Good find!
Funny stuff.
:)

Ah, Auntie Mame. My most beloved and favorite movie ever! Now I'm all melty just thinking about it.

The book it's based on is called "The Frog Prince" which makes a whole lot more sense. The title made no sense to me either after watching the movie. I did like it.

Hercules is still one of my favorites. And Mulan.

Wow, HATE Hercules. Will never re-watch it. Princess and the Frog was utterly forgettable, and have already forgotten it exists so I can't rewatch it.

Love Tarzan. One of the best ever. Pocahontas is great, with a few noticeable flaws. Hunchback is deeply flawed with a few elements of greatness. And I keep meaning to rewatch Emperor's New Groove because I just didn't get it, but am fairly convinced I missed something special.

I'd put Princess and the Frog down around Tarzan in terms of utter forgetfulness (and both have the trait of all the music in the movie sounding the same). Have never seen Hunchback, Hercules, or Pocahontas.

We watched Grey Gardens with Jessica Tandy and Drew Barrymore last night. I have the urge to talk like Little Edie... "So I think this is the best report for today."

Based on your current avatar, I had a feeling you'd seen Grey Gardens recently. ;)

I loved the characterization of Tiana and Ray specifically, though Tiana did get a bit repetitive after a while. Lotti was surprisingly likable even as she teetered near villain status. Voice, visual, fit with the era, etc, all pretty cool.

Everything else wasn't all that fantastic, but enjoyable. Visually, very nice, though quite a bit felt too derivative to me. I guess at this point they can't do much without it feeling like an echo of something else. I did love the feel of the era and the stylized parts were awesome. The shadow stuff was fun, scary without being too scary for kids.

SPOILERS AHEAD, it's an old movie and I'm too lazy for tags.

Some parts were downright muddy, swamp or not. Why does the prince not propose? Because she cares about her restaurant? Didn't he already say he wanted to make her dream come true? I didn't get that scene at all.

I have no idea what Tiana or anyone else would see in the prince. There wasn't nearly enough actual wooing. Half a dance, one sideways look, that's it? The mincing scene made him look pitiable, not lovable. Of course he was gorgeous in human form...

Why didn't Lotti just get her dad to bankroll Tiana's restaurant venture in the first place? She wouldn't even have to tell him what the cash was for. Hell, she could have at least given Tiana a better job. Huge plot hole. The more I think about it, it's almost as if the movie is pandering to all the spoiled rich kids that feed the studio cash by making a brat into a lovable good guy for very little reason. Again, I dug her character design and the voice was fantastic, but this is an especially tough sell, especially in light of my last gripe...

They completely ignored the original Brothers Grimm story. I would have been satisfied if the storybook within the movie were the actual story, but it wasn't, at all. In The Frog Prince she doesn't even have to kiss the frog, and while no one remembers that (including me, to be honest), there's the actual STORY to it, having to do with a spoiled brat learning to honor her promises.

Anyway, the more I pick at it the more I dislike it, though there really was some good stuff in there, like the voodoo swamp queen and Evangeline and the songs were fine if not very memorable (except for Almost There, I did think that was genuinely great).

Because he learned that she needed the money by the next day. He had earlier said he'd marry her and work with her to save money, but since she needed the money immediately his only choice was to marry Lotti (thus getting instant access to money) and give it to Tiana.

I thought Iron Man 2 suffered a bit from what made Spider-Man 3 such an awful movie in that it tried to do way too much and was constantly distracting itself. Each of the three story lines were good on their own but when forced to compete for attention were given short shrift.

It delivers entertainment but for me did not rise above the middle of the pack for comic book movies. Though when I got home AMC was showing Superman Returns so I was immediately reminded that it could have been much worse (if they'd been showing Transformers I'd have been reminded of who truly abysmal it could get).

As for the post-credits nugget I'm guessing that only 20% of the people there had even the faintest idea of what they were seeing (it's a set up for the Avengers movie), I know I had to explain it to Lani.

Enjoyed Iron Man 2 alot - entertaining but I agree somewhat with Alex. Its nowhere near as bad as Spider-Man 3 but I think they spent a bit too much setting up future storylines. SPM3 just tried to cram to much in with the storyline contained in that individual film.

"Mother Darling."

Did they really dig up the corpse of Jessica Tandy for that movie? Uh, gross! Those bastard producers...
;) lol :D

Jessica Lange, love.

I loved Grey Gardens the movie and the doco. Little Edie rules.

Avengers? I thought it was for Thor.


Both the Moonielings missed the other reference: They had no idea what the "thing" they used to level out the minicollider was.

How the hell did that wind up in his shop anyway?

And as for the Shield Ninja Girl, is she her own comic/movie? Should I have heard of her or is she new to this telling?

I didn't know they had a Thor movie coming so I didn't get it completely (though I knew what it was I was seeing), but I just assume all of these movies are just to set up Avengers one way or another.

I didn't get the Captain America reference at all, but then I'm not a reader of any comic books.

Thor - 2011

Director: Kenneth Branagh - Interesting.
Natalie Portman
Anthony Hopkins
Rene Russo


Ok, I'm intrigued by this one.

I never got into comics much either, I think we had a discussion here some time back about how they were making individual films for each of the Avengers before making the Avengers movie.

I like Kenneth Branagh as an actor but the films he directed are hot and cold to me. Loved Henry V, Dead Again and Hamlet... but the rest... not so much...

Oops... I typed the wrong Jessica!

I was just kidding, too. It made me laugh because I started envisioning a 'Weekend at Bernies' meets 'Driving Miss Daisy' meets 'Grey Gardens' movie.
:D

JW, did you see the original doco? It's rather good. I bought it long ago when my Barnes & Noble location had all Criterion DVDs on sale.

We watched last year sometime.

Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is a phenomenal movie. Man it's good to see Gilliam return to form. He's still on about the same stuff; good and evil, the power of the narrative, the contentious line between entertainment and enlightenment, and the loss of childhood innocence (the last theme magnified here owing no doubt to the fact that this was a daddy-daughter production).

Like all Gilliam films, it once again suffers from a lack of cohesion in production value. I still adore his sense of style, but without fail he seems to over estimate his abilities to fully integrate the full variety of visual effects he tries to use. It's not that any one particular element is bad, but there are just a few points here and there that feel out of place and less polished/skillfully executed, setting them apart from an otherwise visually stunning experience.

Fortunately, like Time Bandits and Brazil and Munchausen, as long as you're on board the overall visual package and the strength of the narrative, those fleeting moments of chintz are easy to forgive.

And, to fulfill the unwritten contractual obligation entered into by anyone giving their opinion of this movie, I must of course make mention of one particular member of the cast....Verne Troyer is a horrible actor.

But it's a small role.

There are no small roles, only small actors.

Funny quip, but if only it were a small role! I felt so bad for Christopher Plummer.

It was so fun going on a Gilliam adventure again.

Having found our lost Netflix DVDs, we returned them and got 2 new ones! (What a concept!) We actually watched these 2 - An Education and A Serious Man.

Neither one blew my socks off, but I really enjoyed An Education. I LOVED the main character - she was a fantastic balance of smart, yet naive teen. Well played!

A Serious Man, while I didn't hate it, I is probably my least favorite Cohen Bros film yet. I had more appreciation for it after watching the extras, including and interview with the Brothers Cohen. I found myself getting repeatedly disgusted at the lead character for his passivity.


I wonder how long this round of movie watching will go? When our new BluRay player arrives, will it change? What happens when we get the monitor cord to hook up the mac to the new office TV? Will I never leave the house? It's a frightening thought.

I assume the protagonist of A Serious Man is passive as a result of this being a take on the book of Job, a fact that I'm glad I know going in, as that movie just arrived in my mailbox.

Oh, I REALLY liked the main character in An Education.

I may have been expecting too much of The Hurt Locker, but it only seemed pretty good to me. And shaky. I had to watch on the small screen.

"Letters to Juliet" was fun if predictable. It was basically "French Kiss," with the twist that the presumptive romantic was the neglectful fiancee while the presumptive stiff was the European savior.

Job needs to grow some balls. ;)

Gemini Cricket, I'm so sorry that your husband's new movie is getting the worst reviews of, well, of the weekend that also saw Sex and the City 2 released. Wow, two awful films about the middle east. Hmmm.


I would normally see for myself before exclaiming how terrible a film is, but have you seen the reviews for these two movies? I'm gonna save myself the trouble, though I'll likely Netflix both at some point (they should be on DVD in a month or so, right?)

My review of Prince of Persia: Ugh.

Hahaha, great final line in that review, Alex. I'm pretty sure I enjoyed that quip more than I would the actual film that inspired it.

We just got back from Prince of Persia. Thoroughly enjoyable romp! Although, I may need to go see it again. I think I missed significant portions of dialogue. Mr Gyllenhaal was rather... um... distracting...

The Drawn Together Movie is even better than I'd hoped it would be. The opening had me skeptical but they delivered.

Because of my weekend plans fell apart it ended up being a weekend of movies:

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs - The first half was actually a fair amount of fun but then it devolved into boring excess and I didn't care by the time it was over.

Hai kikku gâru! - Aka High Kick Girl!. It is a thing that confuses me that the Japanese so generally suck at martial arts movies. Who'd think it would be hard for them to compete with Thailand. And this one is bad, not only because it lacks in much in the way of good choreography (and no story) but because almost every single sequence is repeated in slow motion. The movie was listed at about 75 minutes. Take out the slowmo repeats and it was probably only 17.

À bout de souffle (aka Breathless) - 50th anniversary. I watch it because it is one of those films you're supposed to acknowledge is brilliant to show off how smart you are. I don't really see it, but I like to think I'm smart so I'll pretend it is brilliant.

Shrek Forever After - Surprisingly dark movie with horrible messages. It goes all It's a Wonderful Life and shows what would have happened if Shrek had never rescued Fiona. One big flaw in that plan: the alternative seems better for both of them.

Desk Set - Love computer movies from that brief window when computers existed but the word "computer" hadn't yet quite moved from being a reference to people to being a reference to machines (in common parlance). Katharine Hepburn is the hyper efficient librarian and Spencer Tracy is inventing AI that would still stress Google's plain language search algorithms. Fluffy fluff but actually unintentionally raised some real questions about the future of librarianship that are still settling out.

Trouble Along the Way - John Wayne in a role that involves neither horses nor military uniforms. He never shoots anybody and I'm pretty sure he didn't even punch anybody. Plus he has to engage in witty fast paced dialog with Donna Reed and handled it pretty well. It is good to know that the eternal debate about why it is wrong to pay college football players was already going in 1953. Also, little Sherry Jackson (11 and tomboyish in this movie grew up to be hot in a Star Wars extra sort of way.

The Stranger - Orson Welles really was a genius. A wasted genius for the most part, but genius nonetheless.

Paper Heart - I shouldn't have liked this fake documentary but I did. It didn't really have a good way to end but everything up to that was pleasant.

Which Way Is Up? - Twice in this movie Richard Pryor is about to rape somebody. That's just the first sign of how unfunny the movie is.

Serpico - Serpico comes off as a little too angelic, but maybe that's how the real Serpico really was.

Klute - Yawn! I love Donald Sutherland, but that was painfully boring.

To think that my 11-year-old self could only have dreamed of one day having the opportunity of watching The Karate Kid (starring a black Ralph Macchio and Chinese Pat Morita doing kung fu) and The A-Team as a double feature in the movie theater.

Suprisingly (to me anyway) The Kung Fu Kid (as it is titled in Japan and China) has a fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes and The A-Team is above 50%. I think I know what my belated birthday present to my 11-year-old self will be.

