.

And quoted directly from Silver Surfer #1. File under useless trivia! :rolleyes:

[Alex]

It's one of those suprise twist type films where you figure it out pretty early on, but IMHO it was a good time getting to the results.

I pretty much went the opposite direction on it.

I too figured out the "twist" pretty much during the opening credits and was bored the rest of the way.

Liked Lucy Liu, liked Morgan Freeman despite him being completely in "I'm Morgan Freeman" mode. Hartnett was flat. Ben Kingsley, sadly, was boring. The humor was inane and Bruce Willis was a void (quite literally, when I think back to the movie I literally can't picture Bruce Willis, just a generic person onto whom my brain attaches the label "Bruce Willis").

[Prudence]

If we might divert briefly to the land of the made-for-teevee movie - who else is going to be glued to the teevee Sunday evening for "The Librarian: Return to King Solomon's Mines"? Surely I'm not the only one?

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I saw Kinsey last night. Good film, interesting subject (as discussed on this board a while ago) Acting was great. It was funny to see Frank'n' Furter playing the "stiff." So to speak.

8 bornieos out of 10

[katiesue]

If we might divert briefly to the land of the made-for-teevee movie - who else is going to be glued to the teevee Sunday evening for "The Librarian: Return to King Solomon's Mines"? Surely I'm not the only one?

No you are not alone. Thanks for the info I hadn't known about a sequel. Yahoo!!!

[mousepod]

Just came back from "Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny". What a disappointment. Not terrible, but just... eh. Not unlike the Borat movie, I walked out thinking that they've done better and more relevant stuff on the small screen. Oh well.

The real shock of the evening was the trailer for the remake of "The Hitcher". Why oh why must there be a crappy remake of every edgy movie that I hold near and dear? The Wicker Man... The Hitcher... What's next, a Videodrome remake? There's got to be a couple of good new ideas in Hollywood.

[Alex]

I'm not saying you are saying this, mousepod, but it is just a thought that popped into my head.

It suddenly occurred to me that the feeling many people have that a great movie is somehow dimished if a crappy remake is made is similar to the feeling that ones marriage is somehow dimished when other people are allowed to do it that you don't approve of.

In neither case is one really affected by the other. The Godfather is a great movie and it will continue to be if McG makes it again, shot for shot, starring Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller. And yet many people would feel that that such a thing would taint or diminish the sanctity of the original.

Obviously the impacts of the feeling are the some, but now I'm wondering if they come from the same place.

[innerSpaceman]

I sorta want to mojo you for that keen observation, Alex ... but I will refrain.

[mousepod]

I hear your point, Alex. That's not what I'm saying, but it's an interesting argument probably worth pursuing. Let me see if I can articulate why these bad remakes distress me so...

I'm a media fan. The few LoTers who've been to my house can attest that I have a fairly sizable collection of movies and music. One of my greatest joys is turning a friend on to some weird piece of art that they may have missed or otherwise overlooked. That's why I've been a professional DJ, a booking agent, an A&R guy, a podcaster...

A bad remake of a forgotten classic tends to create a negative feeling where there should be a blank slate. When friends are hanging out at my place, and I pull out a movie that I know they'll like, I don't want to have to explain that "it's much better than the one with Nicolas Cage - trust me..."

I remember being disgusted when the flammable band Great White had a minor MTV hit with a great Ian Hunter song... or when Bongwater covered one of my favorite tunes by Slapp Happy...

Sloppy and artless remakes might not diminish the original, but they certainly lumber the original with unnecessary baggage.

[Not Afraid]

I
I remember being disgusted when the flammable band Great White had a minor MTV hit with a great Ian Hunter song....

UGH! I remember that awful cover! I was playing the original and a younger friend said "this is a Great White song". I felt old, but lucky.

[€uroMeinke]

Go Bruno Ganz

[tracilicious]

Watched Heaven Can Wait last night. Total guilty pleasure movie. I must say, that for a fluff movie, it was quite entertaining. And Mark Ruffalo is really cute.

[Gemini Cricket]

I think you meant 'Just Like Heaven'?

I agree Mark Ruffalo is very cute. I liked him in 'You Can Count on Me'.

[Scrooge McSam]

I agree Mark Ruffalo is very cute. I liked him in 'You Can Count on Me'.

Did ya squall like a little girl for that last scene?

Yeah, me too.

[Gemini Cricket]

Did ya squall like a little girl for that last scene?

Yeah, me too.
I did. Laura Linney is tops in my book. Love her. :)

That whole movie hit home for me. I mean, every time I visit my older sister she looks at me and says, 'Get out.' Even after only 5 minutes or so... :D

[tracilicious]

I think you meant 'Just Like Heaven'?

I agree Mark Ruffalo is very cute. I liked him in 'You Can Count on Me'.

Exactly! I haven't seen You Can Count on Me. I really liked him in 13 going on 30. He's adorable. I want to smell him.

[flippyshark]

A bad remake of a forgotten classic tends to create a negative feeling where there should be a blank slate. When friends are hanging out at my place, and I pull out a movie that I know they'll like, I don't want to have to explain that "it's much better than the one with Nicolas Cage - trust me..."

Well said, and the example you chose may stand as the definitive illustration of this frustrating trend. The unbelieavably crappy remake of The Wicker Man, if seen first, will certainly diminish if not utterly spoil one's prospects of appreciating the classic original. I tried to get a friend of mine to watch The Wicker Man after she had suffered through the Nicholas Cage nightmare and she just plain refused.

[Alex]

Well, to be fair, The Wicker Man isn't a good example because, IMO of course, it really wasn't that good to begin with.

I haven't seen the Cage one yet so I suspect your friend would have been better off seeing neither.

Has Psycho been at all diminished by Gus Van Sant? I would argue not.

[mousepod]

Don't know if you noticed €uro's post last night. The "bad Nic Cage movie" could also be "Wings of Desire".

As for Psycho - Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake (except for one telling shot) was an interesting excercise that happened to be a bad film. By siting Psycho and "The Godfather", you're talking about films that are already part of the general public's consciousness. That wasn't my point.

In film, the "art" and the story are almost intrinsically linked. When Brendan Fraser's "Bedazzled" was released, it tossed out Peter Cook's clever dialogue and retained the same basic plot. In that way, the remake "spoiled" the original in its artless telling of the same story.

[Alex]

Yes, but in citing The Godfather and Pscho they do support the idea I had (which I admitted was not what you were saying).

When the Psycho project was announced and again when it was released many people did argue that independent of its quality it was a bad thing because it somehow devalued the original.

I disagree with you though. I haven't seen both Bedazzled movies but I have seen several other pairings and don't view the lesser as detracting from the superior. Alec Guinness's The Ladykillers is exactly the film it was before regardless of how good or bad the Tom Hanks version is (and it was bad). If other people aren't able to view separate movies telling the same story as separate objects (Olivier, Gibson, Brannah; how are these impacted/devaluded by the existence of the other Hamlets) then I don't see it as the movie's fault that most people are retarded.

"Oh now, now people will only see the new crappy version and ignore the old wonderful version" is a valid complaint (though again it is a complaint about stupid people, not movies). But only after the movie has been released. But my point was that before a remake is ever seen most people complain about it being an insult to the original.

(And, of course, my larger point was that this argument from some people, while striking me as silly is similar to the devaluation of marriage argument. The former I find silly but easier to understand. But if they come from the same place maybe this smaller example can help me understand the larger).

[mousepod]

Alex, just out of curiosity, did you see the Alec Guiness or Tom Hanks version of The Ladykillers first? When the Tom Hanks version was released were you aware that it was a remake?

My specific example of pre-disgust at The Hitcher remake is based on the following: While it wasn't a blockbuster hit on its initial release, the original took the then-current expectations of the genre and turned them on their metaphorical ears. In particular, the subtext of movie in regards to relationship of the two main characters was unique and the ending of the film drove that home in a disturbing and original way. The plot was the vessel by which these points were made. In the realm of pop culture, the movie transcended the expectations and approached "art". The new movie was adapted by a screenwriter whose sole credit is the remake of the 1979 horror film When A Stranger Calls. The director is making his feature debut after a string of music videos. Based on the trailer, I can see that several key scenes were retained, but reset to "play" to today's Saw, Hostel, and Turistas audiences. If it's better than dreadful, I will be surprised. If it spoils the plot (the vehicle, if you will) of the original, it will surely diminish the initial viewing of the original for someone who is only familiar with the remake. I felt the same way about The Wicker Man.

I'm not talking classics, like Psycho and the Godfather. I'm certainly not referring to Shakespeare. I'm specifically discussing genre films that achieve cult status by fans who love them and keep them alive by sharing them with their friends.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Alex still hasn't learned that people are stupid and there's no changing that....hence I find mousepod's point more valid. I dislike how remakes can warp people's perceptions of the original when they haven't actually seen the original. I would add that those that are adverse to seeing older films just because they have been remade are part of the aforementioned stupid people. I suppose that these people wouldn't watch old movies anyway. But still, you have to say "this one is much better than the remake" in order to slough off the baggage and that just sucks.

[Ghoulish Delight]

A movie's "quality" and "value" are not, in my opinion, defined solely by what's on the film and on the audio track. Their standing in the public eye is part of the equation. And remakes, no matter the quality, usually have a diluting effect on that standing. A truly terrible remake makes younger viewers reluctant to consider the original as worthy of watching, thus reducing its appeal and therefor its value, no matter the quality of the original. A mediocer remake that, perhaps, has technical and stylistic advantages while storytelling, acting, directing are inferor to the original, may supplant the original in the minds of a younger audience that's drawn to its flashier modern sensebilities, again devaluing the original movie (e.g., overheard some kid who claimed that Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was sooo much better than the original).

Hamlet is an unfair example. That's a play. The difference, to me, is that a play is a medium that is designed to be given different interpretations. Or, rather, a written play is one medium, a performed or filmed play is an interpretation of the written play in a different medium. When someone does a new movie version of Hamlet, they aren't starting with another movie version, or stage version, and going from there. They start with the play. Whereas when someone's remaking a movie, they aren't starting with the screenplay, they're starting with the movie. Heck, using the same example, that's where Charlie and the Chocolate Factory fell short, imo. Despite everyone's insistance that it was going to be more faithful to the book, in the end it had too much in common with the movie version to be anything more than a remake rather than a reinterpret. And the bulk of the stuff that was distinct from Willie Wonka wasn't from the book at all anyway.

So yes, I tend to be on the side of feeling that remakes, especially poor ones, hurt the standing of the original.

[CoasterMatt]

The worst question of my everyday existence, is "The new one or the old one?" when people see "Psycho" on my nametag (as Favorite Universal Studios Film)

[Not Afraid]

Seeing City of Angels would not lead me to see the wondeful Wings of Desire, but it sure made me appreciate how wonderful the original was.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

Remade films are a tough call. I don't think I've really ever enjoyed a recently remade film, although it seems there are more out there than ever. On the other end, they're really nothing new. Ben Hur, was a remake, Maltese Falcon was done a few times, Casablanca was done on TV, House of Wax was done once before the great Vincent Price version. Even Hitchcock remadeThe Man Who Knew Too Much. I think the seperation between now and then is now it's all a Hollywood game. Its sadly not about making an artist type vision of a screenplay, but rather hyping and making the big opening day boxoffice. And I might add very little risk taken creativily. IMHO.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Seeing City of Angels would not lead me to see the wondeful Wings of Desire, but it sure made me appreciate how wonderful the original was.

That's an interesting example, because there's often a different reason for American filmmakers adapting foreign films. One reason is to bring awareness of the foreign movies to an American audience. I don't really think this works, as City of Angels doesn't even carry the same title, THANK GOD.

I've been mixed about some of the American versions of Japanese horror films. Ju-On kicks The Grudge's ass. But though I may be in the minority, the American The Ring was far more satisfying - and was far scarier for me - than its Japanese predecessor.

