I'm so glad we hadn't seen the last of Peter O'Toole with his brief role in Troy that looked to be his swan song. He seemed so old, I didn't imagine he'd be doing much more acting. (Heck, I remember him already playing a washed-up old man way back in 1982's My Favorite Year ... which would have been his Swann song, heheh.)

But he's back on the screen in a film called Venus, and it's an utterly charming piece that I highly recommend. Of course, it would probably be worthwhile to see Peter O'Toole read a selection of menus, but this quirky tale of a (very) old gentleman's unlikely friendship with a brash young Brit (the daughter of his best friend's niece) is a good deal better ... and would be a fitting capper to O'Toole's stellar career - - if he weren't already working on a handful of other projects in various stages of production.

Be that as it may ... Venus is a gem. See it if you can.



(no subtitles!)

I disliked Shrek too! Murphy's Donkey character was very annoying, and just a rehash of Mooshu from Mulan, in my opinion.

Shrek II, the traveling scene with donkey smacking his lips by their ears? That was funny. And unfortunately gave my youngest kid certain ideas for livening up roadtrips.

Donkey told me to stop hitting the flask.

It is on my list - if it ever plays in more than one Santa Monica theater.

A few years before, he played a truly washed up old man in "Caligula."

Perhaps people aren't ready to regret their bling, yet.









.

I got around to it last night and I'm going to have to disagree. It was a decent genre picture but not a great one. The character development was pretty standard and the ultimate conclusion was apparent from the beginning.

I'm always uncomfortable when an action movie is set against the backdrop of an important social issue. When an entire societal calamity is reduced to an opportunity for one scumbag to rediscover his humanity.

It is very well made and obviously wants to be an important movie. If people see it and decide not to be consumers of diamonds then that is good. But it is easy for me to say that. I've never owned a diamond which made the decision, more than a decade ago, that I never would an easy one.

Plus, I'm tired of movies not being able to focus on the problems of Africa without giving the leads to white actors. I know the western journalist is frequently the avenue of inserting the audience into the story but I am tired of it. That is one thing I liked about Hotel Rwanda and I'm sure at some point some studio executive said "can we beef up the Nolte character into more of a lead?"

ETA: Oh, and I've been told by a linguist friend who knows the languages of those parts of Africa that Di Caprio's accent is pretty darn good. But it is also very distracting since you know it is fake.

For those in the neighborhood of the Aero :)

They must be doing a roadshow, they did the same thing before a selected audience in a Universal screening room a couple days ago.

Well, that didn't seem to hurt Star Wars. I'm not comparing the quality of the two; merely pointing out that standard character development and foregone conclusion often have little bearing on the quality of an action or adventure movie.

Hmmm, and I find it quite refreshing. Movies that focus on an important social issue are likely to end up being seen by far fewer people than more standard popcorn fare that plays against the background of an important social issue. Both such hypothetical films should be judged on their own merits as movies, but I am gladdened that more people will become aware of a social ill (and perhaps want to learn more about it) via the popcorn movie than from the arthouse flick.

And why is that? Are you equally distracted by the likes of Meryl Streep or Cate Blanchett when they do work that involves a fake accent expertly imitated? How about when Nicole Kidman speaks with a perfect American voice in a film, despite her native Aussie accent Or why not be distracted by the simple fact that you know perfectly well movie star Leonardo DiCaprio is not the mercenary smuggler with a heart of gold?

To each his own, but if an accent is done well ... I don't see any legitimate objection to an actor performing a role that calls for one.


Did you like Blood Diamond at all as a film, Alex, or were your many judgments against its behind-the-scenes choices simply too great for you overcome?

Is there some reason you're posting this 30 minutes before this event, other than to mercilessly tease?

And, to make matter ever worse for me, I get a phone call from AndrewP as he's on his way there.

30 minutes, 4 1/2 hours, who's counting?

yeah, sorry that.

I thought I'd gone all the way to the bottom of the page before responding to Alex, but apparently I hadn't. So it appeared to me Borneo's post was made while I was posting.


Why bother to check time stamps when I've got my own cockeyed observations to be fouled up with?







Anyway, it was only 30 minutes from when I saw the post - -

- - the cruel irony being that ... if I'd seen it 4 and half hours before the show ... I'd be still be at the Aero right now.


Le Sigh.

You know what would be good? A pancake labyrinth. With some of that bacon from the other thread. :cakes:

Well, after I posted it I checked Fandango and it was crossed out, so I suspect it was Sold Out! I didn't go... :( I suck.

Just got finished watching "American Beauty" again. I love this film. It's so good yet disturbing in places.
I watch this and feel like Annette Benning was just being herself in this role.
:D
Such a good flick.

Boy am I glad we didn't try to drive up to catch it!

I'm not a big fan of Star Wars, either.