It really is insulting that they called it The Karate Kid in America. We are not that stupid. Karate is from Japan.

We just watched City Beneath the Sea (Bill had never seen it). Gotta love cheesy nostalgia.

Just got back. It is an entirely satisfactory remake. I didn't think it could work but it does.

In the movie it very clearly makes the point that kung fu is not karate. I can kind of see the choices they had to make in that while kung fu is the martial art involved, it is very much a remake and not a sequel or a spin off or inspired by the original and using the same title makes that point. But yeah, I'd have preferred a different title. But fortunately, the title is pretty much the only insulting thing about the movie.

Really enjoyed The A-Team and judging by the laughter throughout and applause at the end we weren't the only ones.

It was more and a great tribute to the original series.

Just started watching the series Mad Men on DVD. I love this show! It's got the swank and nostalgia with all the reality thrown in there too to show the not quite so pretty things that also went on (that we seem to forget sometimes when we look back.)

Brian of Mark and Brian (on the radio) has mentioned this series over and over. Now I'm totally hooked!

Could they possibly smoke more? LOL - even in dish gloves with one hand doing the dishes for goodness sake!

Quel sacrilège, Alexandre. Next you'll be saying you don't worship the genius that is Jerry Lewis.

I quite enjoy some of Jerry Lewis's movies.

As for Breathless, I'm not saying it was a bad movie, it isn't. I just don't quite get what was so brilliant about it but that may just be because I've not got the proper sense of the world into which it was released. Also, as one reflection I read recently said "it doesn't hurt that it has to two of the sexiest people ever on screen" and for neither one do I find that to be the case.

Did you happen to catch the NY Times piece about this very thing a few weeks ago?.

Yes, and I can accept that it was original, just not that this means it was brilliant. Being first is noteworthy but it isn't necessarily best.

Essentially, I guess I disagree with:

It was a fine movie, completely watchable and entertaining. I've found the discussion of its cultural significance quite compelling and I don't disagree with any of that. I just didn't find it, when taken completely on its own as a movie, an exceptional thing.

It may have been original, but for me it no longer feels original.

Maybe I'm late to the party, but there's a documentary about Winnebago Man.
Language makes this NSFW.

The A-Team is seriously flawed but in the end I was mostly won over. It had the right tone and just went to the ridiculous with no sense of shame. Decent actors helped.

Well, they do specialize in the ridiculous.

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards buying it. The DVD will probably be cheaper than going to see it in the theater again too.

Has anyone seen anything of Chomet's L'Illusionniste? Here's a youtube video for a Russian trailer.


Roger Ebert wrote about it here. In response, Jacques Tati's Grandson sent Ebert this letter and the producers responded here.

Here's another youtube video with an interview with Chomet and some gorgeous animation.

It looks LOVELY and I want to see it.

I could have posted this in youtubery. It's NSFW, but just because of language (but you can't watch it with the sound off). I had my headphones plugged into my computer as I watched this, trying to pretend to work. I laughed out loud and blew my cover. Good luck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6He6oxKMdV8

Bill Goodykoontz on the movie Grown Ups:
lol!
:D

Let the Velveeta Festival Commence!
 

In honor of its 30th anniversary, a quiz about Airplane!

I got a somewhat shameful 6/11 :(

All I get is "No quiz or category ID passed" :(

d'oh...one second.

ETA: ok, link fixed

Try this linkage for the Airplane quiz

8 out of 11

10 out of 11! :D

Shenanigans!
9 out of 11
I missed #2 because they didn' get a name right. It's Macho Grande, not Rio Grande. I figured I'd miss #5.

Macho Grande isn't the right answer anyway.

I got five out of 11 and I've never seen the movie in its entirety.

I know, but since Rio Grande isn't the right answer either, I chose it and got the question wrong.

Whaaaaaa? So you're calling shenanigans because you chose the answer that you knew was wrong, and therefor got the question wrong?

9 of 11.

missed: macho/rio (wft ever), jive translation

I think SM was confused - most of the questions were "which of these is incorrect", but that one wasn't one of those questions.

I saw two answers that I was certain did contribute to his drinking problem, so those were dismissed.

Of the remaining two options, one I was not certain of and the other—the "Rio" Grande answer—looked wrong because of the incorrect name. Some quiz authors will craft similar sounding answers in an effort to trick the test-taker. This was only the second question, so I had no way of knowing how tough the composers were going to make this quiz. Since I was iffy about the other, I chose the Rio Grande response because I knew at least part of that answer was wrong.

Had they correctly identified it as Macho Grande, I would have known that was indeed a factor which contributed to his drinking problem and the other response—the one I was not sure about—would have been left as the only possibility and I would have gotten that question right.

Ergo, the misidentifying of the location name directly contributed to my getting that question wrong, hence my call of "shenanigans".

I'm not mad, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this, and my shenanigans comment was meant to be taken lightly. Next time I'll try to communicate that more clearly.

I knew you weren't mad and weren't serious about the shenanigans, I just couldn't figure out why you purposely chose an answer you knew to be wrong. Now I see that you read the question wrong. It wasn't a "which one didn't contribute to his drinking problem?" It was, "Which one did he say 'as much as anything else' contributed to his drinking problem?"

8 out of 10.

Yeah, you're still confused. You're supposed to pick the correct answer. Plus, you're supposed to pick what he specifically said "as much as anything else" contributed to his drinking problem.

I dug up the script.

So that was the correct answer, Elaine's doubts.

<heavy sigh>
must learn how to read....

I have a light pamphlet you can start with...

Excuse me, Ghoulish Delight, I speak SzczerbiakManiacese.

You're telling me there was never a thread on Alice?? MMM thread, we have a love/hate relationship for sure. :p I'll go back and read your posts in a minute.

SPOILERS, of course, it's an old film already, and I'm not using tags.



I loved the whole beginning and a good third of the Wonderland part, but then it lost me. The affronts piled up and the comparisons to Harry Potter and LoTR piled up and the seriousness piled up and the fun leaked out the bottom.

Quick rants:

Mad Hatter as love interest, Scottish warrior? No thanks.

Story entirely too straightforward and fate-laden. I know Carroll included fated requirements of Alice but nothing as huge as this. I think they were going for the storybook fate concept, as in Humpty Dumpty having to fall off the wall, etc, but it just didn't read that way. The desperation of the characters was depressing and the demands of Alice didn't feel like destiny. I got extra mad when the White Queen said it was "her choice", riiight.

Hard to understand even harder to remember names made up for the characters, as well as similarly lame place names - wtf?

Recharacterization of White Queen and especially the Dormouse as Reepicheep, wtf?

Effects made me feel like I could see the green screen, though that may be the actress' fault.

I swear, I was totally on board for the longest time but it totally lost me.

Ok, yeah, enough.

I'm torn.

On the one hand, there were major flaws. The fact that it was a linear narrative was a major negative, and on top of that the narrative itself was not good. Heavy handed, self important, and generally uninteresting.

That said, I thought there were genuinely good things about this movie, things that made me like it more than any Burton movie in a long long time. While the specific tale that was told I could do without, I liked a lot of the underlying structure it happened in. I was surprised at how on board I was with delving into the Hatter's madness, and with the geo-political bent on Wonderland. There were moments in there, like when the Hatter saw the nose fall off and noticed everyone else's fakery, that were really really good. Unfortunately, it all got taken too far, too ham-fisted, too grandiose.

Where this movie succeeded, it succeeded because it was ambitious. Unlike most of Burton's recent crap, he seemed to be TRYING to add something new. Hatter as leader of underground rebellion was far more of a creative leap than anything in Charlie and the Chocolate factory. The result was flawed, and the bulk of the plot was largely not ambitious. But anything truly ambitious is bound to be flawed as the idea is to reach beyond what is obvious.

That's not to say I thought it was a good movie. It's flaws were many, and unforgivable. I had forgotten about the talk of the dance at the end. Holy crap, atrocious. Just to name the worst.

So sadly, even Burton's best effort in over a decade...is still a pretty big disappointment, with some vague glimmers of good.

Netflix is bringing me two movies I've never seen. Easy Rider and The Blue Max.

We just saw Despicable Me. Cute.

Seeing it in a theater with 20 million screaming kids? Not so cute.

By the same token, pity all the little kids who try to enjoy a pleasant Halloween in the Castro and wind up rolling their eyes endlessly at all the public displays of adult sexuality.

That was a curious transition....

Saw Cyrus yesterday. I put it in the category of "great acting in support of a movie that has no particular reason to exist."

In a way it reminds me of the play Tony and Tina's Wedding. I feel that play perfectly captures the experience of attending the wedding of people you barely know and being assigned seating with people you don't know at all and who aren't interesting in meeting you.

So it accomplished that beautifully. I just can't understand why anybody would want to accomplish that.

Same with Cyrus. It is a well performed situation drama that stays squarely within the scope of reality and avoids any excess at all. And at the end I was stuck with a feeling of "yeah...I don't care."

I had no idea there was a movie adaptation of "Tony & Tina's Wedding". Interesting. Manoa Valley Theatre is doing that one for their end of the season show. Hmmm....

Sorry, didn't mean there was a movie version of the play. I was just using the play as an example of something that realistically puts you in the middle of something that you can't understand wanting to be in the middle of.

My bad. I didn't read your post right. I did some research and found it on imdb. Apparently, it's really awful.

Has anybody done any Salt and Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory mashups? Because I really have spend most of the marketing onslaught thinking to myself it would be good if the answer to "Who is Salt?" is "Veruca Salt, all growed up."

She even looks just like Angelina Jolie:

(pic related, it's Anjelina Jolie dressed up in a "Growed Up Veruca Salt" outfit)

"Bride Wars" with Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson is a lot funnier than you'd think.

Saw two quality movies this weekend.

Inception - It starts slow and I'll be able to understand why some people really won't like it, but it worked for me. Perhaps the most successful filming of a Philip K. Dick novel to date except that it isn't based on a Philip K. Dick novel. It hangs together rather well with complex levels and doesn't feel the need to explain every little detail (though it does need to set things up with is why it started slow). Good performances but not particularly deep characters.

Winter Bones - The other end of the Hollywood magic spectrum. A small movie with great performances. A mob movie in the Ozarks. I strongly recommend you go out and see this one because it is one of those small distribution movies you'll otherwise forget to ever watch otherwise.

Loved Inception. It did start a bit slow, but, yes, it did set the groundwork.

Oooo, down the road it will be nice to discuss this movie. No spoilers now, though.

Of course, the porn version will be "Conception"

ha ha

Loved Inception. Really capped a Bonita Effect weekend with some wonderful concepts and inspired great conversation afterwards, and contemplation that continues through today.

Yes! Long after the movie ended I would pop down to my sons room 'And what do you think about this....'

Great movie.

I finally saw Avatar. Nu uh. Not the same movie. I can't watch a lot of the scenes in Alien.

I'm trying to figure out this line from an early review of The Expendables:

The only way I can figure to read that is as saying that Arnie now looks like a walnut filled with condoms, which I think would just look like a walnut. In other words, rhetorical nonsense. Is there another way of interpreting that line I'm missing?

Ummmm....now Arnie thinks Clive James looks like a condom filled with walnuts?

Having now seen the movie, I know why the kids were screaming.

Not a movie, but we were feeling like slugs last night and streamed the first 2 episodes of The Tudors. I'm liking it and wish I had more time to be a slug!

Just watched the trailer for Sucker Punch.

If the movie is just 2 hours of Burlesque Ninja Commandos vs Dragons, Cyborgs Nazis and Samurai with gatling guns, it will probably still be the funnest thing I have seen in a while.