Plays get turned into movies, though it's not always done well. Books get adapted. Ballads get adapted into books (Tam-Lin, I'm looking at you, my beloved). I really don't think there's anything wrong with reimagining an original film, adapting it....if there's good reason, a new spin, etc. The fact that it's often done so poorly is too bad, but I don't think all derivative works or adaptations (even a film of a film) has to be absolute crap.

Granted, I understand the reasons for adapting a book into a film - your experimenting with telling a story using a different medium. There is a point to that, whether one likes the adaptation or not. And adapting a film from another film makes less sense. Though I suppose there may be some good scripts out there that were directed badly. More likely the other way around..bad scripts, but an interesting story. So revising the crap script and retelling the same basic story might be a good idea.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I really don't think there's anything wrong with reimagining an original film, adapting it....if there's good reason, a new spin, etc. I don't disagree with that, and I'm don't have a blanket "no remakes" policy. But it certainly seems like the movie world is relying way too heavily on remakes, and remakes with little creative value, recently and I think it's damaging the value of the classic film canon.

Actually, I view remade films as not unlike song covers. You'd better have a good reason and good creative addition to the substance of the original to be doing it, otherwise, stop wasting my time. Therefore, even when I wasn't a fan and didn't like the style of Marilyn Manson's music, I actually respected his cover of "Sweet Dreams" because it wasn't just a resinging of the same song, he reinvented it. The Beatles and Hendrix and many more did a LOT of covers, but they added something that was their own and creatively itneresting to them. Compare that to, say, the Presidents of the USA's cover of Video Killed the Radio star which is so drab an uninspired that it practically makes me want to kill babies. More of that, we don't need. And were the radio waves flooded with covers of that "quality", I'd certainly be hoping for a moratorium on covers altogether just to clear the musical pallet.

[Alex]

I saw the Tom Hanks version first, and it sucked. But that has nothing to do with how I feel about the Alec Guinness version. I don't see why three different Hamlet films (none of which were filmed as stage productions) are somehow exempt from this. The Wicker Man is based on a book, why can't they both just be different interpretations of the source material. And in what way is it objectively wrong from someone to say Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is better than Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Personally, I think they are about equal in quality with one doing something better and others doing others better. That isn't a good example, that person did see both, and evaluated both. It isn't like he said "because it is newer, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is better.

So, that being said. If the value of one thing can be diluted by the existence a similar but fundamentally different thing, why is it so obviously wrong that straight marriage can be devalued by gay marriage? Again, gay marriage does not directly impact the straight marriage, just changes how you think about the combined package.

If you accept that the existence of something unsavory can devalue something so relatively insignificant as an already existing movie, why is it so laughably wrong when it is actually something of some societal importance. (Just to be clear, I'm rejecting both.)

CP: My entire view of the world is based on the idea that 95% of people are stupid, and happily so. I just blame them for that, not the movies. I've always said I don't understand why there is something magical about the medium of film that so many people think once a story it put to it, it is forever off limits. Books, theater, painting, photography, and pretty much every other artform actually encourages the practitioners to go out and reexamine the same material and try to put their imprint on it. But somehow celluloid is off limits.

Hell, I think it is safe to say that 99% of people born after 1985 would never have seen The Wicker Man regardless of whether a remake was made. Most people have no interest in movies not shelved in the New Releases at Blockbuster. So if we're talking about people who are interested enough in film to seek out older classics and unknown gems but too stupid to view them as independent from any later versions then I nominate this group of people as among the specially retarded and we should all throw rocks at them.

I would bet that the number of people who see it because of all the bitching about "a classic being despoiled" outnumber those who would have seen it but don't because they didn't like the remake (which ultimately will be seen by less than 10% of the population and currently less than 1%). At the San Francisco Silent Film Festival this weekend they will be showing the 1927 version of Chicago. I bet it is sold out. I also bet the the prime driver behind it being restored and screened in the first place is the amazingly dreadful remake of a few years ago.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I don't disagree with that, and I'm don't have a blanket "no remakes" policy. But it certainly seems like the movie world is relying way too heavily on remakes, and remakes with little creative value, recently and I think it's damaging the value of the classic film canon.


I agree with everything you've said.

[Not Afraid]

Songs carry different weight for me than films do, though. I'm glad there are many different versions of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah, each one is wonderful in it's own way. I think there is a lot more latitude with a song than there is for a film. It's a lesser commitment on both my part and the part of the artist. I can give up 3 minutes to a bad cover song, but, with a bad film remake, I just want those 2 hours of my life back.

[Prudence]

What disappoints me about remakes lately is they seem so uninspired. It certainly looks to me like they just put blockbuster stars into a ready-made script for a cheap hit. Throw in a couple low-quality jokes and sight gags that place it in this decade and poof! It's "reimagined"!

[€uroMeinke]

Certainly something is devalued if more copies are made, isn't that basic supply and demand economics?

I don't get the marriage analogy to remakes. I can see how it applies to someone else wanting to make another film, but a remake? That's more like the other couple wants to have a marriage just like yours, in the same or similar house, having the same jobs, speaking the same endearments, same attitudes towards children etc. - and that's downright creepy. Sure get married, make a film - but if you want to marry my wife, then we have a problem.

Honestly, I wish Hollywood would try to remake some bad films, there are plenty that had a lot of potential if only...

But no, the remake often is made based on the success of it's predecessor.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Honestly, I wish Hollywood would try to remake some bad films, there are plenty that had a lot of potential if only...

But no, the remake often is made based on the success of it's predecessor.

Yes, that is my argument as well. How some movies would have benefited from better dialogue! Or better direction! Or better actors! Those are the ones they should give another chance.

[CoasterMatt]

I wanna see a remake of "Kiss Meets The Phantom of the Park" :D

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I'd love to see an adaptation of Leroux's "The Phantom of the Opera". Lon's came very, very close, though the ending robbed him of his redemption. In tone, in the quality of his performance, it was stunning and accurate. But I'd like to see one with sound, that actually features Gounod's Faust. I dig me some French opera.

[Alex]

I must not be explaining myself well, € (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/member.php?u=1), because to the way I am thinking you just made connection between a remake and the original as I think is similar to how many people think about gay marriage affecting straight marriage.

If someone decided to have the exact same marriage as you, fine you'd find that odd an inexplicable. But would you feel it devalued your marriage?

As for the discussion that is happening, it is not objective. If you feel that the Tom Hanks movie somehow ruins the Alec Guinness one (or if the Queen Latifah movie somehow ruins the Alec Guinness one) then that is the same subjective evaluation as determined whether a movie was liked in the first place.

Let me ask this: is Die Hard less worthy because Die Hard 3 sucks? Is Braveheart less of a movie because Mel Gibson is an antisemite (assuming he is)? Does The Maltese Falcon diminish or is diminished by the two earlier versions of that movie that were made? In the following duos, are any of them worse because of the existence of the others: Janet Gaynor/Fredric March; Judy Garland/James Mason; Barbara Streisand/Kris Kristofferson?

Are Irene Dunne and Charles Boyer undone by Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr?

Robin Hood has been filmed almost a dozen times. Does that make the Errol Flynn version any less fun?

To me, saying it is bad for movie A because movie B exists/sucks is like saying John Travolta is worse in Pulp Fiction because he really sucked in Look Who's Talking.

[mousepod]

Alex, what did you think of the Alec Guiness version of The Ladykillers? Did you enjoy it more than the Tom Hanks version? How long after remake did you see the original?

[innerSpaceman]

Am I the only one who is grokking Alex?

The imaginary devaluement of films that have been remade is completely imaginary, and a knee-jerk reaction without any validity ... in theory.

In practice, however, I think people have been burned by too many vapid remakes, and thus have learned to fear and loathe the concept of remake.


I can't deny feeling this way myself. I am one who feels that sequels devalue the original. I can't help that emotional reaction, but I realize how baseless it is.



But we needn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, most remakes and covers are lame. So are most movies and most songs, period. There are plenty of good covers and good remakes. The movie tracilicious mistakenly mentioned a while back, Heaven Can Wait, is - imo - a very good remake of a far earlier film called, if I remember correctly, Waiting for Mr. Jordan.

You just can never tell, and it's proably best not to prejudge. But I can hardly blame anyone for getting the willies when they learn that a fave film is going to be shoddily remade.

[mousepod]

Actually, Heaven Can Wait was a remake of a film called Here Comes Mr. Jordan starring Robert Montgomery and Claude Rains.

This, and many of the examples that Alex cites are fine and wonderful remakes. The people involved in Heaven Can Wait (which, by the way, came 37 years after the original) boasted such talent as Buck Henry, Elaine May, Julie Christie, Warren Beatty etc. In 1978, this was clearly a bunch of talented people with a long history in film, unlike the director, writer and cast of The Hitcher remake, that started my whole series of complaints.

There are plenty of great remakes. I could cite dozens of them. Hell, I prefer many of the Hammer horror remakes to the Universal originals. I think the source of my frustration comes from what appears to be a dearth of original ideas lately from our friends in Hollywood.

By the way - I'll bet that most people who know that Heaven Can Wait was a remake of Here Comes Mr Jordan didn't bother to seek out the original, as they'd already seen a version of the movie. And that's a shame - because as good as the remake was, the original was absolutely worthwhile. What did you think of Here Comes Mr Jordan?

[Alex]

I don't particularly care for either of them. Though when I watched Mr. Jordan I did get a great anecdote from a coworker who was a personal friend of Rains (but one that isn't worth sharing because its funniness was mostly in my coworker's ability to tell a story).

I saw the Guinness version of The Ladykillers about two months after the Hanks version. I liked it overall though it wasn't a super effort from Guinness.

I saw it because of the Hanks remake, before then I don't know if I had heard of it and certainly hadn't been given any reason to give it priority.

Personally I love remakes and different films from the same source material. Even if the remake (or the original sucks). I view pretty much any movie as a learning opportunity as well as a chance to be entertained. Even if I'm not entertained I can think about why I wasn't. What works, what doesn't.

Filmmaking is collaborative and no matter how much you buy into auteur theory it is the result of dozens of people making hundreds of decisions. More than anything else, remakes and the like highlight those things.

I would love to see four directors (who somehow hadn't seen the original) each take separate stabs at The Godfather starting with the same script. How would they be different. Is the material foolproof or almost impossible. Did Coppola do it as well as it could be done or was it actually a pedestrian effort. What camera angles detract or augment. Different actors. All of it.

So while a remake isn't necessarily an addition to entertainment I think they're boons to film buffs.

[mousepod]

Alex, based on your most recent posts, I strongly urge you to check out the Lower Depths DVD set from Criterion. It includes Jean Renoir's 1936 adaptation of the Gorky play and Akira Kurosawa's 1957 take on the same source material.

If remakes always attracted the same caliber of talent as the orginal (as in iSm's example), I'd be delighted when a remake is announced.

With all the talk of George Lucas in the "if he'd died after..." thread, I think I might rewatch The Hidden Fortress again tonight.

[Alex]

Probably my favorite pairing is Wages of Fear/Sorcerer.

I can't say either entertained me, but they are both quality efforts and in the comparison of approaches demonstrate a lot.

I'll put that on the list (assuming it is available at Netflix). I've passed on the Kurosawa version several times (wasn't aware of the Renoir) version simply because I can't stand Gorky (what little of it I've read, translated or in Russian).

[innerSpaceman]

Actually, I didn't much care for Here Comes Mr. Jordan, though I can't say if I wouldn't have liked it more if I weren't comparing it to a film I'd already liked.

Sure, there's no inherent devaluation in remakes, covers, revivals .... but the human analytical element of comparison almost always brought to bear cannot be disrergarded out of hand.

It happens all the times with books adapted to film. I usually loathe any movie where I've read the book first. The stereotype exists for a reason: the book's always better than the movie. Often - if I know there's a movie coming out based on a good book - I'll wait till the movie opens so's I can watch it first and then read the book. That way, I'm likely to enjoy both. The other way, I'll only enjoy one.


That value system of comparisons doesn't exist outside the human foible-ridden nature of man, but there it is. Knowing better doesn't seem to help much either, 'leastways not with me.



