I picked up Beyond the Valley of the Dolls tonight - I am so happy. This will headline the next swank movienight

Watched Silkwood today. It was ok and both Kurt Russell and Meryl Streep were great. Of course it underplayed the controversy over her plutonium exposure but that is to be expected.

However, I see that Cher was nominated for Best Supporting Actress for this roll and I just don't see it. She didn't really have much to do. Was it simply because she was playing a lesbian in 1983?

I was going to watch a DVD tonight but Gilda was on TCM so I watched that instead. I don't think I had seen this wonderful film before. God, Rita Hayworth was beautiful! I seem to be seeing quite a bit of the film noir classics lately. I don't mind one bit.

Just saw Little Miss Sunshine. I'll have to agree with ISM assessment of the film. I felt everyone acted like they should, so there wasn't much surpise in the storytelling there, but I think the time spent with the characters in the film really overshadowed the fact that they were all stereotypes who reacted fairly typicaly to the situations presented.

Really one of the best films this year.

I am really wondering if it is too late to go see Snakes on a Plane. Will it be a fun audience or an empty audience this weekend.

Oh the delimna.

I saw it for a second time and the theatre was empty, albeit I went to a 4 o'clock showing, i say this week should still be good.

I finally saw Citizen Kane. You guys were right. It was a good movie.

whew, cause we were going out on a limb with that one.


i mean, we like it here alright ... but it's not generally highly regarded.








:p

Saw Powder last night. Very interesting and had some touching moments in it. Great acting for the most part, especially the kid who played Powder. I'd never heard of it before. It's from 1995.

Yay! I second iSm's 'whew'!
:)

I have to disagree. Citizen Kane is not a good movie.

It is a freakin' great movie. It is, I say with comfort, the greatest English movie ever made. Even if there is debate it is where the movie should be in the top five.

Saying Citizen Kane is a good movie is like saying the Mona Lisa is a decent drawing or Michael Jordan was a fair basketball player.

My mouth fell open reading this. Then I read on.

CK is my favorite. Ever.

Also, I'm glad to hear that iSm and I finally agree on a movie! The rest of you should see Little Miss Sunshine, too.

Just for the record/reminder. I did see it a few weeks ago and agree with what everybody has said. So far I know only one person who saw it and didn't like it.

The problem I have with CK is that I can't take my eyes off of it when it's on. If it's on TCM, I stop and watch. My DVD is pretty worn out, too.

LSPE, are you reading the O Wells bio by ... shoot... now I cant think by who. The actor with the funeral in Four Weddings and a Funeral.


I follow on the advice... see Little Miss Sunshine!!
No question!

Is that me?

No. I wasn't aware you had seen it. I take it you didn't like it?

I just wasn't that into the plot. I've only seen it once at a screening for a film class.

Oh. The bit you quoted from me was in response to LSPE and Little Miss Sunshine, not Citizen Kane. I'm sure that when I know hundreds of people who have seen Little Miss Sunshine as I do with Citizen Kane I'll know more than one who didn't like it (as I do with Citizen Kane).

We have a huge collection of Wells biographies (we're planning to write a screenplay about the relationship between John Houseman and Wells-- it's fascinating.) But I don't know if we have that one...

Wait, Steph, you didn't like Little Miss Sunshine? Awww. (edited to say-- err, yeah. You guys beat me to a discussion about it.)

I've always wondered if Cotten and Wells had a thing. They had such natural chemistry in CK and 'The Third Man'.

I think Ponine's talking about the second volume of Simon Callow's Welles bio. I appreciated the first one, though I felt like he went a little too far out of his way to "expose" Welles. I know that the Leaming one is filled with hyperbole, but it's still my favorite.

GC - Have you seen Journey Into Fear? I enjoy it more than the extant version of Ambersons.

I haven't seen it. I will now, though. But I bet it's one of those never been on DVD films... Grrr. It sounds good. Evil Nazi agents. (Nazis. I hate these guys.)


I'm waiting for Netflix to send me a copy of 'My Family and Other Animals'. I saw some of it on PBS and loved what I saw.


That reminds me. Has anyone here seen 'My Father's Glory' and 'My Mother's Castle'? They're two beautifully shot 'family on vacation' movies. It's light and airy and fun.
:)

A favorite movie. I first watched it in college and have seen it about five times. My grandfather met Rita Hayworth. Said she was a classy broad who could drink like a fish. He quite liked her.

She was gorgeous in that film. Glen Ford. Ah.

Ahhhh, the first "Running With Scissors" trailer is out.

I like the look of it and the music, but it's hard to tell from a trailer. But, for once, I'm excited about the filming of a novel - or memoir, actually.

Baited breath.

No, I was talking about Citizen Kane.

I really liked Little Miss Sunshine.

Right, thus the "edited to say: you guys beat me to a discussion about it."

For a writer, sometimes I'm so damn unclear!

Ok, let me rephrase. I LOVED Citizen Kane! I need to watch it a few more times to fully appreciate it. I fell asleep for five minutes because we were watching it late at night. When I fell asleep he was driving off with his second wife. When I woke up they were in Xanadu and the doctor was at her bed. Did she try to kill herself?

That's my take on it. He does say something to the nurse about not knowing how Mrs. Kane mixed up these bottles etc.

Yes, thank you. That is the biography I was thinking of.
I have only seen the first, and saw an article referring to the second one just recently.

Oh, I thought you meant this running with scissors! Sorry...

It does look like it could be a good movie though.....

Ah confusion abounds at times in a thread devoted to miscellaneous movie musings.



But, all in all, I'd say G.C.'s concept has been paying off nicely.

That's right where I woke up. The whole movie I'm going, "Wow, the guy playing CK is really good!" Then the credits come up and it's Orson Wells. Duh to me!

I'm watching the HBO mini-series 'Elizabeth' right now. Helen Mirren is fantastic, as are Jeremy Irons and Hugh Dancy. It's a love/hate thing for me at the moment. I, of course, love the history but am turned off by the way the director has made Elizabeth I a crybaby. She's stomping around the castle weakly. I think that is wrong. That face, says several books I have read, was saved for very very few. There was also a scene where she shed a tear in front of her troops... I think that is the wrong take on it. This director despises establishing shots and whoever the art director was that painted one of her rooms to look like a seascape should be shot.
The Earl of Essex (Dancy) is gorgeous. Nice choice.
Mirren is fantastic, but the camera angles do her no justice, nor does the lighting.
Glenda Jackson is the best E I in my opinion. (Dame Judi's part was wayyyy too small in 'Shakespeare in Love'.)
I recommend it nonetheless.
It's far better than the youth-inized version that was on PBS several months ago with a rock score attached to it. Ghastly.
As you can read, this queen turned into quite a queen watching that other queen. :D

But it was the best part of that movie! "Too late, too late!" Teehee!

Oh, I totally agree. I love her to death. She was fantastic. She was good as Victoria as well in 'Mrs. Brown'.


So, I finished the second half of 'Elizabeth I' and the second part is twice as good. Much better. I recommend this mini-series. It's good stuff. A couple of things made me cringe but overall it was good.
:)

Though only covering the early escapades, I liked Cate Blanchette the best, and her E. movie the most.

Oooh! That was a good one, too! Even BT wanted to see that, most likely because it had the guy from Head of the Class in it.

Watched Gremlins 2. I thought it would be horrible. That's why I've avoided it all these years (decades?)

You all may think I'm a simpleton for this, but I rather enjoyed it. I like the original, so that helps. And I learned the Howie Mandel does the voice of Gizmo.

And as the credits rolled, Daffy Duck came out to make wise cracks!

I watched "Lost Boys" after work today - just me in a darkened break room.

I love that movie, it's filmed at my favorite place on Earth and even has an Aerosmith tune on the soundtrack... :)

Lost Boys is awesome. Ah, and it was filmed and released at the height of my Santa Cruz constant visitation. Le sigh.