Sucker Punch

Those who've seen Inception might find this interesting (it's about the music and score).

Yeah, that was cool. LSPE tweeted it yesterday.

I saw Inception again over the weekend, only to discover I didn't really miss anything the first time - even though I thought I had. I still like it a whole lot, though I never really connect with the characters on an emotional level (I think it's going to be a cold day in hell when Leo DiCaprio sells me on a performance).

That connection is not a necessary thing for me to like the film, though it's a component of most other films I like. This one's just so wonderful in so many ways. Oh, and even after seeing it a second time, and though many people beg to differ ...




[MODERATOR NOTE]: You may rejoin this discussion, already in progress, in The "Inception" Thread

All of this talk about Inception has prompted me to pull out a Videodrome and Existenz. Anyone wanna watch em with me (sometime before Sunday night)?

Hahah, um, what's Existenz?

I wanna watch Videodrome!

Existenz trailer (a little spoilery)

Why it's a male enhancement pill invented by Nietzsche of course.

Ok, I stopped the Existenz trailer half-way thru, once i determined that I REALLY WANNA SEE IT.





when?

Have to check with Mrs. Mousepod, but I'm thinking Friday evening (not too late).

Videodrome and Existenz make a great thematic double feature, and by now, I can't help thinking in this age of Tweeting and Facebooking that Cronenberg could make a trilogy of it. (Just the name Facebook seems to invite a gory Cronenbergian visual pun.)

It's on. Existenz. Friday evening. 7-ish. We'll have popcorn and soda. Please RSVP - seating is limited.

Can I rsvp tomorrow? I wants to be there, but I have to move some things around.

Of course. I just want to get an idea of how many (or few) people to expect.

Um, I don't want you to go to any bother if it's just going to be me. I can always Netflix it.

no bother. We're gonna watch 'em no matter what. not expecting a big crowd, but it'll be fun. (did you listen to that song yet?)

No, I can't listen at work. I'd be SO busted. When I get home.


If I'm coming lone guy tomorrow night, what should I bring?

Gold. When the apocalypse comes, it's the only currency that'll still be good.

The score for Tron Legacy, by Daft Punk, has been leaked

LOVE what I'm hearing. No idea if that reflects on the quality of the film at all, but at the very least I'm interested in the soundtrack.

I'm kind of getting excited. But I also really don't care for the CGI youthification of Jeff Bridges. It'll probably work since it is a complete fantasy world and so looking artificial isn't necessarily a problem.

But I still think it looks awful.

Now I want to see it just for the soundtrack.

I finally watched Seven Pounds last night! After searching here, I see that Alex and I were the only ones who enjoyed it. I concur with your assessment that it was derangement taken to the logical excess. Thank you Alex for always helping me translate what my brain is thinking. That must be why I always love your movie critiques!

I thought it was funny,touching, sad,intriguing and a well put together emotional roller coaster ride.

I already erased it from my que because i don't think Gary would like it or that the kid would understand it but I thoroughly enjoyed the ride.

Hey mousepod, is seating still limited? :p

I wanna know when Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is screening at Casa Chihuahua. :P

Oh crapus! I just read this, we would have loved to come!
errr:mad:

The planned eXistenZ/Videodrome double feature instead became an eXistenZ/Polanski's 'The Tenant' double feature. It was a splendid evening, enhanced by the Voodoo Donuts Heather brought back from her day trip to Portland.

There'll be another movie night very soon.

(Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was just announced for a blu ray release. Should we wait?)

Yes, absolutely. It will seem more like some minor-key event.



I was really sleepy during The Tenant, but - as promised - it was really fuctup.

My most recent copy of this is the widescreen laserdisc. I see that a recent special edition DVD also has a widescreen option (this movie was pan n' scan only on DVD for a long time), but mostly uninspired extras. Will the Blu-ray have anything new content-wise?

I'm kind of a sucker for these overlong expensive roadshow musicals. CCBB is leisurely, to say the least, but it's beautiful to look at, and there's a decent chance I'll snag the Blu-ray myself. Heck, I'd pick up remastered Blu-rays of Dr. Doolittle, Paint Your Wagon, Song of Norway and Lost Horizon if they showed up. It would be a marathon of pity, but I'd enjoy it.

My last copy of CCBB is also the laserdisc. I might pick up the blu-ray, but watch it only once! If mousepod has a viewing, I think I'll content myself with that.

LOVE THIS MOVIE. I really dig the songs and the camp and everything about it. But, ya know, it's not a very good film. And I have the urge to watch it only once every five years, and feel the need to fulfill the urge only once every ten.

Then I think we should have a screening of The Great Race in the meantime. I'll bring pie.

We watched Observe and Report.

Meh. Seth Rogen gave a good performance, but the movie failed to sell me. There was a total disconnect between its earnestness and its absurdity. And the overall tone and delivery came off way too flat for the ridiculousness of the content. It needed to either give in to the absurd, or dwell in the dark humor, can't decide which I'd have preferred, but I do know that the middle ground it occupied did not work for me.

Oooo!!!!! Love that movie!

Push the button, Max! Maaaaaaaax!

Enjoyed The Kids are All Right quite a bit.

We wanted to see that last week, but it's already out of the theaters here. :(

Watched HEAT for the first time. Was really nice remembering how good De Niro can be, and how on his game Michael Mann can be.

Salt was predictably lame. Fortunately we used gift passes to see it so I don't feel too bad about it. Action was ok, but Salt doesn't really seem to care about her husband, so her motivations are a mystery. Also, ending went too far into improbability for me.

Would you be willing to expand more on Salt not caring about her husband?

Last night I watched THE LADY EVE. I now want to see every movie that stars Barbara Stanwyck, but I can't rate the film that highly. The dialogue is clever and charming for the most part, but the premise doesn't really hold up and I found it hard to care for Henry Fonda's character or their romance.

Barbara Stanwyck was the only thing I didn't like about The Lady Eve. Hers is a successful career I've never understood.

I don't think I have seen that one yet and here I thought I had see every movie older than I am made in America . . .

Interesting. I thought her performance was unusually contemporary and understated. I always like Fonda; I just didn't care for his character.

Double freakin' Indemnity!

I second Double Freakin Indemnity and add Baby Face!

I'm a big Preston Sturges fan and really liked The Lady Eve. He always wrote such good banter.

I love Double Indemnity very much, but still am of the opinion that it would have been even better with someone other than Barbara Stanwyck.

It is the best performance form her that I've seen but it still isn't all that great (in my opinion, of course, obviously a lot of people disagree with me).

When I think of Barbra Stanwyck, I think of someone with an immobile face and body speaking through slightly clenched teeth with minimal inflection. She's not my favorite.

References to Inception are seeping out everywhere, so I guess it's the thing to see. Looks like we're going to skip a fancy anniversary dinner to play pop culture catch up.

Blame it on my Jason Batemon love, but I want to see THE SWITCH.

That certainly doesn't call to mind the Stanwyck I'm familiar with.

I can't think of a more striking and succinct demonstration of the gratuitousness and lack of subtlety that makes the Star Wars prequels so inferior to the original trilogy than this.

GAH! I had to stop watching. It was becoming strobe-like!

In limited release, just got tickets for The Wildest Dream for Monday after work. :D

Not everyone's movie of choice, I've long been fascinated by this tale and loved the bio of Mallory of the same name.

Besides, I'm so terribly shallow, Alan Rickman is one of the voice-overs. Therefore, it is a must see (hear) for me.

That looks very interesting.

And let us praise the restraint exercised in not giving the Ewoks light sabers, lest they become unsubtle.

Saw THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT last night and was very happy to find myself watching a brief period of time in a family's life, a family that just happened to be unconventional. After seeing it, I think the film's title was clearly written to say, "This is a family portrait. This is not going to be a movie about kids struggling with their lesbian parents in a world that doesn't want lesbians raising children." And it's a very good family portrait, at that. It's not overly dramatic, doesn't sentimentalize, and doesn't fixate too much on circumstances that would be handled with the subtlety of an after-school special by other filmmakers.

Characters were incredibly well defined and I was hugely impressed with both Mia Wasikowska (who was stellar in the unstellar IN TREATMENT series, and who was kind of terrible in ALICE IN WONDERLAND) and Mark Ruffalo (some of his best and funniest work, I think).



Bening and Moore were great, and each have two scenes in which they really standout. But expecting to be mostly impressed by their performances, I was surprised to be blown away by the other two.

I watched Monsters vs. Aliens last night on a whim, and was glad I did. Pleasantly surprised by how funny and delightful it was.


Toy Story 3 was amazing, and I loved it. But I've been consistently surprised and pleased with this year's offerings by the "lesser" animation studios - with How to Train Your Dragon, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, and now Monsters vs. Aliens.

It's true I haven't seen all that many live-actioners this year, but it's seeming to me that the animateds are more consistently good.



Oh, and I loathed once-tops Disney's entry into the market. The Princess and the Frog was horrible (imo).

BTW, the sound of Insectosaurus's roar in Monsters vs. Aliens is the best sound I've heard in movies in decades!

It needs to be pointed out that I gave Lani a choice of three movies and she is the one that picked The Expendables.

What were the other two options?

Cats & Dogs the Revenge of Kitty Galore and Step Up 3D.

Scott Pilgrim and The Other Guys. Choices were limited to the remotely acceptable (and unseen) options at the multiplex across the street.

If I'd felt like going farther afield The Girl who Played with Fire and Animal Kingdom would have been on the list.

I'd definitely choose Scott Pilgrim of those but I'd see the Expendables given the right mood.

I may see 'The Expendables', I think the Hubster would like it.

We saw 'The Other Guys'. The Hubster fell asleep. He said the most funny parts were shown in the previews. That's all I'll say. But, if anyone else has seen it, what I thought was of real value was after the end credits. They posted a lot of numbers/facts about big corporations, banks, incomes, what people have lost in the stock market. I didn't see that coming.

Anyone know about this? I tried to read it all.

On recommendation from NY Times critic A.O. Scott we watched Dead Man. Ostensibly a black and white western directed by Jim Jaramusch, starring Johnny Depp (in 1995, before he had a British accent!). But really it's an allegorical journey of death. It's simultaneously completely grounded, and totally other worldly, helped in no small part by Neil Young's score.

I forgot about Dead Man. Going immediately into my queue.

AO Scott hasn't steered us wrong yet. We follow his "Critics' Picks" podcasts and are usually in total agreement with his take on films.

Dead Man is a rad, if bizarre, movie.

What's great about it is that, other than perhaps the train scene, there's nothing that happens that you can point to as "weird" or "trippy", yet the whole thing feels like a psychedelic trip.

I watched The Ring for the first time this weekend. I thought it was pretty good. I prefer Ringu but the remake has some good moments.

Not going to read all 600+ posts, but I am watching mr Magorians Wonder Emporioum, and I think that Dustin Hoffman is channeling Ed Wynn.

On finishing the movie I discover yet again that I enjoy being shamelessly manipulated emotionally by movies.

I watched that on the flight to Tokyo a couple years back, and approached it in full Scrooge mode, thinking "I am not going to be sucked into this" and ended up crying like a baby. I scarcely remember it now, though.

I finally got around to watching The Last Station. I'm truly sorry I did not see this on the big screen. Cinematography was absolutely glorious. Both Helen Mirren and Christopher Plummer gave wonderful performances. :snap:

I enjoyed it as well. I saw it on the "big screen" in a multiplex in Los Feliz. The screen was around the size of my tv.