And N.A. was right earlier .... it's easy to be lax about cover songs: who cares about 3 minutes? But movies take up a couple of hours. And books! What if we had to deal with lousy book remakes?? What a waste of time that would be!


(and why is it that books aren't remade? Why only songs and movies and plays? I don't think I've come across too many re-written novels.)

[Alex]

Movies are corporately owned. Books, for the most part are individually owned. Most remakes are either remade by the same studio (because they already own it) or are adaptations from another medium (where the copyright holder can make serial deals for adaptation). Must multiple books have been written offering takes on the same source material (particularly public domain plays) and complaints are not the same.

Frequently, with remakes, I find that people will like better whichever they saw first. But again, that means it is a personal foible and I don't blame the movie for it. The same things happens with Disneyland vs. Magic Kingdom. Most people prefer whichever one they saw first.

I don't know. Maybe I have some super human ability to take movies on their own terms but I don't find it that hard. And if someone thinks they have a unique take on something (and despite whatever base monetary reasons a project has for getting off the ground in the first place, the people involved almost always believe they have something artistic to contribute) then they're welcome to take a stab at it as far as I'm concerned.

[Ghoulish Delight]

In theory, I agree with you Alex, but the seeming flood of bad remakes is just making the thought of another one and another one and another one more and more painful. I wouldn't wat to abolish all remakes, but I just wish the volume would decrease significantly because I also agree with iSm that, as much as I might be able to separate a remake from its source, movies don't exist in a vacuum. I still feel that public perception of a movie is part and parcel to its value and a bad remake, even if it is only due to people's stupidity, does alter that .

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

(and why is it that books aren't remade? Why only songs and movies and plays? I don't think I've come across too many re-written novels.)

Well, there are mutliple version of the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories. That happens of course with stories that probably began word-to-mouth. There are many, many written versions of fairy tales. And there are also pastcies and derivative tales...contemporary authors writing Sherlock Holmes count as pastiches. (Suddenly thinking I'm spelling that word incorrectly, but oh well). And there are retellings of stories from the perspective of other characters, and I think those qualify as "remakes". Mary Reilly retells Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead - a play - in its own way retells Hamlet...kinda. These types of novels are essentially telling the same story from a different perspective. Bram Stoker told the story of Dracula through a series of letters written by the various characters. If someone else wrote a story called Dracula that essentially told the same story, but in first person from Dracula's perspective, I'd put that in the same category.

[flippyshark]

It's sad, but I'd go see a remake of Jaws in an instant.

Say, if you'd like to read a different perspective on Dracula, you oughta check out this adaptation:

Blood of Nosferatu (http://www.amazon.com/Dracula-Blood-Nosferatu-Play-Three/dp/0595208010/sr=8-1/qid=1165200901/ref=sr_1_1/105-6398265-7278811?ie=UTF8&s=books)

Okay, okay, that's completely shameless, but, hey, I haven't sold any in a while. :D

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Am I the only one who is grokking Alex?Nope, I'm right there with you two.

[CoasterMatt]

It's sad, but I'd go see a remake of Jaws in an instant.

You may have your wish in 2009...

[CoasterMatt]

I saw "The Ice Harvest" yesterday. What a deliciously dark movie! I really dug it, I think it's gonna become my new Christmas tradition movie.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I liked Ice Harvest. Dark, yet funny and very ironic.


I saw The Dreamers http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309987/

I had heard some rumblings when it came out regarding the subject matter, so I happend upon it at Blockbuster yesterday and decided to rent it. If you can get past the uncomfortable "impression" of incest and get into the characters and the beautiful cinematography, this is an enjoyable film. The one actor, who plays the american, was a bit annoying in the "trying to act/look/sound like Leonardo DeCarprio." The female in the film was in the recent 007 film Casino Royal and since she was pretty hot in that, seeing her in this was a real treat. The direction is just wonderful. Benardo Bertoluchi was great and I think this is my favorate production of his.

8 Bornieo's out of 10!!

[€uroMeinke]

I liked Ice Harvest. Dark, yet funny and very ironic.


I saw The Dreamers http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309987/



I confess to really enjoying this film and wanting to pair it with Last Tango in Paris - but you rented from blockbuster - so, I have to ask - was this a censored version lacking the full frontals and masturbation sequence? If so, you must come by and borrow my copy.

[Alex]

Watched The Flying Tigers today on BART. It sucked.

But considering when it was made I guess it can be forgiven for some gung ho-ism.

[Not Afraid]

I can't believe The Dreamers was even available at Blockbuster! I love Bertolucci and I'm not terribly prude (even though I apparently come across that way ;)) and I have to say I love Dreamers. It's really a beautiful film - and a good way to see a Bond girl naked. ;)

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I confess to really enjoying this film and wanting to pair it with Last Tango in Paris - but you rented from blockbuster - so, I have to ask - was this a censored version lacking the full frontals and masturbation sequence? If so, you must come by and borrow my copy.

According to the box its the rated R version. I didn't see any censoring, so I suspect it was edited, although there was a masturbation sequence in front of the picture and there was alot of nudity, so I am curious what was left out. I think the film got it's point across fine in this version. I would consider owning the film and seeing the unrated version - no doubt. There were several short documentaries on it that are very cool. Thanks for the offer E!

Lastly --- Bond girl :p

[Not Afraid]

Lastly --- Bond girl :p


In this context, does this mean you want to lick the Bond girl?;)

[€uroMeinke]

In this context, does this mean you want to lick the Bond girl?;)


I believe, our tongue smilie, being as it were, a pussy-cat, is code for cunnilingus.

[Gemini Cricket]

"Dreamgirls"
"Dreamgirls"
"Dreamgirls"

...everywhere you look. This movie better be good. The soundtrack is pretty good.
:)

[Not Afraid]

Damn, GC. I thought you were going to post that you wanted to lick the Bond-man.

[€uroMeinke]

Damn, GC. I thought you were going to post that you wanted to lick the Bond-man.

I'm not sure we have a fellatio smilie yet

*like the call of Bloody Mary - I fear I've just invoked the Kevy Baby

[Not Afraid]

"Invoking the Kevy Baby"

Now, is there anyone on this board who DOESN'T know what that means?

I didn't think so.:)

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

HAHAHAHAHA!! That's so damn funny.... Invoking the KB!

[Gemini Cricket]

I saw 'Happy Feet' today. I liked it. It's fun.
:)

[Gemini Cricket]

I watched 'An Inconvenient Truth' last night. I really really liked it. I think more people should see it. But, alas, the people who really need to see it won't or won't believe it when they see it.
I'm a big fan of Mr. Gore.
:)

[Alex]

Capped off a fun, impromptu day in the city yesterday by seeing Volver (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0441909/). This is the latest offering from the amazing Pedro Almodóvar (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000264/) (Talk to Her, All About My Mother, Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!).

What I love about Almodóvar is that while he has all the skills you could ask for from a director he keeps it all grounded in good storytelling. The work of so many directors is simply mundane and must be covered up with non-linear storytelling, kinetic editing, or other flashes (none of which are bad, inherently, but are too often used to cover flaws). But Almodóvar is confident enough to just tell his story from beginning to end. Moving the camera when it needs to move, getting greatness of his actors, putting cuts where they're needed.

Volver isn't a life changing movie. It won't leave you reevaluating the universe. But it is a great story, a pleasure to experience. It also proves that when not focused on minimizing her accent, Penelope Cruz is quite the actress.

The movie does continue two trends seen previously in Almodóvar movies: first, he hasn't much use for men (total screen time for men in this two hour movie: about 5 minutes) and he is really quite fond of Cruz's breasts (as well we all should be).

If you don't like subtitled movies then you probably won't like this one (though there isn't a lot of action competing for your eye-time) but otherwise you should seek it out (and you may need to seek hard, it is is in pretty limited release).

[Gemini Cricket]

Pedro Almodóvar is one of my favs. I was introduced to him by a roommate of mine in college. 'Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown' is a great film. I also enjoyed 'Bad Education' and the others Stroup mentioned above.
I want to try and catch 'Volver'. If I miss it, I'll be sure to rent it. :)

[Not Afraid]

I wish Women on the Verge was available on DVD. I LOVE that film.


We watched Accident the other night. If you are a Dirk Bogard/Joseph Losey fan, see this film. The pacing would probably drive the MTV generation insane, but I loved it. Dirk Bogard was so wonderful - major crush going on here. The movie also starred a young Michael York.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Laemmle's did a retrospective month and we caught Women on the Verge this summer. Delightful.

We loved Volver too. One of my favorite movies of the year, along with Little Miss Sunshine and The Queen.

[mousepod]

Women on the Verge... is out-of-print in the US, but is available at amazon.co.uk for around $20... or you could just pick it up at HMV in March...

[Alex]

Watched Vagabond (French title: Sans Toit ni Loi), 1985, the other night.

There were some things in it that were interesting but for the most part when people denigrate the stereotypical French art house movie this is what they're talking about.

There is one great line in the movie though:

By proving herself useless she is helping the system she rejects.

[€uroMeinke]

We've been watching a series of Dirk Bogarde pics, an interesting peak into British Cinema of the early 60's. Tonights feature was the Mind Benders, which had "brain washing" as a plot device. I recall how prevalent that term was growing up and how it seems to have faded from the current vernacular. The film was billed as "sci-fi" on the cover, but it was nothing of the sort - more psychological drama than anything else.

[Gemini Cricket]

Interesting... Mel's movie went from #1 last weekend to #6 this weekend. Awwww. Poor Mel.
:D

Happy Feet seems to be the movie that won't die. Still doing well.

I expected Charlotte to do better than it did...

[€uroMeinke]

But wait - what did you see on the plane?

[innerSpaceman]

Gemini, I hope you don't have internet in Hawaii, because I don't really want you to read this till after you get back from your hopefully delightful homecoming Christmas....



Your thing about Mel Gibson completely perplexes me ... in light of your approval of Borat. I understand that Gibson's personal life is abhorent to you, and that you don't like what he might do with the profits from his films.

Borat, on the other hand, just had yet another lawsuit filed against it for again (allegedly) duping people into participating by representing the film as a documentary. Here, bad deeds were done to innocent people in the actual making of the film ... while in Gibson's case, his despicable thoughts (I know of no actual deeds) have nothing to do with his movie, Apocalypto.

But because you enjoyed Borat, you seem to be giving it a pass. I find this stance hypocritical, and I'd like to know why one's ok with you and the other is not.

[Alex]

Interesting... Mel's movie went from #1 last weekend to #6 this weekend. Awwww. Poor Mel.



Don't read too much into that. Apocolypto had a pretty standard 49% weekend-to-weekend drop. 1st to 6th isn't so much a sign of a huge dropoff as quite a few new movies opening this weekend.

Unless the movie completely tanks overseas he is still going to make a pretty penny.

[Alex]

Watched The Queen. Well acted but I can't really go along with Helen Mirren for best actress. First of all, I'm not keen on "impersonations" winning unless they are truly spectacular. Especially when 90% of the impersonation is being stoic.

I wrote this elsewhere but it captures why I'm ambivelant about the movie. I foresaw this problem but wanted to see it anyway because I'd heard such great things about Mirren's performance.

The big problem is that it is a story I don't really care about. The fame of Princess Diana was, to me, a slightly more dignified version of the fame that Paris Hilton has. Yes, she was doubtless a better person than Hilton but both were famous simply for being famous. And to a large extent I found the outpouring of "global grief" for Princess Diana to be as tacky, outrageous, and inexplicable as I would if a similar thing were to happen following the sudden death of Paris Hilton.

So while watching the movie, that was part of the problem. I was at odds with the sentiment. I find the continued existence of the monarchy to be a weird form of political religion (either be a monarchy or be a republic but why pretend to be both?) so I don't personally invest much into the tradition and dignity of the institution. However, since the institution does exist, I find myself much more in the Queen's view of how Diana's death should be handled. Anyway, well acted but in the end it didn't give me any reason to care more about the events than I did when they were really happening. I remember quite clearly the day she died since it was a long evening of me whining to Lani that I wanted to go out as we had planned and her wanting to watch CNN all night.