Just now, this second, finished watching Brick. Hard-boiled, tough-talking, 100% Noir in modern-day, high-school mileu. See it.:coffee:

Saw "Snakes on a Plane" and its exactly what I thought. Dumb, cheesy, bad special effect, bad writing and even cheesy-er tag lines. Ugh.

But, I enjoyed the heck out of it. It was fun. I left my brain at the boxoffice and just ran with the whole thing. Couple good howls out of me and some screams, I admit. It was worth the price of admission (nothing) but really was alot of fun.

Also Re: Citizen Kane. I really enjoyed the audio commetaries on the special edition DVD. Roger Ebert and Peter Bogdonovich give excellent insight and I learned quite a bit about the film.

We watched Capote last night. It was a LOT darker than I thought it was going to be. But, what a great film. Phillip Seymore Hoffman is an amazing actor. He really nailed Tru. I realized I've never read any Capote. Nor have I read To Kill a Mockingbird. I'm familiar with the film versions of both TKaM and Breakfast at Tiffany's but my eyes haven't given the written word their fair due.

Per EH1814's suggestion, I watched 'Babette's Feast' last night. Loved it. Wonderful film. The film was totally inspired. A perfect film. Beautiful.
:)

I also recommend 'My Family and Other Animals'. It's fun filled fluff. :)

One of my all time favorite movies, and one that set me on a path of unfulfilled lust for Kiefer. MMMMMMMM vampire Kiefer.

That was a fun era for movies. Kiefer, Kevin, Julia and Jason were in everything; a second brat pack of sorts.

I watched How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. Cute fun movie. A nice change after Brokeback Mtn and Syriana.

Philip WAS Tru, wasn't he? He was great! :cheers:

I watched the movie made from "In Cold Blood" first, then "Capote". It was real interesting to see that way. His book In Cold Blood really changed modern writing with the very first non-fictional novel. :snap:

To be fair, Harper Lee, Trumans' close friend, wrote TKaM (her only novel).

I wasn't very clear about that in my post, was I. Duh.

Just finished up 'Runaway Jury'. I liked it. Lots of twists.
:)

I was debating wether or not to see Snakes on a Plane. I heard it was good fun with snakes that look fake. Ok, I can deal with that, and I can deal with the whole *any time there isn't a snake in view one will startle me* thing. But I just got off the phone with Erica and she told me that . That, I cannot deal with. Give me .

Capote so impressed me, I actually bought the DVD. Am currently listening to In Cold Blood on CD right now, it's so very lyrical, I'm quite amazed (never read it before, so I am going to have to get the book too)

Just watched Chocolat, which was a nice piece of fluff and was a fun fairy tale kind of film. The theme is chocolate, why wouldn't I like it? I'd rate the film yummy.

I was thinking about 'Chocolat' last night after watching 'Babette's Feast'. It seems to me that that film and 'Like Water for Chocolate' got some influence from 'Babette'. Just a theory I have. I love all three films, btw.
:)

Me too, love all three! I need to revisit Babette's Feast, it's been a while since I've watched it. Note to self, add to Netflix Queue.

Saw Dirty Dancing at a party. It's been a long time....and I still love it. I still think Swayze is hot in it, still love the music, still love the corny plot completely lacking in subtlety. The other girls disagreed - oh well.

There is another Truman Capote movie surrounding the events of In Cold Blood coming out this fall. I have to take people's word for it that Hoffman was Capote since I don't really know a thing about the man other than what was in the movie. But I do know that Hoffman wasn't Hoffman so that is good enough for me.

Watched the Japanese bloodfest Battle Royale the other night after years of people telling me I had to watch it. I was just "eh" on it but I understand why it had cult status in certain circles.

Bill and I just went an saw Little Miss Sunshine. Absolutely f-ing hysterical!

Is anyone, besides me, looking forward to Hollywoodland? It's got a good cast and loooks to be very noirish, which is always appealing to me.

I don't know enough about the mystery surrounding the death/suicide of George Reeves to know how accurate it may be, but with Bob Hoskins in it, I am compelled to see it. Diane Lane looks like she will be turning in a good performance as well. Then there is Adrien Brody...

Ummmmmm......Adrien Brody. But, only if he is playing an intellectual. I don't like him as a palooka.

I just watched 'Schindler's List' again after a long hiatus from watching the film. It's truly a great film. I think it was Spielberg's last great film. (Save the first 20 minutes of 'Private Ryan'.)
It doesn't feel right to talk about how beautiful this film is, but it is. There is some great imagery that hits a homerun in this film. There are parts that drag, but he really did something right with this one.
I have seen the film at least 4 times now and missed the shot of Schindler and his wife driving away in concentration camp uniforms. I don't know how I missed that before. I also thought he did a good job showing the progression of characters even the minor ones. There were a lot of people to keep track of and he did it well.
And Liam Neeson is huge! He looks like he's 7 feet tall in this film. :)

We watched Detour last night. Chris missed it at the Cemetery this summer and I wanted him to see it. It really hit me how wonderful it is to see films with a GOOD crowd. While it was great to see again, it just wasn't the same as sharing the experience with a mostly knowledgable and appreciative film crowd.

Now to remove the sad from my heart, I'm watching 'It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World'. Watching Ethel Merman slip on that banana peel makes me laugh every time.
:D

He looks like he plays the cop who suffers

I believe he is a private investigator.

Too bad.

I stand corrected! :blush:

A corrected who suffers!

Detour, schmeetour ... and Hollywoodland?? - -eh, good premise, but the word out on the film is 'meh'.


I'm still recommending "Brick" as the noir du jour.

I tend to get my "Jury" movies mixed up. Is this the one with John Cusack? If so I really enjoyed it. Such a great cast, and they really did keeping you guessing. It was something I just watched one day when it came on HBO, and liked it way more than I was expecting. I do have a bit of a thing for Cusack though, so I figured that had something to do with it.

Yeah, it is the one with John Cusack. I've only seen bits and pieces of the movie but the book is truly horrendous.

I've had a crush on Cusack (in a healthy hetro way of course...) ever since "Grosse Point Blank". Now that was a fun movie. :snap:

I've read good things about it, and meant to see it in the theater. The last time I was at Blockbuster all the copies were out. It's definitely on my list.

Movies, movies
 

try CAPOTE, TRANSAMERICA, HEAD ON (German and set in two subcultures in Berlin; the postpunk and the Turkish immigrant. movie is an emotional rush):)

All in one night? I'm not sure I'm emotionally fit for that combo.

I have the same thing, only I go back to Say Anything. There's a reason In Your Eyes is one of my all time favorite songs.

Don't worry, gentlemen, the ManCrush is gaining ground as a legitimate, non-homo phenomena.



It won't be too many years now before people don't think you're gay.

Hey, his movie was about some lovesick geek with a radio. Mine was at least about contract killers, death and other manly stuff.

Glad to see you caught up on Capote, Lisa. (It was both Tom's and my favorite film last year. Close on the heels was Wallace & Grommit and Junebug, so if anybody hasn't seen either of those, hie thee to a video rental location.)

I need to add Junebug to my Netflix queue.

Yeah, Junebug is definitely worth. The Wallace and Gromit movie is so definitely not (I know I seem to be in the minority but I found it extremely disappointing).

Yes, you do!

I saw Junebug. I thought it was a great character piece, but the overall film didn't go anywhere. It was deffinitely worth watching though even if just for Amy Adams who was amazing.

I liked 'Junebug'. But like xhb said it goes nowhere. I really liked Amy Adams' character but despised the actor who plays her husband. I don't know what it is about him but I can't stand his acting...

Watching 'It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World' last night made me wish I had more slapstick comedies in my DVD library.
:)

Tonight I'm watching 'Some Like it Hot'. It's such a good film.
Has anyone else noticed Marilyn Monroe's dress during her 'I Want to Be Loved By You' number? Uh, it's practically see through. The lighting guy looked like he had special instruction to hit her with a spotlight in a certain way so as not to give it all away. It's deliberate if you watch it. And what's also deliberate is the placing of the sequins on her dress. They look like nipples. No lie.
:)

Orry Kelly, one of my favosite designers! If I am not mistaken, he was nominated, if not a winner, of an Academy Award. That monkey fur number she wears in her first scene with the steam engine, priceless!