[green with envy]MP TV[/green with envy]

I wasn't bragging... I was complaining about the teeny screen in the theater. The movie itself was well worth the price of admission though.

Oh, sorry was not making myself clear. I got the complaint, but still envious that your TV is as big (or bigger) than the screen in a multiplex. :)

Still pretty large to me and I'd love to see this movie on a nice true widescreen (Cinerama Dome kind of screen)

Wait we are still talking about TV's right?

We just got Beauty and the Beast bluray. We watched the DVD just a couple of days ago. Wow what an incredible difference, the bluray rocks!

I was very happy to learn the blu-ray is framed in the Original El Cap Theatrical Release aspect ration of 1.77:1, unlike the previous DVD release (which was in the 1.85:1 shown at many other theaters). I will be buying this.

We watched the Russell Crowe Robin Hood tonight...

I have to thank the Jewish People for coming-up with the only phrase that can adequately describe my reaction.

"Oy vey."

(A distant second place would be "God! That stunk!")

If this is true, I'll be really optimistic about The Hobbit.

He'd be excellent. Oh dear, I'm going to be nerving out big time if this gets going soon. (I'd move to New Zealand if I thought I could get a walk- on.)

But Jackson is directing now so any interest is dead until people I trust see it and tell me otherwise.

OMG OMG OMG Saw 3D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Saw what?"

Saw 3D!

"I know it was in 3D, but what did you see?"

"Saw."

I know, you saw it. What was it?

"Saw 3D"

(repeat until exhausted)

I Saw 3D Charles Phoenix show last night.

You saw Last night? Last Night of Ballyhoo? You saw Last Night of Ballyhoo in Phoenix? In 3D?

My, what they won't think of. Live theater in 3D. I suppose you don't need glasses. That'd be an improvement.

Who's Charles?

Heard of Cows ?

He's the guy in charge.

Sure I've heard of cows, but what do you call that bunch of 'em, all standing over there in that field?

A sh!tload?

I ran across this today: Movie theaters that watch you.

In soviet America theaters watch you.

When will they adapt the technology to recognize someone using a cell phone and aim a precision microwave beam to disable it?

Cell phone jammers have existed for years - the problem is with the legality of theaters to use them. I think theaters in France used them a couple of years ago, but there was an outcry over 'emergency use'.

Can't they go back to the good ole system of ushers. Who actually tell people to shut up, take their feet off the backs of the chairs and not talk and or text? And then if no listened the person is escorted out? I've seen people ask, and I've asked the usher/manager for help before and been told there is nothing they can do.

Fine, I'll settle for those military focused heat rays that make a person feel like their skin is burning.

I watched the movie Untinkable last night, from my Nteflix que. At first it was a very intriguing movie, if a little brutal for my tastes. I actually started to enjoy the ride but then it all came crashing down. I actually hated all the characters by the end and the end just left you hanging there. Arghhh, that was a frustrating movie!!

During the Macy's Thanksgiving parade today I saw a preview for the Yogi Bear Movie.


Anyone want to take bets on how many Razzies this one walks off with? I'm guessing four nominations and two wins unless they have a category for worst use of 3D in which case I'll up it to three wins.

Oh my. They made a Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots movie. The world can now end complete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAhQA...layer_embedded

And it's Touchstone so I'll be required to see it.

oh, i never mentioned that i saw Tangled a while back, and thoroughly loved it.

The songs weren't exactly top drawer, but it was a completely enjoyable Disney fairytale - the first done in CGI, and it looked beautiful. Not only that - I had to see it in 3-D (the only showtime that worked for me), and I was surprised and delighted to find one sequence in particular that was beyond gorgeous and stunning in that overused gimmicky format.

A very worthy addition to the canon, imo. I wish they'd kept the original title. The Shrekishness implied by the name change simply wasn't there. (whew)

Ok, this version of the Yogi Bear movie intrigues me. I might be willing to see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6w0r...ayer_embedded#!

Is there an organized Tron2 outing? No?

We saw Tangled this past weekend. Much better than the last one.

I can't find any word about a US release at all, only a UK release in March, but there is a movie out in Japan based on Murakami's novel, Norwegian Wood. And it's been well received so far. I intend to find a way to see it.

You know, if there's one thing I always here people say about 2001: A Space Odyssey it's Damnit, why can't this movie be longer?!

Love this tale of opening day from a commenter to the link in the post above:

I know you're being sarcastic, but I am that guy. I've long despaired of seeing that footage, and I'm ecstatic at this news!

Well, don't be too excited. The footage has been found, and in reportedly pristine condition - but there's no plans for you to be able to see it - in fact, the documentary in the works that might have featured some or all of it has been cancelled. So, for now at least, it might as well still be buried in the salt mine.

I hope there's a way to see it someday.

The Tron remake they should have made:

I thoroughly enjoyed Tron.: Legacy. It's visually stunning, Jeff Bridges is awesome and the story did a great job of quickly catching up everyone who never saw or doesn't remember Tron. We may live in the age of pocket computers but the Tronverse is still a fantasy universe.

We finally saw the last Almodovar film last night (Broken Embraces). The film had a bit more serious feel to it than some of the madcapness of many of his other films. I didn't know there was an "homage" to Women on the Verge in the film - which I loved. Penelope Cruz continues to amaze me. Paired with a great director, she is a wonderful actress (and amazingly beautiful). She reminds me of Sophia Loren quite a bit.

If you're an Almodovar fan, rent it. If you don't know who Almodovar is, then rent Women on the Verge first.

DUDE!

Brilliant!

To a degree they did, Kevin Flynn has gone all zen master and has several lines that could have been lifted from Lebowski.

He even wears a robe for part of the movie (though that is more a rip off of Obi Wan than The Dude).

So, I think we will see it and laugh the whole way through.

Saw "Waking Sleeping Beauty", which was able to translate a complex story into a moving documentary. It's been a while since I read all those Disney history books and this re-awakened my interest. Might have to pick up a recent book on the latest chapters. Disney War didn't have enough about the parks...

Black Swan was pretty amazing.

Burlesque sounds so bad that I may end up Netflixing it when it comes out, just to witness it.

I was disappointed in Waking Sleeping Beauty. Maybe it's just because I was familiar with the behind-the-scenes events of the animation renaissance, but - other than bringing in Howard Ashman and Alan Menkin, they never really delved (imo) into HOW or WHY the films suddenly got tremendously better than what came before. There was a lot of emphasis on new executives, especially Katzenberg. But I never got any impression of how his contributions led to the amazing difference in quality. On the talent side, the only difference the film seemed to suggest was bringing in the songwriters. There was a brief mention of the fluke of the animators who became the film directors for Little Mermaid and, later, Beauty and the Beast. But other than the fact that it happened, there was no insight presented as to why their oversight produced starkly better results.

Rather the documentary just seemed a dry litany of events, and I didn't gain a hint why a string like Robin Hood, The Rescuers, The Fox and the Hound, and The Black Cauldron became the rather different string of The Little Mermaid, The Rescuers Down Under, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King.


Meh.




Anyway, I'm really looking forward to seeing The Black Swan. Maybe today.

There was mention of the influx of young talent when they shipped the work for Roger Rabbit to London.

I listened to some animation podcasts in the recent months, with in-depth interviews with the new wave of animators responsible for the better films. Seems like a changing-of-the-guard thing, with the training programs provided by CalArts as well as the in-studio training programs. There were two factions, those in those training programs, and those that did their first work experience doing features or commercials with a few different European studios. They were brought in one way or another - sometimes Roger Rabbit (a project done by the European artists) and sometimes by chance, sometimes because it was their long-term goal to get into Disney. Once the Old Men retired, the new blood - and their passion and creativity - brought a lot of new ideas to the studios. And, though he fizzled out and made poor choices at the end of his career - Michael Eisner (with Katzenberg) should be commended for pulling all of these people together and letting them run with their ideas, instead of closing down animation like the previous guard had considered.

Palate is now thoroughly cleansed from the Tron debacle (I know, I"m out in the wilderness).

Three great contemporary movies (plus two great old movies) since then has me restored.

I heartily recommend any and all of 127 Hours, Black Swan, or The Fighter.

Hey Alex, all I saw for your Tron review was a short paragraph. Did I miss something longer?

Do read the longer version, I'd rate it as a spot on review. Overall the movie was less of a squeal or re-boot and more of a remake.

Spoiler

In response to your spoiler:

Perhaps if I saw the original Tron I'd think differently of this one. I see what Alex saw, and knowing Alex I'm not surprised by the review at all. Then again I'm a fan of the first Transformers movie. Show me some pretty lights, explosions and a bit of eyecandy and I'm happy.

I don't think 3-D is must do. We had a pre-movie warning that some scenes were filmed in 2-D and to leave your glasses on. I couldn't pick out those scenes because most of it looked to be in 2-D.

Moonie

Everything up the point where Sam enters the grid was 2D.

Yeah, everything in the grid was 3-D (I watched a fair amount with my glasses off just because with glasses on everything was frequently muddy). It wasn't always deeply 3-D (after all, frequently there was no significant background against which depth could be created), but it was 3-D.

I haven't seen Tron yet, but what I'm liking about it so far is it appears to be one of those Love It/Or/Hate It movies. Even if end up on the Hate It side, I find those films inherently fascinating.

I'm glad I chose The Black Swan tonight, but I'll see Tron soon, after all.



Oh ... plus, after having 4 gift's "stolen" from me in last night's annual Xmas Party gift exchange with a group of friends widely known for their film fandom, I ended up with a nifty Tron disc.






Which is great when you switch the power on ...

Edgar Wright can do no rong.

So my brother-in-law pointed out that, since we were staying at my parents' place last night, that meant we could put Theo down to sleep and...see a movie!

Tron!

Meh!

As a side note, this was my first experience with the active type 3D glasses. Holy hell are those uncomfortable. Heavy, and they slide off my nose. Suck the the Nth degree. Despite the instructions at the beginning, I kept mine off during all of the 2D parts. On the plus side, we went to Arclight Sherman Oaks, so despite the heavy rain and last minute planning, the movie going experience was hassle-free.

Now, for the movie. Y-A-W-N. Sure, it was pretty. And sure the daft punk stuff was fun. But that's IT. The pretty was not nearly enough to cover for the completely uninteresting storyline. It's not even about it being stupid, or full of holes. It was just BORING.

Not that the original had the most amazing plot to ever grace the screen, but the context it took place in was, to me, far more engaging. It explored the analogy of computer-as-living-world in depth and with (allowing for creative license) a high degree of attention to detail. This movie had none of that. So beyond that fancy visuals there was nothing more than surface stuff. And some odd goofiness that just felt out of place.

I'm glad I saw it in the theater so at least I enjoyed it as well as I possibly could. There were certainly some experiential components in there that were worth seeing. But not enough to really feel satisfied.

Star Wars, Matrix, Blade Runner, etc. etc. It borrowed from many sci-fi movies (which in turn had borrowed from many other movies themselves).

That in and of itself wouldn't be a problem if it brought something else to the table to add, but I don't really think it did.

Oh, and young Jeff Bridges was creeepy.

For Clue, that was fine since it's supposed to be a computery version of him anyway. But the "real" young Flynn...yuck.

Yep, what I found most unforgivable about Tron 2 was how BORING it was, almost as soon as it stopped being a remake of Tron 1. Though, like its predecessor, the only things to really recommend being the visuals and the score - I actually agree with GD that the original Tron is the far more engaging film. Which is a sad commentary indeed on the sequel.