[€uroMeinke]

I find this stance hypocritical

Is it? or is it just inconsistent?

[Alex]

Alex, based on your most recent posts, I strongly urge you to check out the Lower Depths DVD set from Criterion. It includes Jean Renoir's 1936 adaptation of the Gorky play and Akira Kurosawa's 1957 take on the same source material.

So I put these on my queue and have both right now.

I tried to watch the Kurosawa version this afternoon. So far I have fallen asleep three times, paused to make dinner. Done a couple loads of laundry.

With rewinding to watch stuff that happened while my eyes were drooping (not good with subtitles) I am now about 44 minutes in. About a third.

Needless to say, it isn't grabbing me. I'll try to finish it tomorrow just in case I'm not in the mood today. Then I'll see if I find the Renoir version any more engaging.

That said, I do find the subtitle translation on the Criterion edition to be interesting. I assume it is a recent translation since it uses language that wouldn't have been used decades ago.

[innerSpaceman]

(re The Queen):

Alex, I would think being of the opinon that DianaGriefMania was absurd would make the story more interesting. It's about a clash of cultures, and I would has assumed identifying more with the Royals as people (notwithstanding your feelings about them as an institution) would provide an enjoyable perspective.


But I must say that I agree with you about impersonation performances. Good as they may be, I can't give them "full marks," as it were.

[innerSpaceman]

Is it? or is it just inconsistent?
Perhaps it's ungenerous of me ... but I tend to ascribe hypocrisy to matters of moral outrage.

[Alex]

I did find the insight into the royal household to be interesting but I was also stuck wondering how much of it was fact and how much of it was supposition or creative license. I doubt Queen Elizabeth sat down with the screenwriter to tell him how the big buck made her cry.

There were elements I found interesting. But at core, the movie is based on the assumption that the death of Diana is interesting and therefore the conflict over how to grieve for her is interesting. For me, the former is not true so the latter is merely academic. That's an intellectual connection, and only a slight one, not an emotional one.

[Not Afraid]

I haven't see "The Queen" (yet) but Capote comes to mind when talking about impersonations. PSH did a MEAN Truman, and yet, it really was no more than an impresonation. Didn't he win best actor last year?

[Alex]

The going ga-ga over "impersonations" is a relatively recent fad but over the years many have won.

Last year three of the five best actor nominations were characters that were real people (Truman Capote, Edward R. Murrow, Johnny Cash) and the year before it was four out of five (Ray Charles, Howard Hughes, J.M. Barrie, Paul Rusesabagina).

But in 2004 it was zero. 2003 it was zero. 2002 it was two (Muhammed Ali, John Nash). 2001, one (Jackson Pollack).

Hoffman's Truman Capote was dazzling and I have no complaint with him winning, but generally when playing a real person, particularly a prominent recent person, the performance starts in a hole with me. This can be overcome but I think it is harder to earn full credit from me.

Not entirely rational, but maybe I fear that if I accept Joaquin Phoenix's Johnny Cash as an acting tour de force then I'll have to think of Rich Little as a great thespian and I have incredibly negative Rich Little associations.

[Stan4dSteph]

I have to interject a slight derail here to say that I think the world is a better place for having Princess Diana in it, and I wouldn't compare her to Paris Hilton. Diana did a lot of valuable charitable work in her role as princess. I don't believe Paris has done anything for charity on a personal level, and probably won't ever do any unless mandated as part of community service.

I haven't seen "The Queen" yet, but I will likely go see it this coming weekend.

[Alex]

Like I said, I have no doubt that Diana was a better person.

But I'm talking about the source of her fame. She was famous for being famous. She didn't do anything remarkable to become famous she just had (acquired) famous relatives and famous money. And yes, she did good charitable works but so do millions of people.

Part of the irony of the whole situation, to me, is that people only cared about Diana because of her connection to royalty and then bitched when that very royalty acted like royalty.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Finally got Garden State to the top of our queue. It's been there for months (I probably put it in there because Natalie Portman's in it), but we kept bumping it down...until we got addicted to watching Scrubs and figured out that Garden State was written/directed/and starred in by Zach Braff.

It's a great film, especially in light of Braff wearing 3 hats. His character is brilliant, and his performance subtle.

However, I now owe George Lucas an apology. I think I've been blaming him as a director a lot for Natalie Portman's performance in the sequels. Turns out, she just kinda sucks.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Apocolypto had a pretty standard 49% weekend-to-weekend drop...

I'm sorry to be pedantic, here, but you keep spelling it Apocolypto and the editor in me can't hold it in anymore.

It's Apocalypto. Like Apocalypse Now. Apocalypto.

[Alex]

Thanks for the correction. I can't help it that Gibson spelled his made-up word incorrectly.

[Moonliner]

Enter Search Term: Eragon

Result: Sorry - no matches on LoT. Please try some different terms.

Why no love for the boy?

[Alex]

I haven't read the books. Strangely, "written by a 15-year-old" even if a precocious one isn't much of a selling point for me; the fantasy fans I know who have read it say it feels like it was written by a precocious 15-year-old. It's bad enough that most of the adult authors in the epic fantasy genre write like precocious 15-year-olds.

That said, I'll probably get around to these books before I ever pick up another Terry Goodkind (who writes like a precocious 8-year-old Rush Limbaugh) novel.

I was still somewhat interested in the movie since simplistic dragon stories play out better on film than on paper (why must I be cursed with the shame of liking Dragonheart?) but the 14% rating at RottenTomatoes disabused me of that. I'll catch it on Netflix in a few years.

[mousepod]

Alex - Sorry you didn't groove on the Kurosawa flick. He's certainly a director whose work can alternately enthrall me or leave me cold. While his movies always appeal to my film buff intellectual interest, when I'm not in mood, sometimes they can be a real chore to get through.

To prepare myself for Pan's Labyrinth, I've spent a couple of nights over the last few weeks watching Chronos and The Devil's Backbone. I had written off del Toro in '97 upon my first exposure to his work (I recall asking Heather,"If Mimic is supposed to be a horror movie, why isn't it scary?") and was amused enough by Hellboy to reconsider (but not to get the director's cut DVD). Now that I've seen his two Spanish-language films, I'm beginning to understand what he's trying to do. I'm not sure if I need to see Blade II, but I think I know his vocabulary well enough to appreciate "The Citizen Kane of fantasy cinema" on the 29th.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

However, I now owe George Lucas an apology. I think I've been blaming him as a director a lot for Natalie Portman's performance in the sequels. Turns out, she just kinda sucks.

Man, I couldn't disagree with you more. Her performance in that movie is one of my all-time favorites. Garden State and Closer came out around the same time and I though she was a revelation in both. To each his and her own.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

This weekend I watched Tennessee Williams' <i>Baby Doll</i> for the first time. I cannot remember the last time a movie had me so hot and bothered. That swing scene is going to be burned into my memory until the day I die as one of the most erotically charged moments captured on screen. Kazan captured a girl's sexual awakening in a way that manged to be simultaneously graphic and subtle.

Eli Wallach, you make me feel positively wanton.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Man, I couldn't disagree with you more. Her performance in that movie is one of my all-time favorites. Garden State and Closer came out around the same time and I though she was a revelation in both. To each his and her own.
She got better as the movie progressed, and while I liked certain aspects of her performance, her delivery was sorely lacking. Very forced and unnatural.

[Strangler Lewis]

This weekend I watched Tennessee Williams' <i>Baby Doll</i> for the first time. I cannot remember the last time a movie had me so hot and bothered. That swing scene is going to be burned into my memory until the day I die as one of the most erotically charged moments captured on screen. Kazan captured a girl's sexual awakening in a way that manged to be simultaneously graphic and subtle.

Eli Wallach, you make me feel positively wanton.

Interesting story about the power of art, expectations of decorum, etc.:

When I was at Berkeley in the early '80s, one of the theatre grad students directed 27 Wagons Full of Cotton, the one-act play on which Baby Doll was based. Apparently thinking there wasn't enough conflict in the play, she cast a black woman as the wife. The actress was a nice girl from a family of Jehovah's Witnesses. Her father came to see the play with a number of female relatives. As the syndicate owner starts making his advances, the father starts talking to himself in the audience, "You better keep your hands off her," and things to that effect. Eventually, he stands up, "You, stop touching her, and YOU get off that stage." As the mostly student audience around him tried to explain that it was just a show and that he should sit down, he said, "No, no. I've seen that kind of thing all my life. I don't have to see it in pictures." He walked out of his seat and started for the stage, but the women he was with talked him into leaving. The actress apologized, and she finished the play.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

It's a great film, especially in light of Braff wearing 3 hats. His character is brilliant, and his performance subtle.


I thought he did a good job inthe film as did Portman. Her better performace of all her films I've seen was in Garden State. I just didn't like the film a whole lot. It was entertaining, but it was just the same old story and nothing real new. It was a "seen it all before" film for me.

[Not Afraid]

Little Miss Sunshine comes out on DVD tomorrow. Maybe I'll get to see it. :)

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Little Miss Sunshine comes out on DVD tomorrow. Maybe I'll get to see it. :)

I very badly wanted to give you "Scary Christmas" mojo, but apparently I've given you too much mojo love already.

[Gemini Cricket]

But because you enjoyed Borat, you seem to be giving it a pass. I find this stance hypocritical, and I'd like to know why one's ok with you and the other is not.
You think wayyy much about what I post.

The lawsuit filed by the drunk frat boys was thrown out, dear.

Find it hypocritical if you will, I don't really care. I refuse to defend each and every one of my posts. It is what it is. I can't stand your buddy Mel. Move on.

Mel Gibson's several sandwiches short of a picnic. His movie is not the hit the studio and he expected it to be. Call it schadenfreude if you will.

[Gemini Cricket]

But wait - what did you see on the plane?
'Bang the Drum' was playing but I slept instead of paying for a headset to watch it. Too tired.
:)

[Ghoulish Delight]

I like the theory that people are being encouraged by the studio to sue Borat. A few out-of-court settlements are a small price to pay for the proof of veracity that such lawsuits bring.

[Alex]

Either way, funny or not, things like Borat must be making life at least a bit more difficult for legitimate documentarians.

[Gemini Cricket]

Either way, funny or not, things like Borat must be making life at least a bit more difficult for legitimate documentarians.
I suppose, but I guess one could also say that of Christopher Guest movies, too. I don't see those fakeumentaries like 'Spinal Tap' ruining anything.
I get what you're saying, though.

[Alex]

Does Christopher Guest use unstaged scenes with unwitting participants? Then get them to sign model agreements by making them think they were part of a valid documentary? It's been so long since I saw Spinal Tap but is there anybody in that movie that didn't know they were in a movie?

If so, then yes I would include him in that statement as well.

[Not Afraid]

Another film is openeing that I want to see and I can't seem to get to the ones that are already out!

Venus has been added to the list.

[Alex]

Yeah, I want to see that one because I've heard that Peter O'Toole is great in it. Seeing the trailer before The Queen, left me flat, though.

[Not Afraid]

Venus is also written by Hanif Kureishi (Fanny and Rosie Get Laid & My Beautiful Launderette).

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!!!!!!


Look what I just found - to be released Januray 30th!

VIVA PEDRO (http://www.amazon.com/Almodovar-Classics-Collection-Education-Breakdown/dp/B000EAT24G/sr=1-11/qid=1166571678/ref=sr_1_11/002-5522360-9628006?ie=UTF8&s=dvd)!!!!!

[Alex]

I just saw a commercial for the Little Miss Sunshine DVD release.

I can't believe it but it prominently features the end of the movie. If you have any interest in seeing the movie and haven't yet, close your eyes whenever this commercial comes on. You deserve to be caught by surprise.

[innerSpaceman]

1) The Borat frat boy suit was NOT thrown out. The judge declined to have their scene cut from the DVD, but their suit proceeds for damages.