I find it trivializing.

Not many more people, Blood Diamond is barely going to make it to $50 million and so far is doing almost nothing internationally.


I find it distracting when I am very familiar with a person's normal speaking voice is suddenly speaking with a strong accent. Why is that? I don't know, it just is.

For Leonardo Di Caprio I am very familiar with his normal speaking voice. For Meryl Streep that is true as well. That is not so much the case with most Australian and British actors since I generally only hear them talk in movies where they are masking their native accents.

It isn't fair, but for them it works in reverse. Hugh Laurie, whom I mostly know from House is distracting when I hear him interviewed with his normal accent.


I don't know why. Why are you distracted by subtitles and I don't even notice I'm reading. Just the way it is.

And by no means am I saying an actor shouldn't do roles that call for accents. But when they do, some part of my brain is distracted in thinking about how good it is, how much work they put into it, listening for slip ups.


It was an ok action movie. Very standard violence and advancement plot. There were interesting things around the edges. Extremely middle of the pack.

I didn't mean to pick on you, Alex. Many people - me included - have a selective sense of where disbelief can be suspended. You're certainly not alone by being distracted by fake accents from a voice you know while accepting the playacting visage of a face you know. It's just an odd disconnect that I wanted to highlight.

Gosh, I used to freak out whenever I heard Jim Neighbors sing.

Heh, and I used to watch Hugh Laurie in Jeeves and Wooster, so when I started seeing commercials for House it weirded me out to no end to hear him speaking with an American accent. It's one of the reasons I've avoided watching House (that and medical dramas are intensely uninteresting to me).

And yet, when most of us "playact," we put on a fake accent as one of the primary ways to differentiate to the desired persona. But when professional actors do it, it tends to stand out. I wonder why we don't allow them the most elementary trick of the trade.



Actually, I find women get a pass from me. Kidman's American or English accents, Blanchett's recent German-accented work, Streep's accents of every stripe. And yet DiCaprio's accent stood out to me. Fortuntately, having known some South Africans, I recognized it as a very passable job. But I think I let female actors get away with what I hold males' tongues to the fire for.

Watched Peggy Sue Got Married today.

I had never seen. Sadly, I wish that were still true. Could anybody have predicted a long career for Nicholas Cage based on this movie (and the one's he'd made to this point)?

He and Stephen Fry were prominent in Rowan Atkinson's Blackadder series' as well. Laurie was also very American in the Stuart Little movies.

Those two have had varied creative careers as writers, actors and novelists that I think we'd all aspire to. Not to forget, in Laurie's case, sleeping with Emma Thompson.

Nickolas and I half watched, half sped through Snakes on a Plane Saturday night. I only let out 2 blood curling screams. Poor Nick, when I screamed he jumped a foot off the chair. At one point he sent 2 sleeping rats airborn (we took out the girls for comic relief).

I timed it right, I was too tired to have nightmares.

Aw, I thought that movie was cute, years ago when I'd seen it. But, you are right on, no way would I have seen that for Nicholas Cage.

And, woman that I am, fan of Kathleen Turner that I am, it was a bit hard to swallow....

But cute. {I like how things in the past come back in the future/future in the past, like Back to the Future movies, fun to see who catches what while watching}.

I think that was his first big role. I know one of his first was Fast Times At Ridgemont High.

Yes it was, that and The Cotton Club the year before. Uncle Francis gave him both those roles. Then the next year came Raising Arizona.

It is so weird to see him go from the Prince Regent character to the House one- he's really is an amazing actor. (I have the entire BlackAdder series on DVD.:D )

It was fun to see Hugh Laurie at Universal with a group of people who didn't believe it was really him because he was speaking with a British accent.

I thought "Valley Girl" was his "next big thing" movie. Then "Birdy" was his first big serious movie. I thought it and he were terrible.

Ok, so Cage was great in everything from Raising Arizona on. Go back and look at other great actors' earliest works. Sometimes the progression from crappy to outstanding is part of the awesomeness.


And Hugh Laurie, imo, gave the best acceptance speech at the Globes last night. His sardonic take on awards-season booty-gift overload was really funny. Perhaps not as drop-dead laugh-out-loud as Sasha Baron Cohen's speech, but Laurie's dry wit and appropos topic was more appreciated at this end.







.

He was awesome in 'Raising Arizona'. :snap:

Ditto on our end. Crass potty humor is always good for a laugh (and indeed, we did laugh) but "they smell of new-mown grass" is in more alignment with my taste.







.

I vote for Meryl Streep for best speech. She was wonderful.

Although, I'm happy for all the Brits that won last night.
:)

I'm not a fan of Raising Arizona so I can't say that I am able to separate Cage from the rest. However, to that blanket statement I feel compelled to say:

Amos & Andrew, Trapped in Paradise, Snake Eyes, The Family Man, Captain Corelli's Mandolin, and National Treasure.