And while the graphic visual delights were plussed by the very pretty (if ultimately boring) Garrett Hedlund, I was surprised to be disappointed with the vaunted Daft Punk score. Their orchestral stuff was, imo, too plentiful and too standard. The more Tron-ish electronica was better, and I wish there had been more of it.


Also, Jeff Bridges x 2 in Tron = < 1/2 of the singularly awesome performance by Bridges in True Grit. That movie rocks, and is the far better film to see if you must choose between the two. And I join with Alex in also recommending 127 Hours and Black Swan for your year-end viewing. Also Tangled, if you haven't seen it yet.

Sad indeed! I like the first Tron film, but it is by no means a great movie. I always wondered why they decided to do a sequel. Of course, I wonder why there's a Yogi Bear movie out at the moment.

The more sickening question being Why is Yogi Bear having the second best box office of the holiday weekend, beating all but Tron? Sad what passes for popular.

Totally agreed. I mean, the score was at least 20% Inception horns, wtf was that about? The dance party was great, but even then, they cut away just as Castor cued what seemed like was going to be the best beat dropped in the whole scene! With the way everyone was talking about the score I was pretty much expecting a 2 hour Daft Punk music video and it fell FAR short of that.

Would have definitely been our second choice, but with theater-going opportunities a rare commodity for us it was decided that, of the two, Tron would lose the most by not seeing it in the theater. If I was going to see that movie at all, it HAD to be in the theater, True Grit I'll still be willing (and itching) to see at home.

While I'm glad Daft Punkwas used for the score, I'm just glad we got to see them perform live 5 or so years ago.

You can't take kids to see True Grit, and this is the time to see movies with kids. Unless you're us.

I enjoyed Tron a good deal more than GD did for all the usual reasons. I'm a gullible popcorn-muncher. :D I was interested throughout, and dug the parallels between parenting and programming, however obvious and blatant. I'm easy to please and won't argue any criticism.

After all the hype, I was extremely disappointed by the young Bridges face. Did not look real for a second. If it doesn't work, don't use it, and sure as hell don't tell everyone how awesome it is. Boo.



It was video game weekend as we FINALLY saw Scott Pilgrim vs the World. LOVE! How did this movie not become a blockbuster smash? I will follow Edgar Wright anywhere.

You all (who agree with me) need to go see movies faster so you can agree with me when it does me some good.

We are so far behind in our movie watching, we just saw Alice in Wonderland for the first time. I can't believe I went, what, 2 years without that gem enriching my life!

And, when did the Cohen Bros start making remakes? Maybe they should've re-made Tron, because it sounds like their remake of True Grit is great. I saw the original in a theater with my parents when it came out. I was 7. I don't remember being impressed, but I was 7.

And, are the going to remake Rooster Cogburn next?

At least as early as 2004 when they did a remake of The Ladykillers, which was not that good.

You could definitely see True Grit at home and be none the worse for the smaller screen experience. Oh, and I think it's one of only 4 movies in the marketplace that's not in 3-D, so you won't be missing that on the home front either. :D


I think a Greatest Hits Reel of Tron 1 and 2 highlights would be awesome. As standalone films? - - eh, not so much.

I think what's preventing me from seeing Tron 2 is the creepy young Jeff Bridges. Ew.

The did it pretty well in the opening scene (btw, the only scene in the whole film that seemed to me to be in 3-D), by shooting him from the back and keeping him in the shadows. They should have nixed the reveal shot, as it was just bad-fx creepy.

No such problem with Clu, in my opinion. I guess he should look as lifelike as all the other anthropomorphic computer "progams" ... but because he was one, it didn't bug me that he looked a little fake.


GC, for every bit of off-putting Clu-looking, there's a lovely bit of Garrett-looking that's very rewarding to the eyes. He may be just as wooden as a bit of GCI, but he's prettier than most of the shiny effects in the movie.

The boy has been into Daft Punk for the last few months. I actually just put Interstella 555 at the top of the Netflix que, after much fuss from said boy. sadly the only time I'd heard the name before was on here, so at least he's being swanky I figure ;)

I know Daft Punk must be good music because whenever I see them mentioned all anybody talks about is a) Tron, and b) what they wear.

Pssh. You've been ignoring our Coachella reports.

Was that the show where they wore helments?

Yes

I saw Black Swan yesterday. I thought it was good, and I enjoyed the psychological thriller aspect. I also seem to have a thing for ballet fashion, so I enjoyed that and all of the beautiful dance, which was in contrast to the unbalanced internal struggle of the main character.

For the first time I manged to keep an accurate list of my movie watching for a year. Kinda interesting looking back. I noted the movie, whether it was the firs time seeing it, the release year, whether we saw it the theater, wrote some quick thoughts, and gave each a rating. I tried as best I could to make the ratings simply "how did I feel at the time about the movie" and not necessarily a comparator between movies, so it's pretty fascinating to see those in hindsight and compare them to each other. Like the fact that I rated Observe and Report below Smiley Face, a truly awful, amateurish attempt at stoner comedy. Man did I not like O&R.

Movies watched: 39
First Time: 36 (wow, I don't rewatch movies as much as I used to)
2010 releases: 11
In Theater: 4 (all after June)
Highest Rated: Tie - Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and ODDSAC (experimental music video/movie from Animal Collective)
Lowest Rated: The aforementioned Observer and Report

In hindsight, I think the only real change I'd make is to have rated Imaginarium of Dr. Parnasus a little higher, making a 3-way tie for first. Scanning the list, that one jumps out as being as enjoyable to watch as the others.

Meanwhile, we watched the original Tron this weekend. Sigh, not quite what I remembered (not childhood memories, really only saw it for the first time 5 or so years ago). It was not as technically detailed (in terms of depth of analogy between program "characters" and actual programming concepts) as my memory was giving credit for. I guess I was handicapping it for having the audacity to allude to ANY sort of technical computer concepts in an era where they were completely foreign to most. Alas, they really didn't do much more than throw some jargon in to sound impressive.

My stats

Movies Watched in 2010: 146
2010 Releases: 61 (includes 3 2010 movies seen since the beginning of the year)
Had already seen: 5
Movies Seen at the theater: 56

I only use a five point scale for my personal notes so not a lot of differentiation

Highest rated at time seen (both 5 of 5): Toy Story 3 and 127 Hours (I'd pick neither of them as my favorite movie of the year but they invoked strong feelings while walking out of the theater. I saw 31 movies I gave 4s to so it wasn't a bad year.

Lowest rated at time seen (lots of competition): Deep in the Valley (2009), Legion, When in Rome, The Cannonball Run II (1984), Repo Men, High Kick Girl! (2009, Japan), Jonah Hex, Species, Crank 2: High Voltage

Movies in the list of things seen in 2010 where just looking at the title on the list I have no idea what it is (some of these I rated highly):

People Will Talk (1951) - 4 of 5 - Ah, a Cary Grant movie, I still don't remember it even after looking it up.
My Name is Bruce (2009) - 2 of 5 - Ah, a spoof on Bruce Campbell's cult fame.
Sleeping Dogs Lie (2006) - 3 of 5 - Ah, a comedy about what happens when a woman reveals to her boyfriend that she once had sex with her dog.
The Boys Are Back (2009) - 2 of 5 - Ah, a cookie-cutter grief drama of Clive Owen having to figure out how to raise his sons after the death of their mother.
Cop Out (2010) - 2 of 5 - Ah, that bad cop buddy movie with Tracy Morgan (thus almost by default bad) and Bruce Willis.
The Stranger (1946) - 4 of 5 - Ah, finding secret Nazis. Actually was very interesting for shedding light on an aspect of the post-war mood. Not such a great movie just as a movie.
Paper Heart (2009) - 3 of 5 - Ah, that Michael Cera/Charlyne Yi relationship mockumentary.

What did you use to keep track?

If I ever need advice on movie-going, I'm going to ask you.

Steph - GD used an Excel spreadsheet.

Google Doc spreadsheet, actually.

Thanks! I figured something like that. I am going to try to keep track this year.

When I first started my list it was a spreadsheet with:

Title
Date Seen
Year of Release
Where I Watched it
Country of Release
Language
Running time
How much I paid to watch it
Personal Rating

Then with pivot tables I could generate all kinds of interesting (to only me) lists.

But even that ended up being something I'd put off doing that I'd forget to list some, so now it is just Title, Date Seen, Year of Release, Country of Release, Rating.

My columns are Date Seen, title, in theater, first time, release year, rating, notes.

First movie of the year that I couldn't make it all the way through:

Inception

Maybe it was the hype that killed it, but dear god what a stupid movie. Got to about 1 hour 15 minutes in, looked at how much time was left, went "hell no" and went upstairs to play video games. Video games with much more plot, emotion, and entertainment value. I've liked all of Chris Nolan's films until this piece of trash.... I just hate movies that make up whatever ridiculous convoluted rules they want to on the fly, and then break those rules with even more convoluted rules just to fit the plot.

As far as "entering your dreams" goes, that Jennifer Lopez movie from ten years ago was much more fun. Cronenberg's eXistenz was more interesting.

If I wanted to see a pretty world with an incomprehensible plot and a hot guy (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, yummy) then I'll go see Tron:Legacy again (Garrett Hedlund, extra yummy). I was actually able to sit through Tron, even with the horrid 3-D that looked like you were watching the film through a murky green fog.

I didn't make it through either Cherny. I quit pausing when I got up to do this or that. Then it was a bad dvd and stopped halfway through. I ordered a replacement but I can't seem to make myself attempt to figure out where I was so I sent it back.

I enjoyed it well enough. In fact, I would give it some honorary Oscar for the most ridiculous story that was nonetheless played with utter conviction. As for the ending, though, I think you could have picked any number of potential twists out of a hat and it wouldn't have made much difference.

I finally saw The Social Network. I really, really enjoyed it. If it's even half-true Zuckerberg is a world class dbag and the character was played with traits of Aspergers. I see why it won the awards that it did. And man, Justin Timberlake can act.

I'm a little leery of The Social Network. I generally find that a little of the Aaron Sorkin "attractive people who are really good at their job and all talk on three tangents at once and all perfectly understand each other" goes a long way.

In Time's interview with Zuckerberg as its Person of the Year, I learned that practically NOTHING in The Social Network about Zuckerberg was true, except that they got every single T-shirt he wore in the movie exactly right.


This fouls me against the movie before seeing it. I still want to watch it, and it can still be a good movie. But I cannot understand nor can I appreciate so much falsification about its main character.

What's interesting for me is that when Heather and I saw The Social Network, not only did we enjoy it, but we liked the Zuckerberg character (for the most part).

I liked Social Network well enough. Just not as much as a few other films this year. And I neither liked nor disliked Zuckerberg - just figured he was a fictional character with flaws.

Aren't we all really?

Heheh.


But WHY be so inaccurate about the facts (not the character) of a currently living person so famous he was made Time's Person of the Year? I just don't get it.

Umm, because it made for a better movie?

Then make a piece of fiction. Don't make a True Story with no truth. That dramatic license sh!t works a lot better when the truth you are adapting is more than 4 years old.


Anyway, it's funny how Cherny could not make it through Inception, but could watch Tron again. I'm the exact opposite. But I daresay there's a reason Inception is nominated for a ton of awards and Tron is nominated for best sound mixing. :p

This is not intended as snark: iSm - you should take a couple of hours out of your life and see The Social Network. I'd like to hear what you actually think of the movie as opposed to your theoretical objections.

It's not that there's nothing of reality. They got some stuff right besides the T-Shirts. And I don't mind dramatic license when it's used to simplify the drama or the number of characters so it's suitable for a movie (i.e., rolling 4 characters into 1, compressing the time span of events).