Of course, Jack Lemmon is priceless in this film. I can never look at maracas and not think of "him"

Ooh! Next up from Netflix will be The Bad Sleep Well, been years since I've seen it!

I have 'Match Point' and 'All Quiet on the Western Front' coming from Netflix. :)

I don't think I've ever seen 'The Bad Sleep Well'. I'll have to look it up.

All Quiet with Lew Ayres? A great film. I enjoyed Match Point, but liked Crimes & Misdemenors better

Yes, that's the one.
C&M is one of my all time favorite Woody Allen films.
:)

I read that as S&M

Junebug was so cool it didn't have to go anywhere. Lots of films don't go anyway ... and yeah, that's generally considered a fault. It did sorta bug me about Junebug ... but its other qualities made it worthwhile.

For me the characters in Junebug were so interesting (for the most part) that they sucked me in, but then when it was over I just thought, "that's it?" I wanted it to be more. I don't mind a film that is set up as "a day in the life of" and goes nowhere, but this one seemed as though they were setting up something great and just couldn't figure out where to go with it. The one character that dissapointed me the most was the lead character's husband. He didn't seem to serve any purpose other than to be the reason she was with this family. I also didn't think they were very consistent with who he was. Different scenes seemed to give a conflicting idea of what the character was about. Almost like his sole purpose as a character was to facilitate the needs of the other characters.

I will say this about 'Junebug'... the mother character hit close to home for me...

I don't think character pieces need to "go anywhere". It's all about the evolution and experience of the characters. The couples marriages are profoundly effected by what happened in the movie, and though we do not get to see what becomes of them, the momentum of their change is evident at the end of film, in my opinion.

I like Hugh Jackman. I like and sometimes love Scarlett Johansson. and I love Ian McShane, so foolishly I went to see Scoop. At least the music was really good, Jackman looked dishy, and McShane was charming, though nothing like he is on Deadwood. Ah, well. I'm used to being disappointed by and annoyed with Woody Allen. I shoulda known better, or at least waited for video.

This is my plan. Then I can just replay the pool scene over and over and over...

Smart. Very smart.

I quite disagree. Who, in life, is consistent?

I understood him-- and I connected with him. Returning home to a small city and a family I've left behind is a confusing and odd experience. Sometimes you feel warm and connected, sometimes you feel completely at odds. Sometimes you hook in to a part of you that used to exist (ie singing at church) and sometimes you can't even face them after a few hours. Sometimes you can't understand why you left. Sometimes, after you leave again, you say "I'm so glad to be out of there," whether you mean it or you not. (Probably both.)

Saw The Illusionist tonight, starring Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti, Rufus Sewell, and Jessica Biel.

The acting was fine as you'd expect. And it was a pretty movie. Unfortunately it was dreadfully boring as it is a movie attempting misdirection but the actual lay of the land is apparent at each step. And in the end, the one thing you really want explained, especially since the whole movie depends on it, is not.

It's pretty, though.

Aw, and I was so looking forward to that one being an exceptional movie, too.:(

Saw Beyond the Valley of the Dolls tonight - I was so happy to finally get this on DVD - I mean Roger Ebert and Russ Meyers. It was everything I remembered and more, the fashion, the art direction, the dialogue - God, I hope this one makes it the cemetary sometime - it has to be seen with Company - and such an homage to LA and it's decadent entertainment industry.

Having seen that recently on HD Movies, I can say that Beyond The Valley of the Dolls is a great one to pair with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band :cool:

Saw Crank tonight.

It is better than I expected. It has aboslutely nothing in the way of socially redeeming values and couldn't quite sustain itself all the way to the end but it had its moments. As a litmus test, if you found yourself enjoying The Transporter despite its many schlocky faults you'll probably enjoy this one.

With Fearless and The Protector also coming out this month September will be good for fans of hand-to-hand movie combat.

This week's fare will be eithr Hollywoodland or The Illusionist. Might be hitting the Balboa Theater out in the avenues, depends on the choice of my hosts. If not Hollywoodland this weekend, the next for sure, it's playing the Kabuki in Japantown, walking distance from me.

I won't be bored at home, Netflix just arrived with 3 Disney films I've not seen, Robin Hood, Pete's Dragon and The Rescuers.:)

I saw 'Poseidon' on the flight back home from LA. It was so bad it gave me hives.

I watched 'The Wild' also. But I refused to put my headphones on to listen to it too. :D

We just watched 'Match Point'. Loved it. Wonderful flick.
:)

I just was forced to wach RV. Luckily I kept thinking of things to do in the other room so missed a good portion of it. Really really bad. Even the munchkin got bored and thought it wasn't funny.

I watched about five minutes of RV, and then decided to clean the bathroom.

I saw The Protector the other day. Unfortunately Mr. Harvey Weinstein has decided that the way to handle an Asian martial arts movie is to cut all exposition (who wants to watch the yelloe people talk, eh?) and redub it with a hip hop soundtrack.

But it is still a sight to behold. Tony Jaa is quickly turning into the next Jackie Chan (but without the humor) and if you have any appreciation for the martial arts genre of movies there are two set pieces in this movie that absolutely must be seen.

If you don't have much appreciation for martial arts movies you will want to stay away.

We saw "Confetti" tonight-- little Fox Searchlight/BBC Films production done in mockumentary style a la Christopher Guest. Though not as good as Guest's best work, it kept us chuckling.

The film's premise was a contest as thrown by a wedding magazine trying to find England's most unique wedding themes. It came down to three-- tennis, nudist, and vintage Hollywood musical.

Seeing as the latter selection was only off our own approaching wedding theme by one word, we were definitely amused. (Also by the others.) Not necessarily a rush-to-see-in-theatres film (and likely you won't be able to) but a good possibility for your Netflix account, if you need silliness.

We are not going to have time to see Little Miss Sunshine any time soon. :( Too much going on. It's bumming me out.

Tonight is sushi at Japan Town and then either The Illusionist or Hollywoodland at the Kabuki. :D

Tonight's fare was Hollywoodland. On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd give it a 5. Well cast, the film could have been tightened up by a good 30 minutes of trimming. The intrercutting between the flashbacks and the present were choppy and excessive and disturbed the flow when something was slowly building, and then nothing. Essentially, I felt the whole film was a slow build to nothing.

Affleck was handsome and charming enough, but I didn't really care for Reeves as a person or character in this film at all. I think the best scene was an early one in which he meets the Diane Lane character, Toni Mannix, those fairly crackle with possibility. Then we get to the skid row, second rate detective story. I love Adrien Brody, but this sub-plot of the divorcee detective and his angst ridden son and bitter ex-wife did not really move the plot along.

Bob Hoskins was short and sweet as Eddie Mannix. Not enough to do, but the denouement with Brody was excellent.

Diane Lane was a bit over the top, but in a good way. Got to give her props, she played and older woman, was made up that way and pulled it off. Loved her pink t-bird, that was the real Lana Turner moment, think The Bad & the Beautiful (now that is something they should show at the cemetary screenings).

Some of the movie seemed over crowded, cramped sets, claustrophobic. Cinematography was good, it had the lush, 1950s look to it. But the direction was plodding, imo. As I said, 30 minutes could have been trimmed easily.

In the end, the movie solved nothing, gives you three options and leaves it to the viewer to figure out what really killed old Superman. The sad thing, you get to the end of the movie and you don't really care about poor old George or anyone else for that matter.

Saw Vera Drake last night. Quite good, I thought. I liked how they addressed the different issues of abortion without being too preachy on any side. Sort of a neutral view. Imelda Staunton was amazing in it.

I agree. The movie is quite good. And, as always, Imelda Staunton gives an excellent performance. I was amazed at how well paced the movie was. I just bought a copy from a Blockbuster near Chris and Lisa's. $5! Yeehaw! :)

I agree that Vera Drake was very good but I found it quite preachy and anything but neutral.