I think he is very much a mixed bag as a performer.

Best Acceptance Speech by a Dramatic Actress: Meryl Streep
Best Acceptance Speech by a Completely Adorable Brit: Hugh Laurie

I watched about 15 minutes of red carpet arrivals while eating dinner last night.

I could physically feel the brain cells dying.

Agreed. I even thought he was too over the top in "Leaving Las Vegas."

But I did like The Family Man.

I think that is why I enjoy the red carpet proceedings so much. It's total candy.

I'd enjoy the red carpet proceedings much more with a paintball gun.

I can go along with that. So long as the candy is black licorice: vile and disgusting.

I find black licorice to be yummy and delightful. Granted, I'm well aware that I'm in the minority on that one. I even like the dutch salted black licorice, which even most black licorice lovers wince at.

Then E! is a channel invented for you.

I'd like to say that Cameron Diaz looked scary last night.
:D

I'd like to say that Tina Fey looked tres swanky.

My rundown of the 15 minutes:

Ryan Seacrest is stupid.
Tina Fey looked good.
When I saw Jennifer Lopez I asked Lani if she was pregnant before a slightly closure shot revealed it just wasn't a flattering dress from that angle.
Penelope Cruz is good looking. I remarked to Lani that when I was out drinking with some former coworkers last Friday there was a woman there who exactly had Cruz's face. But not the rest of the body.
Ryan Seacrest is stupid.
I don't care that Cameron Diaz and Justin Timerlake had instructions that they not end up anywhere near each other. It was obvious that Rainn <<mumble>> from The Office didn't care either.
I don't know who Dane Cook is but he seemed cool about his excitement at beings surrounded by people I do know.
Dr. Grey from Grey's Anatomy (I think she is doctor Grey but I've only seen the show half of once) looked very shiny.
Ryan Seacrest is stupid but it was amusing when he commented to one interviewee that it was very cold and she was wearing white and there was plenty of visual confirmation that said interviewee was indeed cold.

Then I lapsed into a brain-damage induced coma.

I have nothing to add except that I found this while searching youtube for Hugh Laurie's acceptance speech.

Oh, and it looked like Eva Longoria's dress was trying to give her a wedgie.

It wasn't cold, it was just a bit nipply out :)

I'm watching 'Casablanca' while I job hunt on the internets. The scene where Rick lets the man win the roulette game so he and his wife can pay for their exit visas always makes me tear up. Love love this film. 2nd best film of all time.
:)

You guys watch the Golden Globes?? What a bunch of dorks! :eek: :p

All I can stand is the Oscars, and even then you won't catch me EVER watching red carpet, no matter who's accosting the celebs. ENDLESSPROJECTILEVOMIT.

:)

If there was endless projectile vomit on the red carpet, I'd watch it.

I have no interest in the red carpet. That's why we didn't turn the TV on until the awards started.

Award season is like a sport for us. Tom and I make annual predictions for Oscar noms and winners (oscarwatch.com has a contest, and we have our own mano-a-mano contest, though we almost always pick the same winners independently of each other. Like minds.)

So we always watch the Globes because, for oscar-watchers, it is important for picking up signals (obvious ones, and subtle ones) about possible Oscar repercussions.

Plus, Hugh Laurie says things like "they smell of new-mown grass."

Gee, the Red Carpet is one of my favorite parts of these events. It's all about fashion - good and bad - baby.

Oh, I enjoy looking at fashion. (See prior Tina Fey comment.) But I don't generally like the snarky interaction on the Red Carpet-- I'd rather look at the attire while they're onstage and nobody is asking who they're wearing (or grabbing their breasts.)

breast grabbing? I've gotta start watching the red carpet...

I like to watch the red carpet to see what people are wearing and what they say~unscripted.

Plus, usually the people I am watching for don't end up winning so that is the only place I see them. :(

I love the re Carpet but where was it last night? We were tuned to NBC and they just had the ADD preshow with Bindi daughter of Steve Erwin doing animal calls and looking like one of those carnival give-away trolls. I saw E had post show interviews - and what's the deal with a time delay for an event happening on the West Coast?

I want more Fashion - I never saw Penelope Cruz standing - Bah!

As award shows go though, the Golden Globes are one of my favorites since the actors are all drinking up a storm as they present - that makes for good theater.

I saw The Painted Veil over the weekend. Very good film.

My favorite part of the red carpet arrivals is watching the Hollywood "has-beens" in the background with the "Someone please interview me" look on thier face. Even worse is when they get brushed aside for someone who's more popular. Its the cynic in me, I guess...

Exactly. I never watch the red carpet, and love to groove on fashion at the actual awards. LS and I should obviously watch the Globes together sometime.