I will see The Social Network, and I bet it's a damn fine movie. I also bet they could have stuck to Zuckerberg's actual story and had the film be none the worse for it.


Otherwise, and perhaps Gemini Cricket would have preferred this, they could have gone the "Trans Global Airlines" route and not used "Facebook" for the film. Clear product placement! Harumph! :)

If I remember correctly, the script was based on the two lawsuits (that also serve to frame the film). So it was a reality, just not the one that Time wrote about.

Just see the damn thing already. I'm looking forward to your take on it.

Was Social Network billed as a "True Story" or a documentary (meant as an 'either' question, not an 'or')? It would appear to be much closer to reality than say, anything Michael Moore has ever put out.

I like this line from mousepod

There are 2 sides to every story and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Information out of the lawsuits is certainly going to be more damning then information filtered through Zuckerberg and his talking heads.

I think the truth is somewhere between the movie and the article. But I won't be calling the move completely made up or complete truth when I wasn't privy to the actual discussions/happenings at that time.

I need to see The Social Network because my friend Kelly Thompson's art is on the walls.

But was her art on the specific walls in real life?

No, but it is on mine. Does that count?

My wife is going to give a very different review, but 300 accidentally ended up at the top of our Netflix queue and that has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Perhaps I'm a victim of self fulfilling prophecy as I watched it reluctantly, expecting to not like it, but it was worse than I expected. Seriously not a redeeming thing to say about it from my view.

Were your walls with that art on it in the movies or did any one of the main characters have an event portrayed in the movies in your home showing the art?

Only events that happened in real life should be portrayed in a quasi-fictional movie setting.

How can you *not* like Jesse Eisenberg, with that cute-as-hell Jew-fro? ;) I gotta see Social Network, glad it is coming to Netflix prior to the Oscars. I'm not so worried that it is heavily fiction. I can't think of any "based on a true story" movies that are meant to be exact accounts of what happened. That usually makes for boring movies, since life doesn't really progress in story arcs.

I didn't say that Tron was academy-award material, 'cos it isn't. It seemed to be one of those movies that pretended to be deep but really it was a silly excuse to show "look at what we can do with computer effects!" which hasn't really thrilled me since Jurassic Park. (for another example of such a movie, I cite The Matrix and Larry Fishburne's intense spewing of "deep" utter bullsh~t. Incidentally I liked Matrix 3 because it was just an action film with no such pretensions.) It just wasn't my cup of tea, even if it was yours. I won't think any less of you, I promise. ;)

But it did make for an awesome episode of South Park. Scissor me timbers!

On JW Bear's recommendation of a few weeks ago, I watched 2008's 10,000 B.C. last night - purely to enjoy the yumminess of Steven Straight, who ironically brings out this Steven's gay like nobody's business.

It was kinda meh, but not really objectionable. Actionist, likable characters, yummy leading man - and I have to admit: Herds of Wooley Mammoths enslaved to help build the Pyramids was Bitchin' Cool.

I wouldn't actually say I recommended it.

Well, not the movie, but pointed me in the right direction for the leading man enjoyment I was looking for. Wooley Mammoths building the pyramids was just a bonus!

I've been meaning to see 300 since it was in the theaters. Seeing it now, I just wish I had insisted on seeing it when it first came out on DVD, as it has lost a lot of oomph what with the billions of spoofs since then. Even so, I enjoyed it thoroughly. My only issue was that they said "Sparta" a billion times.

Major Husband Bonus Points for putting up with it. It's not often I ask him to sit through something we both know he will actively dislike. I'm not into RomComs or Costume Dramas or Sex in the City...but once in a while I need to see some popcorn-flick action. :)

300 was neat. Lots of Spartan eye candy.

I enjoyed True Grit. The actor who played Colonel G. Stonehill (Dakin Matthews) did a great job, at first I thought they got the original actor (Strother Martin).

Finally got around to seeing Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Cute, but ultimately my feeling is MEH.

Still chuckling, though, over the Universal logo theme customization, and the Vegan powers bit - which was admittedly hysterical.


Oh, and a running joke inspired me to get a haircut. It was getting a wee bit shaggy.

We watched Stardust last night. Very cute movie. Great scenery chewing performances by Robert De Nero and Michelle Pfeiffer.

Oh, and the male lead, Charlie Cox, is adorably cute.

I saw The King's Speech the other night and will add to the chorus of "it was really good" reviews. The only bad part of it was Timothy Spall as Alfred Hitchcock as Winston Churchill. Really, that was a caricature, not acting.

No time to expand on this but... didn't love The King's Speech at all. Fun watching some great actors chew the scenery, but wasn't moved by the story and found the direction relatively artless. I am clearly in a small minority.

Now 127 Hours on the other hand...

Went in expecting to hate it. It was a neat little film. A few "show-off" flourishes by Boyle notwithstanding, the thing held together nicely, thanks to a surprisingly excellent performance from James Franco.

Have to agree there with mousepod. Oh, except that I don't even have any desire to see The King's Speech, though I do like all the leading actors in it.

I really enjoyed The King's Speech, but no it isn't my pick for best of the year.

127 Hours is the closest I've come to crying at a movie in a long time and it wasn't emotional manipulation, it was just so perfect at ratcheting up the suspense (evening knowing the ending) and then releasing it all in one big rush that I was quite carried away for the next hour or so. A real endorphin rush.

I love movies that successfully have suspense when everyone in the audience already knows the ending.



And yes, I consider Star Wars one of those movies. :p

Like a good Columbo.

You can wait for Bluray. And I didn't think it would be interesting either cos of the subject matter, but it was. Rush and Firth were amazing. What's-her-face was good too, because the movie wasn't directed by Tim Burton.

Tim Burton's "The King's Speech" would have Johnny Depp as King George, dream-like flashbacks to his growing up with "King Daddy George" and a CGI trip through his larynx set to the music of Oingo Boingo.

Helen Bonham-Crazy.

Jan Favreau has passed on directing Iron Man 3 in favor of a new Disney movie: "The Magic Kingdom"

Really? I mean really?

I wonder who will play the dad of the family. I can see either Robin Williams or Ben Stiller doing well in a role like that.

Actually, if a Night at the Museum didn't already exist, that is a concept that could have some fun potential (I was surprised by how much I enjoyed that movie).

Yes, it would be cool if they made films that built stories around some of the Disney rides like Peter Pan, Dumbo, etc.

I think Jon Favreau should play the dad in a Jon Favreau way throughout, i.e., being totally unimpressed and irritated, "All right, we've seen it, let's move along so we can get the f*ck out of here someday."

Or maybe I should play the dad.

Yes, considering that 3 or 4 movies have been made based on Disneyland attractions, and that at least a dozen other attractions are already based on movies, what's left to come alive? I'm pretty sure this leaves only Big Thunder Mountain and the Mark Twain. This is going to be a pretty boring movie.

Teacups?

It all depends on how they come alive.

Admittedly, I don't have high hopes for it, but it isn't an idea without some potential.

Though one thing I'd take pause with is that, as hard as it is to believe, most people have never actually been to Disneyland and so deep familiarity can't really be assumed for the good gags.

Sorry, SM, Teacups is based on a movie, based on a book.


Ok, which is better - Immortal Beloved based on the true story of Beethovan with a tiny bit of conjecture as to the riddle of his death letter mystery

-OR-

Amadeus - based on, well, almost pure fiction about Mozart?



I ask because I just saw Immortal Beloved for the first time, really liked it - but was much more charmed by Amadeus. It bugs me a bit, though, that my naive trust is abused because when I watch a movie about a famous historical figure, I assume it's mostly true - with the usual exceptions for dramatic license.

I mean, certainly everyone knew going in that something like Shakespeare in Love was a totally fictional account featuring historical characters. But was I completely clueless not to realize Amadeus was pretty much the same thing?

In any event, I liked learning about Beethovan's life through this movie better than I liked learning little about Mozart's life through the Oscar-winning Milos Forman pic. Oh, and I enjoy Beethovan's music better than Mozart's, too.


Of course, Gary Oldman's Beethovan was kind of a creep, and Thomas Hulce's Mozart was a ton of immature fun. So there's that. :cool:

Unless it is an area I know reasonably well independently I just treat biographical and historical films as completely fictional.

If it requires a patina of reality to be entertaining then, frankly, it fails as a movie in my opinion.

To an extent this is even true of documentaries. I assume that there is not intentional distortion but unless I'm familiar with things I assume that the filmmaker could be so unintentionally distorting things as to be a useful document, but it can still be an entertaining film.

I'm much more moved by true stories. I don't much mind if things have a dramatic slant, even in a documentary, but I will be much more involved in a story if I believe it somewhat really happened.

Maybe that's just me. But it's why I like A Night to Remember better than The Poseidon Adventure (and why mixing real with bullsh!t so blithely in Titanic really bugs me).

I'm sure it isn't just you, but since I'm mostly unfamiliar with the factual basis, for example, it matters not at all to me whether The King's Speech and The Social Network are 100% factual or 100% fiction.

Now, that wouldn't be the case if I were familiar with them, not because I think the movie needs to be factual when I know about it, it is just that when I know the altered facts it distracts me from the movie to be wondering why they changed such and such (could be for good reasons, bad reasons, or just sloppiness).

So for that reason, it is probably best not to put Pearl Harbor on Midway for you World War II movie, but if I don't know, I wouldn't care.

I think my curse is knowing a little bit about a lot of things, and a lot of stuff about very few things.

For instance, I didn't know enough about Mozart (and still don't) to know how vigorously Amadeus was pulling my leg. But I know enough about Facebook to wonder if The Social Network will bug me when I finally see it.

Hey, I know ZERO about the subject matter of The King's Speech, but I still have near zero desire to see it - even though I'm sure not to be bugged by inaccuracies. Too bad.

There's very little Facebook (if you mean the actual web site) in the movie.

Too bad about your feelings toward King's Speech, iSm. Some people here may not care for it, but it was definitely my favorite film of the year.

I'll Netflix it.

I was just trying to think of what would be the silliest ride to "come alive" and couldn't come up with anything better. :)

I want to see Superstar Limo: The Movie

Perhaps IASW will come to life and all the worlds children will banish the recently added Disney characters.

Now THAT I'd pay good money to see!

That wouldn't just so straight to DVD, it would go straight to the $3.99 bin at Blockbuster.

I think they should be chased out of the haunted mansion by the Hatbox Ghost.

Oh, wait.

So in the last week I've managed to see Black Swan and King's Speech. That takes me from having seen something from 2 categories up to 15.

We never go to the movies - with a big screen at home and netflix, we see things later than everyone else but who cares!

However, my husband won a gift card to Regal so we took advantage of the kids going to the grandparent's house and went to see The Adjustment Bureau.

My quick review - no spoilers but just in case:

Yes, but I have no particular memory of it.

I liked the movie well enough. It isn't a timeless classic but it kept me engaged. Matt Damon has good charisma and he and Emily Blunt actually sold the "love at first sight" thing.

I'm glad it wasn't made into a non-stop action chase scene that it could have been and is frequently how people go wrong trying to translate PKD to film.

Watched Social Network.

I wanted to not like it, but couldn't. The score almost ruined it, it started to become too present and overbearing during the first act - but it stopped just in time. Other than that, loved the FaceMash "hacking" bit, raised my scripter hackles. And, cliche as the setup line was, loved the "relationship status" moment. They totally stole the Real Genius dance set. And how the **** did Eisenberg hold that face for so long?!

The 'twins' had the best lines.

The Social Network is sitting on our coffee table. Soon.