Really? I thought that they presented just about every side of the story. Young girls getting an abortion because they couldn't care for a child, legalized abortions being safer but expensive and more invasive, and the risks of do-it-yourself abortions.

Eh, a bit preachy, but moving. Staunton's performance sold it beautifully.

Maybe I should watch it again, because I didn't get that from the movie at all...

Runaway Bride was on TV last night. I endured maybe half an hour (while doing something else) before I switched to DVD reruns of Newsradio.

I watched "Paper Moon" last night. I had never seen it somehow. I forgot all about Pter Bogdanovich....and both of the O'Neals as well.

Madeline Kahn and her maid steal that movie for me. I love love love that film.
"This little baby gotta go winkie tinkie..."
"She's like that little white speck on top of old chicken sh!t!"
Love it.
:)

If you haven't seen it, I recommend you check out Bogdanovich's Saint Jack. If nothing else it has one of the most surprising uses of a midget in movie history.

Does involve a wall of velcro? Been there, done that.

Nope.

We saw Bogdanavich speak at the Turner Classic Movies store (short-lived as it was) at the Grove. He had some truly funny anecdotes (though his impressions were terrible.) Two years later we're still referencing his tale of meeting Ryan O'Neill on an airplane.

Rented Swordfish last night. I don't know how I even heard about it; maybe somewhere in this thread for all I know.

Pretty basic caper movie. One of John Travolta's good roles. But the main reason to see the film, and the main thing I took away from it is ...


Hugh Jackman is hubba hubba :eek: oh my, is it hot in here? :eek: could you be any sexier? :eek: Is that your name, or a suggestive invitation that I'm just about ready to take you up on? :coffee: hot, hot, hot.









That is all.

'Jackass 2'. I laughed. A lot! Hysterical.
:)

Bummer.

I hear a cold shower can relieve that;)

Last night Monkeybone was on teevee. I saw most of it (edited, of course). The movie was so-so, but what really stuck with me is how uncomfortable I was watching Brendan Fraser when the Stu body was inhabited by Monkeybone. I don't know if it's because he's a super actor and I was supposed to be creeped out, or if I'm just so used to him playing essentially noble hero roles that I just couldn't buy him in this role. I haven't seen anything else he's been in since the Mummy Returns, I don't think, so maybe he does all kinds of roles now and I just don't get it. But normally leather pants activate my 'oooh! it's a bad boy!' salivary glands, and this time I nearly turned the channel.

(On the other hand, it was the only time I've ever found Chris Kattan to be even slightly watchable.)

I agree totaly. I had the same feeling, and I think that is what they were going for, and shows what a good actor Brandon Fraser is.

The last movie I saw him in was "Loony Toons, back in action" (though he had a small part in "Dikie Roberts"). But I have liked him best in "Blast From The Past" which came out the same year as "The Mummy" and "Dudly Do Right" (Man he is a busy actor!). He was perfect as "George Of The Jungle" (which is why the second one sucked, 'cause they didn't get him), and had that same innocence in "Encino Man" that I liked.

I saw Hollywoodland friday night. I really enjoyed the film. There were a few moments when it was slow, but the performances were amazing all around. Even Ben Afflek (Big surprise there, although if there was a "worst" it would be him). Brody was wonderful. It was difficult to take you're eyes off him and his mesmerizing performance. I was very impressed.

I give it 9 bornieo's out of 10!!

Haven't seen Monkeybone but Brendan Fraser has put together a pretty decent dramatic resume in between his more slapstick roles. Particularly The Quiet American and Gods and Monsters.

Is he a white hat or a black hat in those?

Definitely a white hat in Gods and Monsters (with perhaps a touch of pink).

I haven't seen The Quiet American. Any good?

Just finished watching 'Grand Hotel'. It's a grand film. Love it. :)

"Miss Grusinskaya will not dance tonight."

Is that a film, or your neighbor??

I just watched the Sci-Fi Ch's mini-series of DUNE. I loved the books and the David Lynch film to death. This mini was a soooo cheesy. Really, really bad acting, special effects are horrible. IT's about 4 hours of the worst TV mini series has to offer. Or with the budget of $3.50.

This gets 1 bornieo out of 10.

First time I saw Monkeybone I hated it. Second time, I thought it was FANTASTIC. I don't know what changed my mind, but I thought everyone's performances were pretty darn great. The dead zombie dude? His body work was AMAZING.

I recently watched Amores Perros and Hard Candy. Both were excellently crafted, acted, written, directed, etc.

But I don't want to see either movie ever, ever again. Hard Candy especially set my teeth on edge.

Interesting... I thought the minseries was far superior to the Lynch version.

I agree.

I saw Hard Candy in the theater. Extremely well done.

Yep, put me down for Dune series superior to the movie in every way .... except visually.

The visuals in the movie were splendid (effects were cheesy as hell, but the visual concepts and production design were great). The rest of the movie was pure suckitude.

Watching them both gives you an amalgamation appreciation for the story. But, um, you're way better off reading the book.


(and then stopping. None of the zillion sequels were anywhere near as good.)

Worms? Spice? Is there a connection?



Why do the STUPIDEST lines stay in my brain for years and years.

Thanks for the $64M word, ISM.:D

And for those of us with little education (I had to look this up, as I'm clueless, with the exception of Amalgam in dentistry- but still didn't know what it meant):


Amalgamation, meaning to combine or unite into one form, has several uses:

*Amalgam, in chemistry, mining and dentistry, the result of the blending of mercury with another metal or alloy

*Amalgamation, in business, the result of mergers of companies

*Amalgamation (music), the synthesis of sound events into an inter-parametric unit where parameters act together

*Amalgamation (album), an EP released by the band Pop Will Eat Itself in 1994

:snap:

Both Junebug and Brick are on their way to me from Netflix.

Is the 1964 version of Masque of the Red Death available on DVD? Anyone know? I haven't found it, but it seems impossible to me that the others in that sort of series would be available but not that one.

IMDb does show it was released on DVD but their link to Amazon goes nowhere so must be long out of print.

It is available from Amazon Canada paired on one disc with The Premature Burial. $12.78 CDN. The same disc is available from Amazon UK and France as well.

'All Quiet on the Western Front' is an amazing film for its time and even now. It came out in 1930 and still packs a punch. Again, another film that Spielberg seems to have borrowed from. I recommend it.
:)

:snap: Right there with you GC.

It also on eBay, paired with Premature Burial, like Alex said. This one is $7.90, with $5.95 shipping. There were quite a few, starting as low as $3.99 and up new.

Since I'd rather stick a fork in my eye than buy from Amazon, I might have to go the eBay route. thanks.

I'm sure you can find other vendors out there. Amazon is just a good source for what is actually avialable. If you aren't aware, IMDb is owned by Amazon so if you go to a movies page there is a box in the upper right that shows all the various national Amazon stores that have that movie available on DVD.

Though I am curious why you don't like Amazon.

*waits patiently for Lisa to watch Junebug*

Short version: placed order. Waited. Waited. Waited. Ship by date long gone. Contacted customer service and was told they had cancelled order on their end due to computer problems and they don't notify you when that happens. No they couldn't revive it - I'd have to place a new order. Got my goods elsewhere. Got Visa bill. Was charged for order - TWICE. Still no goods. Company refused to respond, so disputed charges. Months later get "your items have shipped!" email on "cancelled" order, and bill charged again. Customer service in India couldn't care less. Disputed charges and refused shipment. Stateside CS finally contacts me with "sorry, here's a $5 gift certificate for your trouble." This is just the bare bones and doesn't cover the whole of the communication, if you can call it that. And it wasn't the first problem I'd had with them, just the last.

I took that advice. I've only read the first book and LOVED it.

I watched 'Raging Bull' tonight on HDMV... Such wonderful power, I love that movie.

We watched Bee Season last night. So good. I recommend it.

My reviews run tomorrow:

The Guardian - Very mediocre but in an entertaining way. If you like the solid, middle-of-the-pack John Wayne movies and things like that you have a shot of enjoying this one.