A man whose scene in a restaurant restroom was not in the finished film is also suing to make sure he is not featured in any DVD "extras" - and he's suing the restaurant for allowing them to film in their restroom. He didn't sign any release at all. I suppose so many people claiming they were duped into signing releases on false pretenses could be bandwagon jumping ... or it could be a pattern of foul play on the part of the filmmakers.

I just don't know of any foulplay on the part of Mel Gibson's recent filmmaking project. And I'm frankly miffed at the double standard he got from the press for violence no more gory than many a standard action film.


2) Natalie Portman was so-so in Garden State, but was so amazing in both Closer and her Cold Mountain cameo that it's clear to me she can still act.


3) I finally saw The Departed last night. All the participants can act, but that doesn't save this film for me. I thought it decidedly Meh, though there was some suspense in the dueling ratfinks scenario.

[CoasterMatt]

The other day I watched a great Jonathan Demme DVD double feature - Stop Making Sense (Special Edition) and Silence of the Lambs.

[CoasterMatt]

Tonight, after a really good day at work (not being sarcastic), I watched The Blues Brothers, and now I'm watching Cool Hand Luke - ain't this the life? :cool:

[Alex]

I saw that Cool Hand Luke is on AMC and I considered watching it (there is nothing on) but I find I just can't watch movies on commercial TV anymore. The first time a commercial comes on I switch channels and forget to come back.

The last two days of BART riding I've watched Find Me Guilty and The Assassination of Richard Nixon.

Find Me Guilty isn't great but it is good and has a suprising performance from Vin Diesel. The best thing about the movie is it is about a jury getting snowed by a likable guy who did horrible things and what it actually does is snow the viewer. In the end you can't really disapprove of the jurors because you realize you've fallen into the same trap.

I don't like Sean Penn. Even when he is just barely tolerable he is annoying (Mystic River, for example) and most of the time he is deplorable. I don't know why I can't stand him, but I can't. Anyway, The Assassination of Richard Nixon provides a character where I find he fits perfectly and is tolerable: delusional loser. Being able to tolerate him for once allowed me to enjoy this little drama of psychological decline.

After a couple more sessions of trying I'm still only about 60% through Kurosawa's Lower Depths. Yet I'm determined to get through it all. Can't say I'm enjoying it at all though.

[Moonliner]

Modern marvels is doing WDW tonight.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

American Splendor, finally! Incredible movie. Giamatti has balls of steel to portray someone who we see on the screen ourselves. He totally pulls it off, too. The phone book bit is my favorite part. I'm also glad the Revenge of the Nerds quotes that have been featured on Jonesy's Jukebox many times have been explained.

[katiesue]

I watched Little Miss Sunshine last night, really loved it.

[Stan4dSteph]

I watched Little Miss Sunshine last night, really loved it.There's an old thread on that you could probably dredge up. :)

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

American Splendor, finally! Incredible movie. Giamatti has balls of steel to portray someone who we see on the screen ourselves. He totally pulls it off, too. The phone book bit is my favorite part. I'm also glad the Revenge of the Nerds quotes that have been featured on Jonesy's Jukebox many times have been explained.

Oh, I think this is one of the greatest movies ever made. Loved, loved, LOVED it.

[tracilicious]

2) Natalie Portman was so-so in Garden State, but was so amazing in both Closer and her Cold Mountain cameo that it's clear to me she can still act.

This is true. She really was good in Closer. I love Zach Braff. (Just thought I'd throw that in there.)

Saw The Prize Winner (of something something something) a few nights ago. I don't love Julianne Moore, but this was a fun movie to watch. A good fluff movie.

[Alex]

It was a good weekend for watching movies.

Dark Command (1940) - Definitely one of John Wayne's best pictures during his Republic years (I admire Stagecoach for what it did but that is much more of an academic admiration). Touches on an interesting side conflict during the Civil War and doesn't yet wallow into the Southern pride that would be more prevelant in the westerns of the later 1940s and early 1950s (where the Southern military was an institution almost completely divorced from slavery).

The Curse of the Golden Flower - Visually, I love the work of Yimou Zhang. Hero and House of Flying Daggers were both wonderful to look at. Unfortunately, the latter was painfully dull and the former would have been but at least had some good fighting in it to pass the time. This one has the same attention to visual gorgeousness but has something of a more coherent story. Not necessarily a compelling story but more coherent. I found it more satisfactory than the other two but if you really liked the other two and the visual satisfaction was enough then you'll probably find this one a lesser effort.

Rocky Balboa - I created a thread for it. Don't you dare mention it hear or iSm will lose his Christmas afterglow on your ass.

Donzoko - Akira Kurosawa's 1957 filming of Gorky's play The Lower Depths. Dreadfully dull (I finished it on Sunday but actually started watching it more than a week earlier). This is mostly because it is essentially a filmed play (there is one interior set and one exterior set) and it relies on visual cues to indicate the class, background, and archetype of the characters. Visual cues that went over my head.

The Jerk - Picked it up really cheap at the last days of the Tower Records clearance sale. Haven't seen it since I was a kid and still enjoyed it, though Steve Martin doesn't hold the same charm he did when I was 12.

Les Bas-fonds - Jean Renoir's 1936 filming of Gorky's play The Lower Depths. This version is much livelier than the Kurosawa version and coming in 30 minutes shorter keeps the energy flowing. The stable of side characters is much diminished as two of the relationships are given a much more central role. The darkness of the Kurosawa version is preferable to this one, particularly in the final conclusion, but this one is a movie rather than a play.

Dreamgirls - In one five minute song performance Jennifer Hudson won herself the Best Supporting Actress Academy Award (though she really is the lead) and she'll deserve every last bit of it. Even though the song isn't eligible for a nomination and therefore wouldn't really fit with the Oscar broadcast's template, if the director is smart he'll get her up there to sing. Wonderful performances all around and while it could have used a bit of trimming at the end (maybe 10 minutes or so) and suffered from having the emotional showstopper in the middle with it downhill from there I strongly recommend this one.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, I hated Curse of the Golden Flower, while I loved Hero and was so-so about Flying Daggars. The production design on this one was gorgeous, but the story was just operatically uninteresting and nothing much other than machinations were going on until one big army battle at the end. Bleh.


I had a chance to watch Rocky Balboa on DVD in the comfort and convenience of my own home ... and it still doesn't interest me.

[Alex]

Still doesn't interest you in the sense that you watched and still don't care or that you could easily watch it and don't care enough to actually do so?

What I found with Hero and House of Flying Daggers is that people seem to prefer whichever they saw first and then begin to grow weary of the slow beauty. Unfortunatly, I grew weary of it halfway through the first one (Hero) and had no tolerance for it in House of Flying Daggers. I liked that Curse of the Golden Flower kept the same style but focused the actual story down to a family of five people without losing the wu xia excesses.

Though he's still struggling to reach the balance of grace and story that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon had (and allowed it to reach such crossover success with American audiences not inclined towards the wu xia style).

[innerSpaceman]

RB - didn't even care to watch it though it couldn't have been more convenient and free.

Maybe Alex is right about liking better which was seen first. I saw Daggers after Hero. But the similarish Crouching Tiger came first, and that's not my favorite of the wire-work bunch.

I find the whole "magical martial arts" to have worked better in the context of an obvious "story" being told by a character within Hero (rather than presented as actually happening). But I also found the plot of Hero more interesting, and the film far more beautiful than any of the others of its ilk.





.

[Alex]

Watched Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House on my commute yesterday.

What a chore that was to sit through. It's like a live-action Goofy movie. You know the type where Goofy listens to some how-to LP and completely screws up the instructions to comedic effect. Well, this movie was like that complete with stupid narration (provided by Melvyn Douglas, the only moderately interesting person to grace the screen).

Have any two actors supposedly in love ever had less on screen chemistry than Cary Grant and Myrna Loy? I know Grant is capable of it (he does ok with Deborah Kerr) and I know Loy is as well (see The Thin Man). But together they are like dead fish. And it wasn't a fluke, they are similarly flat in The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer.

I was eager to see what would have been a very young Jason Robards when I saw his name in the opening credits, but he passed unrecognized (and now, looking at IMDb, I see it wasn't the Jason Robards I know but his father that was in the movie).

[innerSpaceman]

Whadaya know? Over the Hedge really is better than its trailers and the current state of animal-laden computer-animated glut films led one to believe.

The Fountain was a fairly interesting film, but I'm wondering which fringe religious group produced it, and how they got Hugh Jackman to star. A neat take on the Fountain of Youth mythos, but kinda slow-mo ... and I'm not surprised it tanked theatrically.

[Alex]

Today I watched the 1999 version of That Championship Season. It is actually a remake of the 1982 version which starred Robert Mitchum, Stacy Keach, Bruce Dern, Martin Sheen, and Paul Sorvino.

In this version, Paul Sorvino got promoted into the Mitchum role and then he is joined by Vincent D'Onofrio, Gary Sinise, Tony Shalhoub, and Terry Kinney.

That Championship Season is one of the rare play adaptations that I enjoy even though very little was done expand it cinematically from a one set theatrical experience. I don't know why that is, it just touches on themes that work for me.

Considering it was made for TV it looks pretty good (though maybe it was made for HBO or Showtime, I didn't notice anything that screamed "commercial break").

Sorvino was the weakest link in the first version and is again in this version. If you overlook Sinise and Shalhoub being offered up as Polish brothers everybody else is quite the actor and comports themself well.

So, this is one remake where I think you can watch either version safely (though the former is interesting for a "old man" Robert Mitchum performance). But according to IMDb neither version is very well regarded so I may be alone in enjoying them.

[mousepod]

Saw Children of Men today. As far as violent dystopian flicks go, it's not too bad. Cuarón does a great job of creating moody and foreboding atmosphere, and Michael Caine has one of the greatest exit scenes of his career. One of my friends observed that the plot is the macguffin. Worth seeing on the big screen if you like that sort of movie. Made me want to go home and watch 12 Monkeys.

[Not Afraid]

We got around to watching Shadow of a Doubt last night. Great story and a fun early Hitchcock, but some of the acting was just a BIT over the top. I'm glad Hitch found people he loved to work with and returned great acting later in his career.

[innerSpaceman]

Children of Men is on my must see NOW list. But it's in very limited release. Heheh, I'm damned if I'm going to the theater a block from my office on the few days I have off work. Likely this weekend though.



As for movies I have recently seen, Monster House sucks.

[blueerica]

I think I'm going to check out Pan's Labyrinth this weekend. I will muse later.

[Alex]

Netflix informs me that Cast a Giant Shadow from Lakeland, Fl is on its way to me. I didn't remember adding that movie to my queue. Once I looked closer and realized that it is just Cast a Giant Shadow and they mailed it from Lakeland, Florida, I still don't remember adding it to my queue or even what it is about.

However, since I once had a very pleasant roadside picnic lunch at a park situated on the shore of an eponymous lake of Lakeside, Florida, I have preemptively decided that I will like Cast a Giant Shadow.

[blueerica]

Pre-emptive decisions once in a while aren't a bad thing. The better question is: Were there giant shadows cast in Lakeside, Florida?

[Gemini Cricket]

I thought about seeing 'Dreamgirls' the other night but didn't. Something about being in the dark and inside for 2 hours in Hawai'i seemed wrong wrong wrong.
:D

[Cadaverous Pallor]

One of my friends observed that the plot is the macguffin. Made me look. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin) There are still a lot of things in this world that I don't know, apparently.

[Alex]

It's a current movie but it's been out a couple weekends I think and nobody has discussed yet so I assume there won't be much of one.

Anyway, saw The Good Shepherd tonight. It performed the trick of being very interesting without being particularly compelling. Of being almost three hours long, feeling like it is that long, and yet not being bored.

One spooky thing, however, is that in one of Robert De Niro's short scenes in looks like the love child of Henry Kissinger and Buddy Hackett.

It is a solid effort in the director's chair by De Niro, but a little too in love with the quiet pause. The score is pretty heavy handed too.