I want to see it. But I also want to watch the extras. Guess I have to buy it.

For what it's worth, while I haven't read the book, I did as much reading around the intertubes after watching the movie, and the stuff that people talk about as being discrepancies between the book, fact, and the movie seem pretty inconsequential to me eye. YMMV.

I guess I just got ticked off from the get-go, because - and I haven't yet seen the film - the first scene is supposedly about him getting dumped by this girl and it's funny - except it never happened, and they've been happily married ever since college. I understand the scene is funny. But why lie about something that central to the man's life you're quasi-biographing?

I understand all the facts on the lawsuits are true. And his T-shirts are all 100% accurate.

I also understand that, GD's review notwithstanding, it's a very good film.

The fictional girl in the movie is not supposed to be the girl he eventually ends up with in real life at all. While he met that girl around the time of the movie, they didn't start dating until after the timeline of the movie. The girl in the movie is just there to set him up as someone who's relatively socially inept/more focused on his work than girls at that time in his life.

Huh? I said I tried NOT to like it, but couldn't. i.e., I liked it.

I also really liked it. Great performances. A movie of people having meetings made for surprisingly engaging storytelling.

I totally disagree with anyone who says it's too early to make this film. When it began and the year 2003 popped up on the screen, I thought, "was 2003 really that long ago?" The nature of the internet makes for quick history.

Oh, sorry, I misread.


Why were you trying not to like it???

'cause that's what all the cool kids are doing.

OMG, are we in a post-facebook world already! Ack, us old folks can't keep up!

Well, I really, really liked The Social Network and am not at all disappointed that it was the first movie I've ever purchased sight-unseen.

Now that I've seen it, I can see the element of the gal who rejected him was played up for emotional touchstone and bookends effect that I didn't get from simply hearing about the funny pre-credits scene. In that sense, oddly, I am fine with its emotional content being fictionalized.

In going back over the Time Person of the Year piece, I see that Zuckerberg does not deny ever being dumped by this girl. Only that he met the real love interest of his life, Priscilla Chan, before that. And so the thing with Erica and his feelings toward her throughout the film were likely made up for dramatic purposes. Oh well.


But I am interested in knowing how much of the story I enjoyed on film reflects what actually happened to characters I came to care about or loathe. From what I can glean, the script was careful to follow the testimony in the two lawsuits that form the structural backbone of the movie - and so I'm satisfied the film's events and characters bear an acceptable resemblance to fact for a "true story" movie.


And I found the 3 main characters really came to life for me, a testament to the script and the performances by Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield (whoa, hot stuff) and Justin Timberlake (surprisingly).


Dunno if I would have voted this Best Picture, since I haven't seen The King's Speech Yet ... and, heheh, much as I liked it, don't think it was better than Toy Story 3. ;)

We finally watched Megamind tonight. Very cute.

Not surprisingly about Justin Timberlake. He gave a great performance in Love Guru. Okay, I was surprised too ;) But now I won't be.

Tom Hooper, who just won the Best Director Oscar for The King's Speech is set to direct Les Misérables.

I love Les Miz and would be thrilled to see a good movie version of it, but I have a hard time imagining a studio allowing it to be the proper length.

You can't make a good movie version of it because the good parts of the book are in the things that will never be put in a movie.

The musical is a fine musical as a standalone thing, but it is a faint shadow of the book.

The book is a ponderous tome with entire chapters devoted to expendable material (see the chapter about the convent, for a prime example, the only purpose of which was to say that Jean Valjean worked there, as it bore little bearing on the forward motion of the narrative).

The musical, however, cuts the book down to a mere 3 hours. But a 30-hour musical movie? The industry will never believe that American audiences could handle it.

Sorry, Morri- but I disagree with your assessment of the book. I think perhaps to many people who have become accustomed to soundbites and synopsis it can be considered "ponderous",* but to me every word in that story is where and how it should be- to excise anything from the original story only serves to diminish it. I love the musical, but the original story is one of the greatest novels ever written, second ( imho) only to Flaubert's Madame Bovary.



(* Not directed at you- just at all of us who have had our brains altered by the computer age).

The stage musical has been slowly whittled over its history to where it now runs 2.5 hours, as opposed to its original 3. Two and a half hours is a perfectly normal running time for a big event movie these days, so I don't see any real reason not to keep the musical intact. The real challenge will be dealing with all those gorgeous but motionless ballads. Having an actor stand alone on stage and sing is thrilling in person, and potentially deadly on film, and this show has a lot of that. I imagine there will wind up being many cutaways to illustrative montage during songs like "I Dreamed A Dream" or "Empty Chairs At Empty Tables" to avoid the spectacle of hapless actors lip syncing while looking forlorn for entire songs at a time. I hope it all works out. I adore this show. But it could be a ponderous bore of a movie if not handled carefully.

I hated the musical, never read the book.

* * * * * * *

But last night, I saw a movie I was so intrigued by. It's called "Howl" and stars James Franco as beat-poet Allen Ginsberg, author of the eponymous 1955 poem. Also featuring David Strathairn, Bob Balaban, Jeff Bridges, and Jon Hamm - which wouldn't be unusual for a "Hollywood" movie - but this is more like a documentary - and yet not.

Yes, in that every word spoken by any character in the film was truly spoken by the characters they play. But otherwise, the scenarios were dramatically re-created, and not "reported" on in documentary style. The controversial poem at the center of the piece is rendered wonderfully in two ways - a re-staging of a 1955 Ginsberg reading (by Franco) at an underground club that was, of course, the epitome of the beat poet Go-Daddy-O scene so often lampooned and copied - - - and an animated accompaniment to a less-public-drama reading, also by James Franco, that constantly punctuates the action - which shifts between the censorship / obscenity trial of the poem's publisher, and an extended interview with Ginsberg that deftly illuminates the poem as it unfolds in the aforementioned treatments and at the trial.

It really is an unusual and, imo, an unusually successful format for a film. So I recommend it for that alone. But it's also equally worthwhile for the appreciation of this seminal work of poetry and of Ginsberg as a person that can be gleaned through this oddball, wonderful film.

What did you think of the play VS the subsequent movie verison of Phantom of the Opera?

Caught the first two parts of HBO's Mildred Pierce last night. Production values are fabulous. Costuming spectacularly spot on. Amazing that nothing was shot on the West Coast.

I'm missing the spiffy Warner Brothers dialogue. Overall, an enthusiastic response from me. The first two parts are set up, grittier than Hollywood gloss.

Good quality television and Guy Pearce is just slimey from the get go. Wally is just, ew.

Kate Winslet is very good. I'm not sure if I will like the grown up Veda or not.

As I remember it, the movie version of "Evita" had so many cutaways during numbers I was starting to have seizures.

Phantom as a play? Terrific fun, and I liked several of the tunes before I became permanently tired of them. But, I'd go again if someone bought me a ticket.

The movie? I like Gerard Butler, but he was miscast here. That high note in Music of the Night is a real cringer. Also, I wish he had actually been pathetically ugly, not incredibly handsome with what looked like a bad sunburn on only part of his face. I liked the lush production values, but found the whole thing lacked energy. Also, I didn't care for the habit of replacing sung recitative with spoken dialog, especially as they didn't re-write it AS dialog. They just spoke lyrics in a very stilted self-conscious way. (Almost like they were ashamed to admit they were making a sung-through musical! I hope the makers of Les Mis simply commit to the form and sing out throughout.) Not disastrously bad, but never thrilling either. It just kind of thumps along, very expensively. (Also, Minnie Driver seems to be the only one having anything like a good time with the material - maybe a little bit TOO good a time? I could have made a decent sandwich out of that ham!)

As for the film of Evita, as mentioned by Strangler Lewis, I like that one a lot more, and thought the montage impressive, telling lots of story visually. But, yeah, I could see how that could be exhausting.

Has anyone here checked out the Phantom musical sequel Love Never Dies? Now, THAT is some mighty bold musical misfire! (Based on a focused listen through of the cast album, not an actual viewing) I bet it never gets anywhere near a movie screen, and good thing, too.

Far overshadowed by the movie and eventually ALW but the novel Phantom of the Opera is worth a read as well.

I read it several times during my "monster kid" youth. (I also built the Aurora plastic model and frequently checked out the 8mm highlights reel of the Lon Chaney version from the public library.)

As for Phantom as a play: when we did Hamlet in high school, Euro played the Ghost standing backstage and using a microphone. I don't remember anyone saying, "Ghost sounded like a guy backstage coming over the loudspeakers." Yet that is exactly the feeling I had seeing Phantom at the Orange County Performing Arts Center some years ago. Perhaps it could not be otherwise, or perhaps their sound engineer was unsubtle, but it was not very phantomy.

Agreed, but more so. Gerard Butler RUINED the movie for me. I enjoyed it on first viewing, but find it almost unwatchable since because I simply can't stand a Phantom that can't sing. Worst Phantom since Franc D'Ambrosio.

Production values kicked ass and the rest of the movie is great. I'd consider a rewatch if someone ran the play soundtrack over the film's soundtrack.
Again agreed. I *hate* that Hollywood doesn't trust American audiences to a true musical.

They'd better not so much as attempt that with Les Mis. It's a through-composed musical and I can't see anything but disaster resulting from inserting spoken lines.
Except for the part where they took all the best/funniest lines out and gave Madonna the song that belongs to the mistress she kicks out.


Alex: Agreed on the novel. Good read.

To be fair, I was like 14 when I read it.

Really? I thought the cinematography was absolutely abysmal. Particularly during the big music numbers which were all filmed from a half mile away to be sure you couldn't possible get a glimpse at any sort of emotional performance from the actors (though perhaps that's more a commentary on the actors than the cinematographer.

Saw Source Code over the weekend. A really fun flick making good use of a pretty good gimmick. Not quite up to Duncan Jones' debut feature (Moon), in my opinion, but a damn good movie nonetheless. I've heard some criticism that the ending defies the film's stated internal logic, but that was the entire point of the exercise, and anyone who didn't see it coming is really kinda stupid when it comes to films.

Oh, and Jake Gyllenhaal sporting a 3-day stubble throughout the proceedings as a heroic sweetie is a super-plus!

The ending didn't defy the films logic, but it did leave unexplained something that the movie seemed to think it had explained. It also raises a few subsidiary considerations that aren't necessarily relevant but I'm curious whether they were thought through at all.

I enjoyed it. It was well paced which is good since the ending was obvious so too much clutter on the way there would have been a problem.

Yeah, you don't see many mainstream movies clocking in a 90 minutes. That was a smart move, as was not going back to the 8-minute train loop too many times. I don't pay too much attention to internal logic McGuffin gobbledeegook talk, so I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to, Alex.

Spoiler tags, perhaps?

I thought about it a bit more and it may not be the issue I thought it was.

Yeah ...

[quote=innerSpaceman;344841]Yeah ...

Oh, maybe I need to see it again.



I think this is a film best not ruminated on too closely. It's way more messed up than Inception, imo. But I still liked it a lot.

Starring Jake instead of Leo gives it a leg up!

I haven't seen a new movie since Toy Story 3. Sad, no?

If you saw it in the theaters you're ahead of me. The last thing I saw was the last Harry Potter.

I honestly can't remember the last time I went to a movie theater.

If the last Harry Potter was after TS3 then HP was the last movie I saw in the theatre...

I rented Love & Other Drugs. I actually found it to be a very good story. I like Ann Hathaway but was unsure if she would be able to pull off this role. I was pleasantly surprised.

We also rented Unstoppable. It was ok but the boy really liked it. Then again if there is things being destroyed he is a happy boy.