Renaissance - A French motion-capture animated movie (kind of like City City, but more so) that was picked up by Miramax. Impressively dull. Seriously, I think I yawned more in that 90 minutes than in the previous month.

'Adam & Steve' = Hysterical, loved it. I laughed out loud for reals during it. I recommend it to the mo's and the straights. Funny sh!t.
:)

The Science of Sleep. Not a flawless movie, but very, very lovely. The performances were excellent and the stop animation was inventively integrated into the live action. Considered it as an intimate look at someone who confuses reality and dreams (at times willingly, and at other times beyond his control), in a way that may have been more heartbreaking than sweet and dreamy.

We saw both Junebug and Brick over the weekend. I thought Brick worked really well. Classic style in a different setting, great story, good characters, I really enjoyed it and wonder why it didn't get more buzz/press.

Junebug I liked- but less than I thought I would. Maybe it's because I was expecting to like it and that's always a bad thing. I thought Amy Adams was great, as was all of the cast. My favorite charater, however, was the next door neighbor. The entire movie, it bothered be where I had seen the wife/actresss before. I find it so distracting when I recognize the actress but can't place her. A trip to IMDB after revealed Bridgette Jones' Diary to be the thing on the tip of my tongue.

Bother are in the mail and next on the list are Brokeback Mtn (about time, eh?) and The Libertine. I need a more exciting queue.

Ooh, those two will be at the extremes of entertaining filmmaking.

Here's my current Netflix list. Some of these films I don't event want to see any longer - they were only a passing fancy. Considering how many films I DON'T see, I would think I'd have a better list.

8 1/2 Women
A Beautiful Mind
Akira
Antonia's Line
Auntie Mame
Boys Don't Cry
Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason
Brokeback Mountain
Bubba Ho-Tep
Children of Paradise: Disc 1
Children of Paradise: Disc 2
City of God
Dead Man Walking
Devdas
Dogma
Farinelli
Girl with a Pearl Earring
Hard Eight
Hedwig and the Angry Inch
High and Low
House of Sand and Fog
Igby Goes Down
Iggy & The Stooges: Live in Detroit
In America
Kiss Me Kate
Lantana
Lumiere and Company
Malena
Memories
Metropolis
Mystic River
Open Your Eyes
Phone Booth
Pollock
Pride and Prejudice: Vol. 1
Pride and Prejudice: Vol. 2
Sense and Sensibility
Shadow of a Doubt
Snatch
Steamboy
Strangers with Candy: Season 2: Disc 1
Strangers with Candy: Season 2: Disc 2
Swept Away
The Bicycle Thief
The Big Heat
The Cooler
The Day of the Locust
The Filth and the Fury: A Sex Pistols Film
The Libertine
The Red Violin
The Third Man
The Women
Thirteen
Tony Takitani
Trigun: Vol. 1: The $60,000,000,000 Man
Trigun: Vol. 2: Lost Past
Trigun: Vol. 3: Wolfwood
Trigun: Vol. 4: Gung-Ho-Guns
Trigun: Vol. 5: Angel Arms
Trigun: Vol. 6: Project Seeds
Trigun: Vol. 7: Puppet Master
Trigun: Vol. 8: High Noon
Two Women
Vanilla Sky
Vatel
What's the Matter with Helen?
Wilde

Junebug was good, but really made me feel uncomfortable. I loved the opening with the outsider artist as it reminded me of an excursion we once made to visit James Martin at the Donald Duck Ranch. He was delightfully excentric. In Junebug though the artist seemed to turn much darker.

The Characters were good, but totally creeped me out in their disfuntionalness - they all needed years of therapy and even then, I wouldn't want to hang with them. I think it did a great job of capturing the telling silences and cutting passive agressiveness of families - but sheesh, this one depressed me. Glad I saw it, but happy we rented and didn't buy.

Brick was a delight. I loved the classic Noir tale, rolled out in the context of a High School - the showgirl being the Drama class diva, the stoners a sort of outer circle of a darker force. There were moments when the dialogue just didn't seem right coming out of a high school student, but then as a metaphore for the melodramatics of that time in one's life, it seemed to work just fine.

I meant to say I also watched Lon Chaney's "Laugh, Clown, Laugh".

One of the greatest, saddest films I've ever seen, and I'm now completely convinced that Chaney is one of the greatest actors to ever be captures on film. My God, he's amazing.

I thoroughly enjoyed Junebug, but it was definitely in the sense of being provided a window into lives I would hate to live.

I exposed Nickolas to the wonder that is SpaceBalls. He laughed a few times, but most of it went over his head. He and David went through a mess of old movie posters last night, the ones that actually hung in the theaters. One of them was for Spaceballs, so he wanted to see it. I enjoyed watching it again, but I'm not sure how much he enjoyed it.

I saw "United 93". I liked it. I'm saying that in a pure filmmaking view. It's well done. I enjoyed the fact that these real people were not played by the likes of Gene Hackman, Jessica Alba and Nicholas Cage. It puts you right on that plane and doesn't let you go for 2 hours. The editing was superb.

Emotionally, I was blown away. I cried a couple of times. The scene where the passengers attempt to take back control of the plane is amazing. It's visceral and jarring.

Watching the bonus features is a must. Seeing the reactions of the families to the film and watching the actors meet them is wonderful.

One of the family members said that one of the biggest reasons to have this immortalized on film is so that no one forgets what happened. I agree. Granted, we'll never know everything but it's a great real time account of events of that day.

I also didn't realize how close they were to the ground for a good portion of the flight. Yikes.

Not to mention that most of the real people who weren't on the plane were not only played by "unknowns," they were played by the actual real people who were the real people.

Far from that being a stunt, I found it a fantastic casting decision.

In the director's commentary, he points out that a wonderful alchemy occurred between the actors and non-actors ... in that the "non-professionals" started performing more like professional actors, and the professional actors started performing more like real people.

The acting or non-acting in this film sold me. It was very convincing. When I watch a movie and people are supposed to be panicking, I want to see running, tears, screaming, veins popping, sweat, everything.

Although the movie was "meh" I thought the two kids in "Jurassic Park" were great in the panic scenes. Especially when they were reacting to CG dinos.

The panic in "Titanic" was "meh" to me. I wanted to see more.

I just saw Employee of the Month. Funny, but very typical of the underdog get the girl flick. Not one to go out of your way to see. Video or HBO is about all its worth. Some good laughs beyond what you see in the trailer.

I give it 5 bornieo's out of 10

Here's the movies on NA's list that I haven't seen:


Antonia's Line
Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason
Children of Paradise: Disc 1
Children of Paradise: Disc 2
City of God
Devdas
Girl with a Pearl Earring
Hard Eight
High and Low
House of Sand and Fog
Iggy & The Stooges: Live in Detroit
Lantana
Lumiere and Company
Malena
Memories
Open Your Eyes
Phone Booth
Pollock
Shadow of a Doubt
The Big Heat
The Cooler
The Day of the Locust
The Filth and the Fury: A Sex Pistols Film
The Libertine
The Red Violin
Thirteen
Tony Takitani
Trigun: Vol. 1: The $60,000,000,000 Man
Trigun: Vol. 2: Lost Past
Trigun: Vol. 3: Wolfwood
Trigun: Vol. 4: Gung-Ho-Guns
Trigun: Vol. 5: Angel Arms
Trigun: Vol. 6: Project Seeds
Trigun: Vol. 7: Puppet Master
Trigun: Vol. 8: High Noon
Two Women
Vanilla Sky
Vatel
What's the Matter with Helen?


LISA! You haven't seen "The Women"? I'm sorry. You get a big "F" on your movie report card. :D Save that one, we'll watch it together. I'll bring my DVD copy with me. :)

I read it as TWO Women, GC. Different flick entirely. I think Lisa has seen The Women. That is a great movie party movie!