[innerSpaceman]

:( Babel could hardly have been more unpleasant if all the subtitles were omitted and I was left to suffer understanding only the worst Brad Pitt and lamest Cate Blanchett performances ever captured on film. Three stories of unrelenting and purposeless woe, feebly connected at the film's end by the most tenuous of explanations and unfathomably connected in theme to this sorry viewer.

I can't believe there is Oscar buzz about this work of total crap.



Oddly, the only thing that interested me was hearing the musical score sequeway into a piece very familiar from the TV series Deadwood - from four years ago. The score is by Gustavo Santaolalla (who also did Brokeback Mountain), and it's credited to have been composed for Babel. But it's not simply a matter of a John Williams or James Horner having scores which are rip-offs of earlier works ... this particular cue was the precise cue from Deadwood - so iconic to that series it's used as the background for the DVD menus. (The episodes themselves, however, feature no music credits).


Not that this score would ever garner an Oscar nomination, but I hope discerning members realize it's ineligible for having not been composed for the film in which it appears. And I hope discerning Academy members ignore the buzz and recognize this film for the disjointed piece of crap it truly is.

[innerSpaceman]

On the other hand, a pretty woeful movie like Children of Men, that appeared to have a point, was wonderful.

I didn't particularly like Et tu Mama Tambien, but Alfonso Cuaron's other three films have been uniformly fantastic. (The Little Princess, Harry Potter and the Prisonzer of Azkaban, and his latest.) The guy's a budding genius, imo.

His latest is a great fable about a dystopian future where mankind has been infertile for almost 20 years. The vision of the future presented is completely eerie. Cuaron wisely strayed from the book and, instead of making the scene futuristic, made the environment uncannily like our own ... with the terrifyingly believable addition of world chaos.

Clive Owens (great, as usual) stumbles into the situation of protecting the first pregnant woman in 18 years. In a wonderful performance, Michael Caine offers a bit of safe haven in what is otherwise a suspenseful, harrowing adventure.

Much has been made of the fact that Cuaron used extremely long takes for much of the film ... but I found the film so engrossing that this bit of technique was barely noticeable. If anything, it pulls you into the story and the action in a unique way, and does not stand out as showy filmmaking.



This is not a cheerful movie, but I highly recommend it.

[Alex]

Just got back from it as well and also mostly enjoyed it. I also give Cuaron three out of four successes but a different three (it is Prisoner of Azkaban that I find deplorable).

The first long cut was well done, adding to the suspense of the scene, and subtle enough that if I hadn't heard about the long cuts beforehand I probably wouldn't have noticed.

The second one was just needless showing off and did nothing for the movie (and apprently had at least one unperceived cut anyway). The problem with our modern digital age is that I don't believe what I see on film is real anyway so long cuts for the sake of a long cut isn't really impressive.

I remember the forgetabble Nicolas Cage movie Snake Eyes and it started with what seemed to be a 10 minute single shot that was actually cleverly edited and masked digitally. That's pointless. The beginning of Touch of Evil, that meant something. The second one in Children of Men was somewhere in between but closer to Snake Eyes.

But it is a ballsy movie for many reasons and well worth seeing (unless you're someone who only goes to movies to be made happy).

[Ghoulish Delight]

We watched Terry Gilliam's Brother's Grimm last night.

I wish I could have liked it more. I loved the concept of the characters and the appearance of familiar fairy tale elements. But something about the movie just fell flat. Combined with the fact that the pace just slowed to a crawl as the end approached, I just couldn't wait for it to be over. A real shame, it could have been wonderfull.

[Alex]

I agree. I enjoyed what he was trying to do but it became too earnest by th end.

However, it does currently hold the position of being the last movie I saw at a drive-in.

[tracilicious]

Made me look. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin) There are still a lot of things in this world that I don't know, apparently.



According to film historian Kalton C. Lahue (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalton_C._Lahue&action=edit) in his book Bound and Gagged (a history of silent-film serials), the actress Pearl White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_White) used the term "weenie" to identify whatever physical object (a roll of film, a rare coin, expensive diamonds) impelled the villains and virtuous characters to pursue each other through the convoluted plots of The Perils of Pauline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Perils_of_Pauline) and the other silent serials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial#Silent_era) in which White starred.

So, if she used weenie and McGuffin interchangeably, can we now call the weenies at DL McGuffins? Asking that has just made me realize that I have no idea what those spinny rocket things with a ridiculous line in Tomorrowland are called. I will now only call them, McGuffin.

[mousepod]

As a Gilliam completist, I bought the DVD for Brothers Grimm when it was released (I missed the theatrical run). Heather watched it before I did. I told her I was considering watching it one night and asked her what she thought of it. Her reply: "If you've already watched every single DVD that you own... I'd consider watching something else again."

I still haven't watched it.

Or Tideland.

[tracilicious]

We watched Terry Gilliam's Brother's Grimm last night.

I wish I could have liked it more. I loved the concept of the characters and the appearance of familiar fairy tale elements. But something about the movie just fell flat. Combined with the fact that the pace just slowed to a crawl as the end approached, I just couldn't wait for it to be over. A real shame, it could have been wonderfull.


I felt the same way. Close to the end I remember turning to Michael and saying, "This is such an awesome concept, but they did a terrible job of pulling it off. I'm so bored."

[Gemini Cricket]

I just watched "Devil Wears Prada". Yep, kinda late to the party but I loved Streep immensely in this film. She was fabulous. She could have exaggerated the role and didn't. Such a great choice for the character.
When Streep's not on camera the movie dragged for me. Tucci was good, though.
I kept staring at Hathaway's lips...
:D

[Ghoulish Delight]

As a Gilliam completist, I bought the DVD for Brothers Grimm when it was released (I missed the theatrical run). Heather watched it before I did. I told her I was considering watching it one night and asked her what she thought of it. Her reply: "If you've already watched every single DVD that you own... I'd consider watching something else again."

I still haven't watched it.

Or Tideland.Hmm, it's not THAT bad. Heck, it's better than Jabberwocky (what a mess that movie is).

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Hmm, it's not THAT bad. Heck, it's better than Jabberwocky (what a mess that movie is).
Yeah, I'd watch it once, mousepod. The visuals are great and there are 3 or 4 really terrifying moments. There are also some nifty concepts, and as a bit of a fairy tale buff, I enjoyed many of the references. I'm glad I saw it, but all I could think afterwards was "it could have been so much better!"

It reminded me that moviemaking is such a specific art. I can't pin down what was wrong with the film, yet it was obvious it had too much of something and not enough of something else.

[innerSpaceman]

Hahahah, Gilliamhistory! Everyone's right - - bros. grimm, a great conceputial attempt that went sadly astray. I don't know if I even made it till the end.

Wish I could say the same about Jaberwocky. I utterly regret my exposure to that movie. Yccccghhj.



And,, funnily enough, I also recently saw Prada for the first time, and liked it far better than I expected. Very fun film.

[innerSpaceman]

Sorry to be posting so much in this thread, but it's screener season.

Latest on the menu, a Clint Eastwood War in the Pacific Double Feature of Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers. I enjoyed both of them, but - in opposition to the relative popularity of the duo - prefer Flags overall.

Letters is told more directly, and is more even in tone. The tone and direction were very good. Not much at all about the battles, but relentless and fascinating on the futility and humanity of the Japanese military on the island. The main characters were a little stereotypical - a lowly conscripted Baker who promises his pregnant wife he'll return against all odds only to return against all odds (he is shown to be one of a handful of Japanese survivors), and the honorable samurai General who takes over the defense of the island from incompetent and arrogant officers (Ken Watanabe in the role he is typecast as, but very good at).

The story was very straightforward, but perfectly suited to illustrate the similar humanity of the "enemy" side of the famed WWII battle.

Two very effective scenes involved Sepukku (sp?), the ritual suicide of Japanese warriors. In one, the survivors of the failed defense of the strategic mountaintop kill themselves by clutching live hand grenades to their chests, with the Baker narrowly escaping the madness. And the other is the final, against-all-obstacles Sepukku of the honorable General, with a neat connection to his having visited America as a participant in the 1932 Olympics.

* * * * * *

Flags is more ambitious in ideas, but less even in result. Sort of a "Best Years of Our Lives" tale of the toll of war and unearned fame for the three soldiers who took part in the staged iconic photograph of the Marines raising the American Flag in the conquest of Iwo Jima. Their battle experiences are intercut in flashback with the U.S. publicity tour they are roped into for soliciting desperately needed wars bonds sales.

Some of it was pretty typical war movie stuff, but other elements seemed quite unique. The directing was certainly of a more interesting style, and I can't fault the film for occassionally failing to achieve its ambitious goals.

Two very effective scenes were - when a Tokyo Rose broadcast changes the tone of a boisterous poker game, and when the clearest hero of the threesome (a corpman medic who stoicly and selflessly saved dozens of lives) discovers the fate of his best buddy whom he unwittingly abandoned in battle.


Taken together, Clint Eastwood has created quite the epic of Iwo Jima. I enjoyed both films, and liked watching them in the more chronological order of the latter released film (Letters) viewed first.

[Alex]

Yesterday was a John Wayne double feature. First up was Dakota (1945), one of his Republic pictures I'd never seen before. Unfortunately, there is a reason I'd never seen it before. The plot is opaque and strangely abbreviated (like they lost a reel of film somewhere and just decided to steam ahead).

The one noteworthy thing about the movie is the relationship between Walter Brennan (wrascally steamboat captain) and his black bosun played by Nick Stewart. Unfortunately Stewart is stuck in full Stepin Fetchit mode, but that isn't uncommon. What was uncommon is the way Walter Brennan was speaking to him. He kept calling Stewart "****** demon." This is unusual because while there was quite a bit of racism in movies, the actual saying of "******" was generally off limits.

It wasn't until John Wayne finally spoke to Stewart's character by name that I realized Brennan wasn't saying "****** demon" but Nicodemus.

When that one was over, 10 minutes later Wayne had aged almost 30 years for The Cowboys. Wil Anderson is my favorite Wayne performance from his last few years and if the Academy had to give him a sympathy award I'd much prefer it had been for this one rather than the slightly embarrassing Rooster Cogburn in True Grit.

But anyway, I hadn't seen this Red Dawn of westerns in may 15 years so I am glad to see it still holds up pretty well.

[Strangler Lewis]

I still have a childhood-instilled fear of Bruce Dern.

[DreadPirateRoberts]

I still have a childhood-instilled fear of Bruce Dern.

Me too. He was creepy in "The Cowboys" and "Rooster Cogburn".

[Strangler Lewis]

I still have a childhood-instilled fear of Bruce Dern.

Of course, it doesn't hold a candle to my childhood fear of Hermione Gingold and Moms Mabley.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Saw Annie Hall, finally.

I'm so glad I never got into one of those on-again off-again relationships. Sounds like pure torture.
I realized no matter what, I'll always be a Jew.
I'm so glad I never dated Woody Allen.

Great movie. Keaton is awesome, Woody is Woody. I loved all the bit parts that now qualify as cameos. Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum, all too young for words. Loved the script. Allen was one hell of a writer back then, that's for sure.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I saw Blood Diamond tonight. Ed Zwick is such a fantastic director and I've watched just about everything he's done (Glory, Legends of the Fall). IT was very well done film all around. Acting was great lead by Jennifer Connelly, who, dispite showing her "age" has really erased any thought of her as a kid in Labrynth. She is going to age really well and continue to be a classicly beautiful actress for many years to come. Leo again was Leo, but in a film where you were drawn in, I kept on thinking "That's Leo with an African accent." Not a bad accent, but not a great one. It would have been a much better film had they cast someone who doesn't always play "themselves." But, that aside I think this is his best job since GIlbert Grape.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Oy! I am offline for a holiday and I come back and find I need to say:

1) Alex and I agree on something! Dreamgirls was worth the price of admission solely for that 5-minute song. I think my socks were literally blown off. I thought some performances were good-- and that there was a deliciously unironic casting for Deena/Beyonce Knowles, since I personally feel that her voice IS the flatter, less-interesting one.