How much naked Jake is in Love & Other Drugs? I have a good Jake jones going right now.

I recall some really nice shots of his ass. They were a pretty steamy couple

Sold.

There's quite a bit of naked. Plenty of Anne naked too.

And a solid romantic drama. Probably not the kind of thing that'll be remembered in 20 years but not remotely a burn.

Believe it or not, I will appreciate some naked Hathaway, too - - but above all, appreciate a decent romantic film.

Agreed. There's even some loveliness in there. The silent film is also very good and probably the most faithful adaptation, save the end.

Been on a Michael Fassbender binge.

Angel = HORRIBLE. He's good but everything else is horrid.
Fish Tank = Very, very good film.
Centurion = Like other Neil Marshall movies, fun for the sake of fun mostly. And gory. And full of frightening women.

Saw the latest Jane Eyre (also starring M.F.) and thought it was a bit plodding, actually. Though they played around with the chronology in how they told the story, so made it a somewhat unique adaptation. Threw in a bit more obvious UST than the usual. But as the cast Rochesters get more and more attractive, Jane seems more and more like a liar when she tells him she doesn't think him handsome. Heh.

So I watched Love and Other Drugs, and found it kinda meh. Jake is adorable, but I guess I don't much like it when the whole plot is about him knowing what a hot stud he is.

Also, even though the story WAS about the health industry, I find romcoms where the girl has a terminal illness to be pretty heavy-handed.

So, in the last year, I have not gone to the cinema often, but here are some of the movies I've gone to: Inception, Unknown, The Adjustment Bureau, Limitless, and today, Source Code. And they're all really blending together! (It's partly because I won't go to see comedies in the theater- they seem like video fodder to me - and these alternate reality/sci-fi things just seem to always catch me when I have free time and a free pass, as was the case today.)

Anyway, Source Code- I enjoyed it. However, I would have liked it more if



Also, I was surprised to learn that I'm only nine years older than super-cute Michelle Monaghan.

I don't get to the theater much anymore, but I did just get my Bluray version of The Incredibles.

Time to break some more dishes.

SUPER. James Gunn at his best. I loved its violence, its humor, the characters, the actors, and the squishy, bleeding heart at its center.

So, EH1812, what would you say to combat my not-yet-seen-it impression that SUPER is just a riff off last year's Kick Ass?

It's coming out in August, which is often a bad sign, but I am ridiculously excited about Rise of the Planet of the Apes. No apparent connection to the Tim Burton misfire. It looks like B movie bliss to me!

I wonder if they can do this one justice.

Atlas Shrugged (Part 1)

Apparently not. I find the prospect of a two part movie based on that tedious tome mighty daunting. A movie about Rand and her coterie of devotees could actually be fascinating, but this looks deadly.

86% like is a fairly high rating.

No matter what the content or quality of the movie, it will end up being nothing more than a catalyst for more tiresome soundbytery about free markets, tea parties, blah blah blah blah

Indeed, I was referring to the critical response. I'm inclined to think that the positive audience response is from a highly self-selecting group who are sympathetic to the Objectivist message, and less concerned with the film's entertainment value. (It looks wooden and amateurish in the trailer, I gotta say, regardless of viewpoint. i'm happy to stand corrected, but I'd have to hear from people I really trust.)

Yeah, any discussion of Objectivism per se would have to migrate to a different thread, and I've had that discussion enough times in my life. No ill will implied.

Agreed, we'll have to wait and see what our resident movie expert has to say about this flick. Speaking of which, where is Scaegales anyways?

There are a ton of super hero movies and tv shows. There are a ton of movies/tv shows about supernatural this and that, cops, lawyers, etc. So I don't have any problem with there being two films that deal with people trying to be super heroes who have no powers.

I thought Kick Ass was a disappointing bore and badly overdone. I think James Gunn handled his story better, and it's original rather than based on a comic book. I don't know. SUPER is a film right up my alley but I can totally understand friends having a very different reaction to it. I love James Gunn's outrageous humor and less polished approach to the subject matter. He's from the Troma school of filmmakers. I just love him a lot, so am probably biased.

Seems like a super fun take on an origin story. Trailer was very entertaining and the WETA apes actually look pretty great.

And this is why I give very much weight to your Super review. Couldn't agree more.

And that rating is based in 5000+ user ratings. I doubt that 5000 people in the world have seen it yet, let alone 5000 Rotten Tomato users.

Wow, and I LOVED, LOVED, LOVED Kick Ass. Does that mean I would likely not like Super?


Oh, and I'll be seeing Atlas Shrugged, if only via Netflix later. It's one of the first novels I ever read, and I'm just too curious to pass it up entirely.

Now that you bring it up:

6% from reviewers and 86% from the audience. I wonder if that disparity is a record for rotten tomato. At the very least I would have to agree with your observation that something fishy is going on.

The numbers on RT are always crazy before wide release.

Wow, I had no idea this was happpening. I like that they've cast somewhat unknown people. Intriguing.


ETA - I think l'll watch this one alone ;)

I heard about that one. I'll pass, thank you.

We are permanently behind on our movie watching - and choosy to boot. Netflix brought us A Single Man today, which we watched tonight. The film was beautiful beyond belief. One of the most stunning films I've ever seen that isn't made up of sweeping vistas and lush greenery. The story was powerful, the acting brilliant, the focused shots and the color faded added so much to the feel of the picture. I really loved everything about it except the melancholy mood it has put me in.

I rather liked The Conspirator. It was presented in a rather staid, old-school film style - but I found that perfectly appropriate to an historical piece about the aftermath of the Lincoln assassination. It's a bit of history I was personally ignorant of, and the two lead performances were excellent - so I really enjoyed it.

Also, having experienced the eerie movie-release timing of The China Syndrome to the Three Mile Island events several decades ago, I had a strange sense of deja-vu - since just this week it was announced that plans had been scuttled to hold civil trials for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and 4 other 9/11 plotters, and instead subject them to "military tribunals."

Redford made no bones about comparing the injustice of the assassination plotters' trial to current events - but unless he was making up American history out of whole cloth, I found the comparisons pretty apt - and the timing could not have been much better.

We finally saw The King's Speech tonight. Loved it!

It's being delivered tomorrow for us. I can't wait. It's a Firth Fest here!

Dammit, we're on the shortlist waiting....I'll console myself with Pride and Prejudice in the meantime.

I gotta admit, I found The King's Speech so booooring, I fell asleep during it.

But under the assumption I was just really sleepy, I'll give it another shot some day. I'm in no hurry, though. I really didn't see what all the fuss was about, and wouldn't be surprised if this was just another in a long string of Best Picture WTFs.

While it wasn't my pick for best picture, I did think it was a very pleasant movie without much to say.

The King's Speech is my favorite of the six nominees I've made it through so far.

As to what it has to say, it's about friendship, honor, the importance of a fantasy and doing one's duty when you're thrown into a situation you're ill prepared for.

If you take out the part about doing one's duty in difficult situations, it's basically Toy Story 3, except without the claw jokes.

And the excitement, and the humor, and the interestingness, and the entertainment value. Yep, just like TS3.

It was free movie Monday from Redbox yesterday. I picked up Rabbit Hole, probably not the best selection given my mood lately. Anywho it was a very good drama but it was also depressing. It made me think about things that probably would have been best to not be in my brain at the moment. I think I'll have to rent it again when I'm in a better frame of mind. I like Nicole Kidman and she did a very good job in this movie.

I do not suggest CP rents it, or anyone with small children. Although it is poignant and touching in places it can also spin you off into what ifs.

The second movie, Zach didn't want his code, is Secretariat. At least that should be more litehearted, I hope. Maybe I should have gotten Yogi Bear, at least it would be good for groans ;)

Saw another slice of American History movie yesterday, Fair Game, about the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame scandal of the Bush years/Iraq War. Great performances by Sean Penn as Wilson and Naomi Watts as Plame. The DVD commentary was particularly surreal, by Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.


Over the weekend, I watched another movie about a bit of lesser American History, Cinema Verite, an HBO movie about the ground-breaking, first "reality" show, PBS series of the early 70's, "An American Family." Really interesting time capsule stuff.

The Lion King? In 3D?
Beauty and the Beast? In 3D?

I don't have or plan to have 3D at home anytime soon but I'm still curious about how well this is going to work out.

Just saw The Wildest Dream, amazing photography. Inconclusive on whether or not Mallory did make the summit. Indications are he and Irvine were on the way back down. Also had some amazing vintage footage and not enough Alan Rickman on the soundtrack (FYI for Pru).

I just finished watching this movie and came straight here :blush:

I agree with all of your sentiments NA but the ending confused me a little. Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed the ride.

We just saw Thor this afternoon. *sigh* Chris Hemsworth *sigh*.

For the life of me, I can't remember much about the plot. Something was distracting me. I'm just going to have to watch it again... (and again, and again....)

Bridesmaids was enjoyable if you're willing to sit through gross out comedy (I am) and the comedy of personal embarrassment (harder for me).

I saw it today as well. Being somewhat less distracted, I also don't remember much about the plot, largely because there was not much of one.

Overall I had the feeling that much like the comic itself, Thor is the lesser child in the Marvel movie franchise.

I saw Thor tonight as well. It kept my attention (all of it, not just the scenes I was drooling over). It also made me realize, despite my love for all things Stargate, the new BSG, Sanctuary and other SciFi, computers and technonogy how much of a geek I am not.

Things I wish had actually happened:
Jodorowsky's DUNE!

At least we get a "what might have been" documentary out of it.

Check out the video clip. That would have been the strangest shoot in film history. Ah, I could listen to Alexandro talk his enticing brand of crazy all day long.

Ugh ... so tantalizing!

A film about a film that never happened. Huh. So if it's successful will the sequel be the actual movie?

Well, ever since Lost In La Mancha came out, there have been rumors that Terry Gilliam's The Man Who Killed Don Quixote might actually get made.

It's not the only example of the genre: Lost in La Mancha.

This trailer has a little surprise, keep watching :)

Can't wait!

Watched The King's Speech last night. That movie would be nothing and nowhere without Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush. They are both amazing actors to watch.

I totally heart Colin Firth and am happy he won an aAcademy Award. I think Geoffrey Rush was robbed, he stole the movie and should have stolen all the awards, too.

Last night watched The Illusionist (animated film, not Edward Norton film from a while back) The Jacques Tati story was touching, funny and sad. I wept at the end. Animation was beautiful.

Love it - they played it before On Stranger Tides (which bites by the way). Can't wait to see it.

I didn't have a miserable time watching On Stranger Tides. (It wasn't as bloated, overbearing and noisy as the third entry, which I found punishingly awful) On the other hand, once it was over, I was struck by how indifferent it all was. Depp was a third (or fourth) wheel most of the time. The way the romantic sub-plot (with the missionary and Syrena) ended up didn't make much sense, but I cared so little it didn't matter. I'll have forgotten the whole thing by this time tomorrow, so little impact did it make.

Was the afore-mentioned trailer in 3D? Will the movie be?

As for the romance, I suspect that there'll be more in the next two movies.

Maddie wasn't thrilled about the romance either.

I decided after the last two atrocities I was done with the Pirates franchise unless the vibe on Tides was overwhelmingly positive. That does not seem to be the case so I'll pass on this one for now.

Busting out of work early: Check.
Fresh load of Netflix Blu-rays on their way: Check
Moonliners "Hole in the head" home theater finally ready for action: Check
Hot air popper and fresh popping corn: Check
Plenty of Coke: Check
Three day weekend: Check.

My cheese is happy. :D

Huh: I always thought you were a meth guy