Lisa, no reason to see the Bridget Jones sequel. I caught it on cable some months back and could barely watch it. The original was so charming and cute. This was plain stupid and they showed everyone the money and they ran with that, but they should have run away from it. One of the top 5 of the worst films I've ever seen. I did not even find it to be a good bad film, nothing to recommend it.

Shadow of a Doubt, one of my favorite and one of the best dark Hitch films. I believe it was also Hitch's favorite of his films. Good performances all around and Joseph Cotten is marvelous (and at the time, so totally out of character for him) Also a very good bit with a young Hume Cronyn. Many thumbs up for this one :snap:

Oops. You're right, Snowflake. I read it wrong. I take back the "F", Lisa.
:)

"Man of the Year" = 17% on RottenTomatoes. That's pretty bad.
The reviews are calling it a comedy, a thriller and a romantic comedy. It sounds like it has an identity crisis. Ugh. Robin Williams is turning into box office poison... just like his buddy Affleck.

Won't be seeing that one...

We saw Secretary last night and I really enjoyed it, though I must confess it kept me dumbfounded for quite awhile as I digested this tale. While I expected the kink, I wasn't expecting the romance and the complexity of the relationships. My one complaint was the movement between fantasy and reality - the cartoony elements of the flashing secretary sign, or the strangely ornate office, where somewhat distracting to me, as was the crowd of people at the discipline watch/media event.

But a day later the movie really struck with me, particularly the character of Mr. Grey, how he is contrasted with the absuive alcoholic father, and his compassion for trapped mice. His penchance for dominance, is his shield to his shyness and ultimately the way his sexuality is repressed. Still there is much we don't know about him - had he played this scenario before with all the previous secretaries? If so, to what extent? Where the roles reversed in his relationship with his ex? I don't know interesting and thought provoking.

I saw a movie on cable called 'Little Otik'. It was bizarre, to put it mildly. I found it on the Rotten Tomatoes list...no kidding. But it was interesting. The claymation.

Aw. Maybe Robin Williams has some sort of contract do to those movies?

Glad you liked it. Seems you liked it so much, it affected your typing ability ;) This one also stuck with me for quite a while afterwards and any reminder of it makes me smile.

What struck me about him is how it seemed he didn't even understand his dominant side. When you think of a dominant person, especially to that extreme, you tend to think of someone who is confident and in control, but here's a guy who is overall clueless about what he wants out of his sexuality and yet expresses it in a dominant way.

I thought that was actually one of the aspects that made it more realistic.

For sure. I didn't mean that was a bad thing, just an observation of his character.

God, I love that movie. I'm glad you finally saw it, €.

From my perspective, Mr. Grey was not the only character who had trouble understanding himself-- or mistaking one person for something they weren't. The movie was filled with confusion on all parts. Lee couldn't figure out how to take care of herself, or how to express herself sexually (initially.) Her father couldn't figure out how to function without alcohol. Lee's boyfriend understood himself, but was very much confused about who Lee was.

All of the characters were quite fascinating to me. And, actually, I enjoyed that dancing line between fantasy and reality. And I very much enjoyed watching two people who were so interestingly, deeply suited to each other grow beyond their limitations to accept that.

I guess I like a lot of movies about things that people don't do. Don't say. Don't realize. At least until the end of the movie; perhaps not even then. Secretary, Junebug, Little Miss Sunshine. These are a few of my favorite things.

I loved it. I love the complexity and the oddity, the resolve and acceptance. I didn't have an issue with the fantasy/reality blurring - I usually find I don't unless it is CGI and slaps me on the face, then I hate it. I thought both Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader were fantastic! Their characters were so fully formed and well expressed. I really had no expectations going into it other than a possibily I would feel turned off by the kink. But, it actually was quite a sexy film and didn't hit my level of fear and disgust I usually have with violent S&M. Wonderful film!


Maybe we'll continue the Gyllenhaal/Sex theme tonight with Brokeback.

Ok everyone else gets to watch all these cool intellectual movies and I'm stuck watching a double feature of Click and Bratz - Passion 4 Fashion Diamondz :rolleyes:

Who's paying for the electricity around there? Show some dominance! (But not in a James Spader way)

Yes, becaues, no matter how satisfying the dominance, having someone pee in your office chair is kind of gross.

I saw Man of the Year last night.

It was an okay movie. Different than I expected, a few good one liners, but nothing too funny or moving.

The OC Register gave it a "D", but I would have given it a "B-". Pretty good plot, but not very well executed. I felt that they reigned in Robin Williams too much. But part of that is because he was playing a comedian trying to play it straight.

We watched Garden State again last night. I love that movie. So many parts are really lame, but the good parts are so good. Great soundtrack too. And Zach Braff. Who could ask for more?

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

Best movie title ever.
:)

A coworker recommended Noises Off and we Netflixed it. Amazing cast, wonderfully balletic dance of onstage/offstage antics, everyone was great. Pretty funny, though not incredibly so, but still highly amusing. I found myself turning away in embarrassment. I would freak out if I were on stage trying to handle all these problems.

'Noises Off' stresses me out. Seriously. I love the play and I think the film's okay, but it seriously stresses me out. It's like watching an actor's nightmare on film. I'd love to play the stage manager/crew guy one day.
:)

there's a one act play called "The Actor's Nightmare". Very funny. But not a movie (that I'm aware of).

I love "The Actor's Nightmare"! It's often performed with "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You" since both are really one act plays. If you have a chance to read, or even better see, either/both, I highly recommend doing so. Christopher Durang is a tremendously funny writer and I think his Cathodic perspective will resonate especially well with you GC.

I've seen "Actor's Nightmare" done at Chapman University. I love it.

I have not seen "SMIEIAFY" but I've heard great things about it. It's a must for me. I know it.
:)

All these great plays come up all of a sudden!

There is a movie based on Sister Mary ... but it's very "opened out" from the play. (I think it was made for HBO.)

I'll be attending a live performance of Noises Off this weekend. The WDW cast member theater group is putting it on. (They're called S.T.A.G.E. - That stands for "Society for Theater Arts, Growth and Expression," as awkward an acronym as you could ever hope for. I was once Vice President of said organization.)

You are correct! (well, Showtime, but I still give you full points ;) )

I saw it a few years ago. I don't think I would have cast Diane Keaton as Sr. Mary and I think the pacing could use some improvement, but it's still worth seeing.

I've never seen Sr. Mary. The Actor's Nightmare I saw performed by our high school drama class, and thus the Catholic reference would not have been considered suitable. Nightmare was so funny, though, that I still can visualize now, 15 years later, the high school actor performing it. I *still* have nightmares that it's dance recital time and I don't remember our dance. Or having been to rehersal. Or anything. And frantically trying to get people to teaching it to me in the wings before we take the stage. And of course I'm always in the front row of dancers.

Working hard to be happy in Finland.
 

We ordered "The Dudesons" on cable last night. It's basically "Jackass" in Finland with four Finns sharing a house and abusing themselves and each other in unimaginable ways while laughing hysterically. My wife, who descends on one side from a long line of Finnish alcoholics, was appalled but pointed out that the boys were all very pleasant fellows. Also notable is that the four speak impeccable English, as do the strippers that show up occasionally.

I saw The Prestige last night. Great movie! A little slow in places, they could have cut 15 minutes out and made it much better. There were twists and creepy parts that made a bit of a thriller. A very injoyable movie!

Four snaps from me!

:snap: :snap: :snap: :snap:

"Freaks"
What a great film.
Love it.
:)

You would.

:eek:


Just kidding!


You can slap me Sunday if you're going to be there. :D

Gabba Gabba We Accept You We Accept You One of Us One of Us

Normally I'm not a Kevin Costner fan, I find him very dull.

I just saw for the first time, big bleeding chunks, albeit not in widescreen Dances With Wolves. I missed this in the theaters way back when it won best picture and a bunch of other awards.

Nice to see a film that has some cinematic sweep to it. What I've seen I've liked a lot and I'd love to see it on the big screen. So, it along with the bonus materials dvd has been added to my Netflix queue.

Dances was great on the big screen. We had it at my theatre.