2) Steve and I agree on something! And it's about an Oscar contender! I don't believe I've spoken much about Babel here yet, but I thought it to be a horrible waste of celluloid. I simply can't stomach movies where I find nothing redeemable about any of the characters (see also: Last Kiss, The. Or rather, don't.) And other than thinking it to be an overblown, mis-marketed (why imply that the story is about cross-cultural language barriers if it's nothing of the sort?) and exploitative mess. Hey, I'm all about characters discovering themselves through sexuality, even when it's confused sexuality, but when you get to the fifth or sixth close-up of an underage character's vulva it becomes gratuitous and ooky.

Finally saw Borat, by the way, and was horrified by the small-minded people I like to pretend don't exist. And I laughed more than I wanted to.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I think my socks were literally blown off. I'm fighting the urge to bad mojo you for your use of the word "literally". :p

[mousepod]

I'm fighting the urge to bad mojo you for your use of the word "literally". :p

She's a writer! I'm sure that her socks were actually blown off. I just want to know what happened to her shoes...

[LSPoorEeyorick]

That's what I'm saying, man-- those five minutes of song actually removed the socks from my person. (Tom says I'm using it incorrectly for humorous effect; I maintain that I could no longer feel my feet, or the rest of my body, save for my pounding heart after "And I Am Telling You," so I'm convinced that I took leave of my socks.)

[Alex]

I'm fighting the urge to bad mojo you for your use of the word "literally". :p

Tell it to Louisa May Alcott who wrote in Little Women "the land literally flowed with milk and honey."

Tell it to F. Scott Fitzgerald who wrote of Jay Gatsby that "he literally glowed."

Tell it to James Joyce who, in Ulysses, wrote of a Mozart piece that it is "the acme of first class music as such, literally knocking everything else into a cocked hat."

The use of the word literally in an unliteral way is at least a century older than the objection of modern proscriptive language mavens objecting to it.

Examples above drawn from this article (http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/) from the editor of the Oxfored English Dictionary. As the article states, the English language is full of words used in opposition to their most...literal...meaning (and it also points out that the literal meaning of "literally" you are calling for is not actually the most literal original definition of the word).

[Ghoulish Delight]

This from the man who harps on people for saying "most unique".

[Alex]

You're thinking of someone else. I don't think I've ever harped on anybody for that.

I don't have a problem with "most unique" since I don't have a problem with the idea of various levels of uniqueness (its kind of like different sizes of infinity).

[€uroMeinke]

How dreary language would be if we had to strip out all metaphor or fiction and were forced to only use the factual and precise. Especially since life is so full of ambiguity and appearances often are at odds with an unseen reality. We'd need a whole new vocabulary, one full of words we could never define correctly.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Tell it to Louisa May Alcott who wrote in Little Women "the land literally flowed with milk and honey."

Tell it to F. Scott Fitzgerald who wrote of Jay Gatsby that "he literally glowed."

Tell it to James Joyce who, in Ulysses, wrote of a Mozart piece that it is "the acme of first class music as such, literally knocking everything else into a cocked hat."Is the fact that I tried to read something by each of these writers at one point or another but dropped the books out of fear that I might expire due to pure, gasping boredom a good reason to invalidate your point?

How dreary language would be if we had to strip out all metaphor or fiction and were forced to only use the factual and precise. Especially since life is so full of ambiguity and appearances often are at odds with an unseen reality. We'd need a whole new vocabulary, one full of words we could never define correctly.Here's my only possible response: Clipped parcel viola whipple painting acrobat canticle.

[Alex]

In what way does finding them boring (and you'll also have to invalid Twain, Austen, Hemingway, etc.) invalidate the point that this use of "literally" long predates as common usage the decision of some that it is wrong?

How does it invalidate the point that using "literally" in the way you deride is a pretty standard feature of the English language and you've many other words and usages to object to.

[Gemini Cricket]

More movies, less grammar speakings.











:D

[€uroMeinke]

Here's my only possible response: Clipped parcel viola whipple painting acrobat canticle.

My heart belongs to dada, for dada treats me so well - Ba-umf

[Gemini Cricket]

I think I may see 'Dreamgirls' with Babette and friends tonight. We'll see how it pans out. Can't wait.
:)

[Not Afraid]

I prefer imagination over logic.

[~MS~]

Brandy saw Dreamgirls over the holiday break and loved it so much she's already asking me to go buy it, sometimes that time delay is kind of hard for her to grasp!

[Alex]

You can get her the soundtrack. I noticed today that they were selling it at the cash register in Starbucks.

[blueerica]

Wow, with all the rave reviews, I think I might have to check out Dreamgirls...

[flippyshark]

I prefer imagination over logic.

I don't think of them as mutually exclusive, and I'd hate to have to choose between them. I value both very highly.

I couldn't get into a screening of Dreamgirls this past weekend, as it had sold out, and I wasn't willing to wait over an hour for the next showing. It's on the top of my list of things I want to catch, along with Children of Men.

That Jennifer Hudson song had better be good.

[~MS~]

Thanks for the suggestion Alex! I really hadn't considered that option for her...now to go see if it's available anyplace else!

[Not Afraid]

I don't think of them as mutually exclusive, and I'd hate to have to choose between them. I value both very highly.




I agree with you except that I do value imagination over logic - or fine it more compelling.

[Alex]

I far value logic over imagination (are you all shocked?) but logic has little to do with how language is used. The way it is used is the way it works. All rules are internally imposed without an external "linguistic morality" of right and wrong and the only sin (most of the time) is ambiguity (though as with movies, ambiguity can also be a positive when caused appropriately). And most of the time, there is none when "literally" is used in a way that would more literally mean "figuratively." As the article I linked to says, the argument against using literally figuratively is that it can be unclear. The solution is not a rule against using literally figuratively but to not write unclearly.

[Strangler Lewis]

Here's my only possible response: Clipped parcel viola whipple painting acrobat canticle.

Good, but not as good as the poems that Euro, Boss Radio, some others and I put together serially while bothering our favorite teacher after high school:

"Cobalt, can you swing dung da?
Optical nose, Erin go bragh.
Brown plague hat, duniwassal, Beowulf.
Ubermensch, bunnyland, Pere Ubu's shelf."

Of the second I only recall a fragment:

"Pig iron, crib death, bang-up dolly.
Runny drippy bibblewang, like smooth Krishna Umbwebwe . . ."

Now that's good pottery.

[€uroMeinke]

Good, but not as good as the poems that Euro, Boss Radio, some others and I put together serially while bothering our favorite teacher after high school:

"Cobalt, can you swing dung da?
Optical nose, Erin go bragh.
Brown plague hat, duniwassal, Beowulf.
Ubermensch, bunnyland, Pere Ubu's shelf."

Of the second I only recall a fragment:

"Pig iron, crib death, bang-up dolly.
Runny drippy bibblewang, like smooth Krishna Umbwebwe . . ."

Now that's good pottery.

Bravo! for myself I could only recollect the first line, in which I thought the words "the boating" appeared before "dung da" - Does a original transciption exist anywhere I wonder?

[Not Afraid]

That's absolutely fantastic! Duchamp would be proud.

[€uroMeinke]

That's absolutely fantastic! Duchamp would be proud.

Especially since the original is lost - that of course perfects it

[alphabassettgrrl]

We watched "Bowling for Columbine" last night and I thought it was significantly better than I had been led to believe. He makes very good points about our "culture of fear" that I empatically agree with. At one point he cuts media footage, just little sound bites, but it's all about the terror watch, and crime, and the "epidemic sweeping the Southland" stuff, with a voiceover about how they don't even need to tell you why you should be afraid... just to be afraid... and then it cuts to a speech by GW Bush.

I liked it more than I thought I would.

We also saw "The Good Shepherd" and I liked it too.

[MouseWife]

'Haven' was playing in the living room and I got into it bit by bit. Oh, the bit moreso when Orlando Bloom became obvious to me.

Has anyone seen this? It was sort of hard to follow but that made it interesting.

What I didn't get was the end bit....I won't elaborate but if anyone has seen it, can you esplain' to me wha happened? I get most of it except what happened to OBs' character.

[Alex]

Watched Night and Day the on my commute.

It is the wonderful biography of Cole Porter. If Cole Porter had been a straight man, taken under the wing of a kindly law professor at Yale law, who eschewed financial assistance from friends and family determined to achieve success on his own. A man who selflessly went to find in support of the French in WWI and opened his first stage production on the evening the Luisitania was sunk.

In other words, a wonderful biography of a man who didn't exist (all of those things are key moments in the film but untrue). He did write a lot of songs though, and I even recognized a few of them.

Oh, he is also a man who apparently looked like he was 40 when 21 at Yale. I was impressed that they didn't really do much of anything to youthify or age Cary Grant through the couple decades shown in the movie.

But then I got to thinking about The Good Shepherd out in theaters now. This movie covers 22 years and most Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie have only the subtlest of changes in that time. I saw Damon last night on Inside the Actor's Studio and he talked about how Robert De Niro (the director of the movie) hates make up and feels that it is more likely to take you out of the movie while if you're into it the lack of overt aging won't be a problem for the audience.

For The Good Shepherd he was right. For Night and Day not so much.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

It is funny you should say that, Alex. When we left Good Shepherd, Tom made a comment about how weird it was that Angelina Jolie got all this age makeup while Matt Damon got none. I replied that, having the benefit of seeing an extreme close-up of makeup-free Angelina in a photographic portrait book a few weeks ago, I could attest that she's actually that craggy in real life.

[Alex]

Damon mentioned that most of his aging was in the glasses he wore (youthful flat glass glasses when young, his real prescription when in the middle and then he wore negative prescription contacts in the 1961 scenes so that he could wear really thick glasses). That and they shaved his hairline back just a bit and then would fill it in depending on age.

All in all it was a pretty thoughtful interview by Inside the Actor's Studio standards. Of course, the previous episode I caught was Eddie Murphy, renowned for his actorly skills.

[Babette]

I recorded that episode of ITAS, but have yet to watch my dreamy husband's interview.

Just watched Breakfast on Pluto starring Cillian Murphy and Liam Neeson. Interesting story, set in 1960-70's Ireland, of how a transvestite deals with being orphaned at birth. It is by the same guy who did The Crying Game.

[innerSpaceman]

I really like the Kevin Kline bio-pic of Cole Porter (De-Lovely). While I admit to never having seen Night and Day, I can't stomach bio-pics that I feel don't bear at least a 50% representation of the life being purportedly portrayed.

[Not Afraid]

Just saw Volver (about time!). Almodovar is an amazing director. I always enjoy his films and this one did not disappoint. Viva Pedro! (I can't WAIT for the box set of films to be released.)

[mousepod]

Got the second Humphrey Bogart DVD box for Christmas. Watched All Through The Night over the weekend - just finished watching The Maltese Falcon. Both of those films have made me want to finally read the Peter Lorre biography I picked up many months ago. But first - the two bonus movies in the Maltese Falcon set. Man, I love me them special edition DVDs.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

Have you read Maltese Falcon? Excellent book that opens up so much that wasn't covered in the film. MF is one of the best Bogarts. Casablanca, Across the Pacific, Petrified Forest, all excellent.

[mousepod]

Have you read Maltese Falcon? Excellent book that opens up so much that wasn't covered in the film. MF is one of the best Bogarts. Casablanca, Across the Pacific, Petrified Forest, all excellent.

I've never read the book. It's going on my list (ironic to add Hammett books to my reading list just as I plan to leave San Francisco). Across the Pacific is in the box - I'll watch it next. Thanks for the tips!

[Gemini Cricket]

I saw "Dreamgirls" with Babette today. I liked it. I thought Hudson's song was amazing. Loved that. Parts of the movie dragged but for the most part I liked it.
:)

[Moonliner]

Ouch!

The producers of Shrek bring you "Happily N'ever After"

It's currently sitting with a 7% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/happily_never_after/).

I repeat... Ouch.