I saw "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" last night. It was very funny, great lines, great concept but the exicution of the film was horrible. In better director hands it could've been so much better. Kilmer was a scream, wish he'd do better films now-a-days.

6 Bornieo's out of 10

I'm in a quandry, what's it going to be tonight? Two new DVDs arrived. Cars or The Little Mermaid?

Since I've seen Cars, I guess it will be the Little Mermaid which I've never seen. I will watch the new Mater short, though.

Ooo...you've never seen Little Mermaid? My youngest son hadn't and we had such a thrill watching it again after so many years.

Anyone see 'American Haunting'? {and forgive me for not reading back...}

Nope! I'm a Little Mermaid virgin!

So, a Coit Tower pizza on the way from North Beach Pizza and some fuzzy water, my cat is comfy on her spot snoring away and I will soon be watching The Little Mermaid. :D

Knowing the history and rumors of Coit Tower...I hesitate to ask what's on that.

Saw the Third Man again last night, what a great film, I just love the cinematography in it, so many homages to Caligari and German Expressionist cinema - loved it. I hope Lisa can catch it soon herself.

Great film. That one wins Best Zither in a Motion Picture.
:)

Ugh, for some reason I can't edit the previous post, nor can I seem to delete it...

What history and rumors are you referring to?

source

And a nice article on Lillian from 1939

The Coit Tower - pizza variety has pepperoni, sausage, salami and mushrooms. Excellent crust, not too thick, but enough with a good chewy texture. I'm partial to their Verdi Pizza as well (fresh spinach, pesto, onions and feta cheese no red sauce)

Oh, and I loved The Little Mermaid! :snap:

Little Mermaid's one of my all time fav's of the "new" Disney. I've seen it a billion times. Saw it in the theatre dozens of times. Saw it twice at El Cap. Love it!

The stories I've always heard was the she was a very avid "admirer" of fire fighters and that the tower was reminiscent of their "fire hoses".

Yup, sounds about right...

Maybe today I won't sleep through The Third Man.

Ha!

She was, but in purely platonic fashion, as far as I know! Firemen, hubba hubba...

Great movie! Best charactr entrance ever, you'll love it, it involves a cat

I must've fallen asleep before the cat. I remember a dog or 2.

I blame my husband for my falling asleep. He's so comfortable to cuddle with.

Nothing wrong with that! But, do try to catch the movie, it's a great film. I love Carol Reed !

"Flushed Away"
I thought it was pretty good.
Worth a Netflix rent in the future...
Ian McKellan was fun and Jean Reno steals the show.
:)

The Prestige.

If I hadn't read the book, I might have loved the movie. Instead, I loved the book and thought the movie was pretty okay, coulda been better. Performances were stellar. And I liked some of the additions, changes. Overall, I'll stick with the read.

So, I rented GOLD RUSH, since I haven't seen it.

I was pretty dissapointed in the whole DVD release. It wasn't the original version but one that was fixed up with sound, music and an overdub by Chaplin that was pretty cheesy. I would have much rather have seen the original version with the cards rather than having the naration. It very distracting.

I give this "version" 4 Bornieo's out of 10

Remake of The Women
 

This has been floating around for the last few years, but here it rears its ugly and totally unecessary head once again....UGH. So few things are perfect and I consider this film to be one of them.

Hopefully the newly revised and modernized script will be sufficient to remove it from the original screen adaptation. Of course , this has to get through all the production hoops first before it gets in front of the cameras.

Remake of 'The Women'? Nooooooooooooo!



Saw 'The 40 Year Old Virgin' last night. I liked it. I laughed a lot.
:)

I'm pretty excited about next week's release of Casino Royale - which, by all accounts, successfully returns Bond to the early Fleming/Connery mold.

This week, however, I'm hung up on a different film Royale.




Anyone ever see the Japanese cult film Battle Royale? I finally got around to renting it this week, and now I can't seem to get it out of my mind.

The premise is weird enough, but you add in typical Nipponese sensibilities, and you have one bizarro bit of filmmaking.

A Japanese middle school class is kidnapped by a disgruntled former teacher and some quasi-military outfit to participate in a sadistic survival test on a deserted Pacific island.

The kids are all fitted with permanent metal collars, loaded with GPS locators, pulse monitors, microphones ... and an explosive devise. They are given a backpack with a map of the island, a flashlight, some bread and water, and a single, random weapon which could be anything from an AK-47 to an axe to a slingshot.

They have to kill each other off, leaving only one man standing, within three days - or all the collar-bombs will go off. They must keep moving - - every hour, one of the "zones" the island is divided up into is declared a Danger Zone ... and anyone located there will have their head explode.

Every four hours, there is an announcement over the Islandwide P.A. system listing the four upcoming Danger Zones and the identities of those killed in the preceding period.


In addition to the school kids, two other "ringers" are involved in the game - older boys, high school or college age - one of whom turns out to be a good guy who helps our heros, and the other a homocidal maniac.

The kids are released one-at-a-time to the wilds of the island, and from there it's a gory Lord of the Flies sociological experiment - - Japanese style.


Pathos, horror, humor, oddballness, and lots of blood - but done in a vaguely comical style. Why are the Nipponese so weird????

Count me in as well!
This is the first Bond film based on a Flemming novel in eons. Don't get me wrong, that awful mess from 1967, the spoof Casino Royale is one of my guilty pleasures. But, like iSm, I'm eagerly awaiting this new Bond film. Plus, it still has Judy Dench in it :D

Early word that I'm hearing on Casino Royale is that is a mess. The verdict is split from there on whether it is a fun mess or just a mess.

As for Battle Royale I don't see anything particularly Japanese in its weirdness. I think we have produced equally odd things in this country and others (Shaun of the Dead is more overtly comedic but I think touches on several similar nerves and combines styles similarly).

The socio-economic mileau which drives the movie's initial setup is uniquely Japanese, but it is a country that has gone through some significant cultural and economic upheavals over the last century, but beyond that I don't see much uniquely Japanese in its execution.

I tried to read the manga on which the movie is based but didn't care for the artwork and eventually drifted away.

Saw Lars Von Triers' Medea last week. Didn't really care for it. I loved Dancer in the Dark, but I just didn't feel connected to any of the characters in Medea. It was just a uniquely directed movie about crappy people doing crappy things to each other.

Borat! LMFAO.

8 Bornieo's out of 10!

Isao Takahata's Grave of the Fireflies was on TCM and I caught it tonight. What a grave and shattering piece of anime this was. Very moving film, I wept.

I must admit I laughed a lot during Borat. But like iSm I am uncomfortable at people getting punked and made to look like fools. So I was pleasantly suprised that very few of the real people encounters resulted in them coming off looking like idiots. Yes, there was the racist guy and drunk frat boys making themselves look like fools.

But overall I think people responded to Borat within reason and generally with suprising patience. The southern society dinner had to be pushed pretty damn far (he called a prostitute over to dinner) before they kicked him out and based on the sudden turn of attitude between one cut and another I wonder if they realized they were being scammed or he did something provocative not shown.

But the funniest stuff was in the staged portions of the movie, or so I thought. I assumed that the opening and closing in the "Kazakh village" were scripted and staged but now I see that the Romanian village where they filmed it are claiming that they were tricked into acting like idiots and paid very little.

So, yes, it is a very, very funny movie. But I feel like a dirtbag for it.

I'm assuming that Pamela Anderson at least was in on the part that involved her.

"Casino Royale"
I liked it. It attempts to make Bond more believable.
Daniel Craig is hot. Hot hot hot.
:)

Eric and I are planning on seeing Borat with some other equally disturbed friends. From the advance press, I feel quite sure we'll like it.:D

I loathe 'reality tv' and all those punked-type shows, but for some reason this movie appeals to me. Maybe it was seeing Borat wrestle with Harry Smith.

Ooooh, how did you see a pre-release of CR, GC?


I'm really glad they've returned to the hot Bonds. Sorry, but Brosnon and Moore did nothing for me. James Bond needs to be smouldering.