[flippyshark]

Hmmm, y'see, all those horrible reviews of Happily N'ever After express precisely how I felt about Shrek. (I guess I was in the minority on that one.) No way I'm going to put any of my hard-earned coin toward this one.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

The Swankies - 2006

Ok, just for fun, I want everyone on the board to pm me with their top 5 nominees for 2006 films. At the end of January, I will compile the top 5 most picked films and we will vote for the best picture of 2006. Everyone else can have an award, so why can't we?

So in the following cattagories, pm me with the top 5 by January 31, 2007 or I will hunt you all down. :)

Best Picture
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Director
Best Writing

This will be fun!!:cheers: Sound good?

Ok, back to Musings... :p

[innerSpaceman]

Two meh films with great female lead perfs are The Good German and Running with Scissors.

In the former, Cate Blanchett demonstrates her chameleon quality that puts her on par with the best of Meryl Streep, imo. The retro-styled McGuffin mystery set in the aftermath of WWII Berlin is marginally interesting and mildly enjoyable ... but Blanchette is a knock-out as the down-on-her-luck femme fatale.

In Scissors, Annette Bening is captivating as a mentally ill mom in an otherwise confusing and convoluted mess of a memoir movie that will make you feel mentally ill.

[innerSpaceman]

The Swankies - 2006
ooooh, I knew these screener DVDs would come in handy in voting for something.

:cool:

[innerSpaceman]

I looooooved Stranger Than Fiction, the Charlie Kaufmanesque tale of a fictional character becoming aware of his existence as a fictional character, told with a much lighter touch and greater accessibility than Charlie Kaufman might afford.

Maybe I'm a sucker for gimmick flix ... but as long as they don't flub it, I find the exploration of bizarro concepts to be quite rewarding and highly entertaining. Will Ferrell is great in a rare non-slapstick role as Harry Crick, the main character in a novel being haltingly written by Emma Thompson, who's suffering from writer's block.

He's a soulless, by the numbers, socially-inept IRS auditor whose life takes a sharp awakening when he starts to hear author Emma's voice in his head, narrating his life as she writes her novel. With help from a literary professor played by Dustin Hoffman, Ferrell embarks on a voyage of discovery - yada, yada - as he tries to prevent his death by the author who's out to kill him, er, her character.

Growing out of the fun gimmick concept is a film with laughs and sweetness that I highly recommend.

[Babette]

I saw "Dreamgirls" with Babette today. I liked it. I thought Hudson's song was amazing. Loved that. Parts of the movie dragged but for the most part I liked it.
:)
It was definitely adapted from a stage musical. The "first act" a little choppy with transitions, etc. But Jennifer Hudson was phenomenal! I was very moved by her voice. Costumes were fun too. I couldn't take Eddie Murphy seriously, he made me giggle when I wasn't supposed to. The movie was nice, but her performance made it so. Thanks for joining us GC :)

[innerSpaceman]

oooh, I'll probably be seeing Dreamgirls tonight (the screener finally arrived ... sheesh, do they expect me to actually deal with grubby theaters and their loudmouthed patrons?)


Has anyone in the world besides me seen Infamous? It's the story of Truman Capote writing "In Cold Blood." Sound familiar? That's because a more famous movie dealt with the same subject matter just last year (I forget ... was it called Capote or The Truman Show?)


This one took a much lighter touch, but the gravitas of an excellent actor such as Phillip Seymour Hoffman was sorely missing. Instead, the lead role was played by an unknown little troll of a man by the name of Toby Jones. But it's not like they couldn't afford real actors. He was surrounded by the likes of Sigourney Weaver, Gwyneth Paltrow, Isabella Rossellini, Jeff Daniels, and the film co-starred Sandra Bullock as Truman's best-friend fellow author, Nelle Harper Lee, and none other than the new James Bond, Daniel Craig, as Perry Smith, the murderer with whom Truman falls in love.

The airier mood left less to be disappointed about, and Truman Capote is portrayed far more sympathetically (if much more over the top) in this version .. with a bit of the remorseful and maturing character arc that I complained was lacking in the earlier film.

Still ... the Hoffman version, though it left me cold, was a far more polished affair, and the lead performance aptly deserving of perhaps 83% of the praise and awards it garnered. Now that I've seen both films, with the latter treating the proceedings with a bit more silliness (especially as concerns the love aspect between Capote and James Bond, er, Perry Smith) ... I guess I appreciate the more serious and damning version after all.

Though it portrayed Capote unfavorably in my mind, having him remain - despite his attraction to Perry - detached, manipulative and immature to the end ... that is perhaps fitting for a film about the creation of "In Cold Blood" - a title that could just as well be referring to its author as to the grisly murders in Kansas or the grinding wheels of death penalty retribution.

[flippyshark]

i'm actually very interested in seeing and comparing the two Capote movies. (I've seen neither.)

Where DO you get all these delicious screeners? Where do I sign up? (I'm going to a grubby theater to see Dreamgirls this very day.)

[Gemini Cricket]

Well, as much as I used to love getting screeners, I must say that watching some of these movies on a TV is doing yourself a disservice, my dearest Stevie. "Pan", "Dreamgirls", "Iwo Jima", "Harold and Kumar Go to Burkina Faso"... these are all big screen movies with mega-sound moments. I'd wait until the crowds die down and see 'em in the theatre. My 2 cents.
Besides, who wants to see that warning go across the screen every 10 minutes or so?

[mousepod]

I'm with GC. The only time I resort to screeners is in the short time leading up to the Oscars. If a nominated film is no longer in the theaters and isn't yet out on DVD, I'll go for the screener. I watched about 3 minutes of the Pan's Labyrinth screener a month or so ago (an exception to my rule - I was too excited to see it) and bailed once I saw the annoying watermark. I'm glad I saw it on the big screen.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Pining for the fjords?!

[Gn2Dlnd]

'E's not pining, 'e's passed ON!

Why are we doing this?

[innerSpaceman]

Frankly, if my friends liked going to the movies together more, I would see more movies. But weeknights are out of the question, and weekends are blessedly filled with friends. And I wouldn't trade my friends for anything, even if they're not the movie-going types - for the most part.

Screeners is IT if I want to see these films. I'm not giving up any of my limited socializing time to sit in a darkened theater alone (though I did rush to see Children of Men last week at a movie house, because I couldn't wait ... and it didn't disappoint).

I realize I'm not giving these films the glorious exhibition opportunity they deserve, but you could say the same for most of my Netflix queue throughout the year.

[innerSpaceman]

Blood Diamond is apparently not being given the glorious exhibition opportunity by a whole lot of people (i.e., it's a box office disappointment), but I don't know why.

It's a terrific actioner ... suspenseful and exciting, with a good conscience against a horrific setting of true tragedy. This is Leonardo DiCaprio's best role since ... um, ever. Jennifer Connelly's still got it. And the Pink (big hunk o'diamond) is the best movie McGuffin in quite a while (with a terrific homage as its ultimate fate).

[RStar]

Blood Diamond was better than I thought it would be. Perhaps it's the expectations that killed it in the box office. However, I am not comfortable with these movies that show these poor people suffering. I want to go to the movies to have a good time, not watch people suffer. I don't like slasher movies either.

Stranger than Fiction was another winner. I did enjoy that one.

I saw "Pan's Labrynith" tonight. I felt it was a good story, well done with special effects, and well acted. I didn't go into the theater knowing it was in Spanish with subtitles, but I delt with it. It was an on-the-edge-of-your-seat action movie, but also was pretty violent with a bit of gore. It takes place during a war (1940s Spain) and they had to make sure everyone was dead by killing them 2 or 3 times. It's R rated, and though a fantasy, it's not for the kids.

[€uroMeinke]

We saw Perfume last night. Having read and enjoyed the book some 20 years ago, I was curious to see how faithful it would be rendered in film. A book about scent is one thing, but in the visual medium of film? Honestly, I enjoyed the film a lot, but at least at the outset it relied heavily (perhaps too much so) on voice over to tell you what was going on. That said I think Ben Whishaw did a remarkable job playing the amoral genius Grenouille and his quest for the ultimate scent.

[innerSpaceman]

I know I'll be in the minority for this one, but I found Dreamgirls to be just about the most boring musical I've ever seen. Standard rags to stardom story ... and not a memorable song to be found. Which, seeing as it's the thinly-disguised story of a real singing group that had about 30 hit, memorable songs, I find unforgiveably ironic.

[Gemini Cricket]

I liked "Dreamgirls". I couldn't take my eyes off of Jennifer Hudson. She was fun to watch.

As far as memorable songs go, if you don't remember "And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going" then you have ice water in your brains.
:D

No, it wasn't perfect and it dragged in places but I liked it.

Beyonce's gorgeous. Eddie Murphy was funny. The music was great. The sound was good. The first ten minutes really grabs hold of you...

[innerSpaceman]

Was that song written for the film, or was it also in the original show?



(I didn't much like the show either, but I'm curious if I heard that song way back when.)

[Gemini Cricket]

It's on the original 1982 Broadway Cast Recording.
I haven't seen the stage production, but I'd love to now.
:)

[innerSpaceman]

Hollywoodland was meh. The flashback mystery involving George Reeves' death was fascinating, but the foreground detective story about Adrien Brody was lackluster.

But having just watched the Superman Returns bonus features, I found the stuff about the Reeves murder/suicide mystery to be fascinating. At one point in those extras, director Bryan Singer asks actor Brandon Routh if he's worried by the so-called "Superman Curse." Routh says that, even if disaster should befall him, he will at least have gotten to be Superman on film.

I'll be following Brandon's life with interest. If tragedy strikes, I will be a true believer in the Superman Curse, and will conclude that George Reeves was murdered. The movie Hollywoodland ultimately leaves the question open, but it was fun to learn the details of the mystery.

In other words, a good film for Superman fans; all others should avoid.





.

[Gemini Cricket]

I wonder if that kid from "Smallville" will be part of the curse as well.

I was looking forward to "Hollywoodland" until the reviews slammed it. I may Netflix it someday when I reactivate my account...

[innerSpaceman]

I found Bobby to be a mildly insulting mess. If they wanted to do a story about a day-in-the-life of a hotel, I don't know why they had to choose The Ambassador on the day of Bobby Kennedy's assassination. Aside from montages at the beginning and end of the film, nothing in the movie had anything to do with the senator or his killing.

It's true that among the characters were two senior campaign workers, who never mentioned anything about the themes of the Kennedy campaign ... and a couple getting married for the purpose of the groom avoiding military service in Vietnam. Oh, and there were two junior campaign volunteers who spent the day in a hotel room on their first acid trip. But none of the other dozen or so characters had even these tenuous ties to "Bobby."

I guess it's alright to do a take on Grand Hotel (which was hammer-handedly referenced by having Anthony Hopkins' character talk about the movie "Grand Hotel" at the start of the film) ... but why on earth pick the occassion of the 2nd Kennedy assassination as the setting for a hotel movie that had absolutely nothing to do with Bobby Kennedy?

The tragic ending for the Vietnam-avoidance couple on their wedding day might have illuminated a cornerstone of Kennedy's policy proposals, but that's where the connection started and ended. Nothing else in the film, involving a plethora of guests and employees in soap-opera stories, had anything remotely to do with the titular personage. And the montages about Bobby Kennedy and the hope of a nation that bookended the film were disconnected from anything actually IN the film.



Bah for "Bahby."

[mousepod]

Having been so moved by Pan's Labyrinth, I finally watched The Spirit of the Beehive tonight. While there are elements that clearly influenced del Toro, this film is an entirely different, but no less haunting, monster. Slow and languorous, but beautiful and dreamy, The Spirit of the Beehive tells the story of a little girl in post-war Spain.

If anyone here has seen this movie, I'd love to talk about it. I'm not going to bother with spoilers - I went into it blind, so I'll just give it an enigmatic "thumbs-up", though I should warn iSm that it's in Spanish with subtitles. Also, it's an early-1970s "arthouse" flick, so don't expect a wham-bam narrative line that is de rigueur nowadays.