:cheers: Basically, I need to be stirred ... not skaken.

I got the hook up from nirvanaman. A big mahalo to him.

It's not your conventional Bond. It's different. You'll see. But I was never a big fan of the hokey nature of Bond anyway... Daniel Craig's body is smokin'!

Some of the film is cheesy, but I liked it. Not a big fan of Brosnan and Moore either...


Edit to add: "Reinvention". That's the word I was looking for to describe it.
:)

I saw MAN OF THE YEAR last night. Robin Williams as the president elect. I enjoyed the film. It wasn't the movie you were lead to belive it was in the previews, I think that was a turn-off. I thought it was a neat idea, great dialoge by Williams. All the acting was great and it was very funny. The downside was it was missing somthing. I think another "pass" at the writing stage would have been needed. Maybe the structure was weird. It was enjoyable. 7 1/2 Bornieo's out of 10

THANK YOU FOR SMOKING. I heard this was a pretty good film and I thought it was just ok. Funny, interesting look at that whole side of that world. Well done. Acting was good. Just not a great movie for me. 5 Bornieo's out of 10

CRASH. Somehow I missed it in the theatres. Knew I wanted to see it because of its Best Picture win. I really loved it. Great acting. Well done all around. A group of stories that was interesting and kept my attention. It was melodramatic or preachy with the whole "race" issue. It was a complelling story about people - not explosions, car chases and four-minute soliloquies. Just about things people do and go thru. 9 Bornieo's out of 10

I've heard that there have been 2 opposing reactions to the movie, depending on what you expected/what you like. People are either saying, "I liked the parts where Robin Williams was being Robin Williams, but then it gets all politcal. Not enough Robin Williams," or, "Eh, it started out with Robin Williams being Robin Williams which I could have done without. Then it gets all political, which I dug, but with so much time wasted on Robin Williams, there wasn't enough political stuff."

I disagree.
;)

I really liked the Bond film. Here's my caveat: I don't see a lot of action films, I LOVE Bond, I don't expect a tight story and plausible sequences, and I know all of the Bond films and his history to appreciate the little references.

Daniel Craig is a different sort of Bond. He's beefy, and muscled - almost too much so - but he's rough around the edges. He pulls off the suave but his athletic scenes are great and over the top.

There are few gadgets - but, remember, this is supposed to be EARLY Bond, just after his promotion. He gets much more emotionally involved that any other Bond except in OHMSS (the only film where he gets married). I can see how Bond developed from this point into the Bond we all know and love.

But, it definitely has a different feel to it. It's not as silly-gadgetey as all the rest and it is a lot more serious. If someone had told me that prior to the film, I wouldn't have thought I would have liked it. But, I really did.

Bond is one of life's great escapes and this film didn't disappoint. However, I can see why others don't or won't like it.

Thanks to NM for taking us along on this ride.


Edit: I do NOT like the Chris Cornell (Soundgarden) song but I LOVE the Dave Arnold takes on the Bond theme.

I'm off to see it in a couple of hours. I like how we have Judi Dench as "M" - continuing her role, but have Craig as Bond just acquiring Double Oh status and having his first mission as such, in the present day. This goes along with the way I've groked having so many different actors in the role, and yet each remaining pretty much the same age as a sexy ladies man over a span of 40 years.

I think of them each as new agents acquiring the name and number when the last Bond retires (or exits more permanently). I just can't go along with the notion that Bond is ageless, and has these periodic face changes and strong personality shifts.

This one pretty much departs from that retardedness by having this be Bond's first mission. It gels with my notion of the series, and I appreciate that fact going in.

Review to follow. (Perhaps at 4 o'clock this morning!)


.

Argh! Am I crazy if I ask for seperate threads for brand-new movies? It's like we have a whole forum for nothing.

I wholeheartedly agree, CP.

If I can figure out how, I'm gonna move the CR posts to a new thread in the Beatnik forum ... and enforce an old-movies-only policy in this thread.

Yep. It's called Games & Word Play. :D

This week I saw:
Kronk's New Groove - An ok straight to video movie that was like an animated series that they decided to pull togeather as a movie. It was ok. Nothing like the Emperors New Grove, which was a scream. 5 Bornieo's out of 10

American Dreamz - I liked this one but didnt love it. It had such an odd tone to it and the humor was there but most of it I didn't feel like laughing at, even though it was funny. It was well done and worth renting, IMHO. 6 Bornieo's out of 10

Junebug - I've heard rumblings about this film in this thread so I rented it last night. I thougth it was a good film. I think the beginning was a bit slow and I think under another director it would have been better. Some of the direction was just too jaring IMHO. The acting was great. It was good to see the lead actor, whom I liked in Laural Canyon (Great movie) and the actress who was in Army of Darkness, of all things. There was a bit of predictability in it, but what movie doesn't have that now-a-days. I was very satified after watching it. 8 bornieo's out of 10

Casablanca & Maltese Falcon - Big (not huge) screen. Love it! Those movies never get old. Was excellent to see on a larger screen. Some interesting audience reactions to Sidney Greenstreet and Peter Larre's roles in Falcon. SOme odd giggles in Casablanca too. It was something to see with an audience for sure.

I would love to see both of those films with an audience on a big-ish screen. Awesome.
:)

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

So post about them here - Anarchy Rules!

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

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

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


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


.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shaun of the Dead is a wonderful movie!

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



.

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

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

I still love Bedknobs and Broomsticks...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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








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



.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I saw: Lucky Number Sleven last night on DVD.

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

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

8 bornieo's out of 10

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

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

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

I pretty much went the opposite direction on it.

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

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

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

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

8 bornieos out of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go Bruno Ganz

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

I think you meant 'Just Like Heaven'?

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

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

Yeah, me too.

I did. Laura Linney is tops in my book. Love her. :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with everything you've said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I must not be explaining myself well, €, because to the way I am thinking you just made connection between a remake and the original as I think is similar to how many people think about gay marriage affecting straight marriage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Am I the only one who is grokking Alex?

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probably my favorite pairing is Wages of Fear/Sorcerer.

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

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

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

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

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


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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blood of Nosferatu

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

Nope, I'm right there with you two.

You may have your wish in 2009...

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

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


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

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

8 Bornieo's out of 10!!

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

Watched The Flying Tigers today on BART. It sucked.

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

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

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

Lastly --- Bond girl :p

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

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

"Dreamgirls"
"Dreamgirls"
"Dreamgirls"

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

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

I'm not sure we have a fellatio smilie yet

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

"Invoking the Kevy Baby"

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

I didn't think so.:)

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

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

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

Capped off a fun, impromptu day in the city yesterday by seeing Volver. This is the latest offering from the amazing Pedro Almodóvar (Talk to Her, All About My Mother, Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!).

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

There is one great line in the movie though:

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

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

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

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

But wait - what did you see on the plane?

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it? or is it just inconsistent?

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

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

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

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

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

(re The Queen):

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


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

Perhaps it's ungenerous of me ... but I tend to ascribe hypocrisy to matters of moral outrage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's Apocalypto. Like Apocalypse Now. Apocalypto.

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

Enter Search Term: Eragon

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

Why no love for the boy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eli Wallach, you make me feel positively wanton.

She got better as the movie progressed, and while I liked certain aspects of her performance, her delivery was sorely lacking. Very forced and unnatural.

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

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

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

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

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

You think wayyy much about what I post.

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

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

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

'Bang the Drum' was playing but I slept instead of paying for a headset to watch it. Too tired.
:)

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

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

I suppose, but I guess one could also say that of Christopher Guest movies, too. I don't see those fakeumentaries like 'Spinal Tap' ruining anything.
I get what you're saying, though.

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

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

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

Venus has been added to the list.

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

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

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!!!!!!


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

VIVA PEDRO!!!!!

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern marvels is doing WDW tonight.

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

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

There's an old thread on that you could probably dredge up. :)

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

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

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

It was a good weekend for watching movies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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





.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Made me look. There are still a lot of things in this world that I don't know, apparently.