As for watching the Globes at all, they used to be sooooo much better than the Oscars ... and now I just watch out of habbit. Before they became so mainstream, the actors all got liquored up and the acceptance speeches were awesome. Sasha Baron Cohen gave an inkling last night of how ribald half-a-dozen speeches would have been in the Globes heyday.

Lol! Great clip, Prudence!:snap:

'Children of Men' = Wow.
I loved this film.'
It's gritty, it's powerful, it's just wonderful.

Word of advice: If you get motion sickness, I'd sit in the back of the theatre if I were you. A lot of this film is hand-held. I had to move back a bit...

Clive Owen. I love him so much.

The direction and the sound of this film is great.
:)

See it.

Was it released at the end of '06 or not until '07? I thought it was the earlier, and I was shocked it got no Globes nominations. Maybe it was ineligible. Clearly one of the best movies of the year, whichever year it was released.


My pick of the week: The Illusionist with Edward Norton as a 19th Century magician / wizard. A romantic gem. It's on DVD. Rent it.

'COM' is listed as being released in 2006 per imdb.com. (Released on Dec 25, 2006 per boxofficemojo.com.)
Maybe it will get some Oscar noms?
Don't know.

I was thinking last night about how bleak the future is in this film. In fact, it was bleak in 'V for Vendetta' as well. But I guess there's no story if the future is just fine and dandy... but I guess it's fine in 'Meet the Robinsons'.

I think there was some discussion of it here when it was theaters but I didn't like it at all. Mostly I found it extremely boring since the "surprise" of the movie was telegraphed from just about the beginning of the movie. Some movies with "surprises" are good regardless of whether they're blown but this is not one of them. Plus there was zero chemistry between Norton and Biel and Rufus Sewell is lame as is his standard.

The Prestige is vastly superior. I recommend renting that when it is on DVD and ignoring this one.

I saw "THE THIRD MAN" last night on DVD for the first time. A film I'd really rather have seen on the big screen. The photography was so wonderful and a small(er) screen doesn' tcut it. The music was very swanky and there was a small piece on the subject on the DVD. It was an obscure instrument that gained huge popularity overnight because of the film and it's theme. Orson was wonderful with what he had. I think the intro by Peter Bogdonovich said it best is Orson's part was a "Star part,' where they talk about him thru the whole film and we just get to see h im at the end. In retrospect it wasn't a great piece of acting by Orson, but the set up is what made it great.

9 bornieo's out of 10!

As I said before, I laughed a lot at Borat and simultaneously felt bad about it (and even worse when I found out that some of the sections I assumed were staged weren't).

This bit in the New Yorker well captures many of the things about Borat responsible for my ambiguousness on it.

I would love to know exactly what was and wasn't staged and in what ways.

For example, seeing as they weren't arrested, I have to believe that the naked wrestling scene in the convention hall was staged. At the very least, they had things arranged with the hotel, and the attendees were aware that there would be something filming, but were kept in the dark/told something else about the nature.

I get the feeling that's the case for a lot of what we saw. People were told they were going to be filming and doing X, so they were prepared for some sort of filming process, but then Borat comes in and does something completely different than they were told.

Your ambiguousness?!?!?!?

I didn't see anything in that story to suggest ambiguity ... but rather only complete loathing and contempt for this film, and plenty of reason to never give the filmmakers one red cent of my money.

Yes, I was simultaneously amused and appalled. Maybe conflictedness would have been a better word.

Saw The Last King of Scotland, starring Forrest Whittaker as Idi Amin (and winning him the Golden Globe the other night).

It is a powerful performance by Whittaker. I've said in the past the actors playing real people start out at something of a disadvantage for me, but it helps that other than pictures I have absolutely no idea how Amin sounds when he talked, how he walked, or anything else about him.

But still, I handicap him a bit for it compared to other great performances last year where the actor had to create the character out of whole cloth.

It is a very interesting story. The post-colonial '60s and '70s are just generally interesting times, historically speaking, and the repercussions continue with us to this day.

But, for me, the films fatal flaw is something I mentioned when discussing Blood Diamond. That is the tendency to require that the problems of Africa be filtered through white eyes. It is inherited from the novel on which it is based, but the movie's protagonist is a fictional character (a Scottish doctor who serendipitously falls into Amin's favor) set among real events (though seemingly time compressed).

In the end, per the movie (which opens with the "based on real events" title) it is this white doctor who eventually escapes Uganda to reveal to the world what a horrible man Amin was (as opposed to the eccentric buffoon most thought him). This is something of a slap in the face to Henry Kyemba, Amin's black health minister who managed to defect and did all the revealing in his 1977 book A State of Blood.

I finally went to see the movie based on a strong recommendation from a friend. I've now talked a bit more with him and he had no idea that the main character is entirely fictional. He assumed that the movie was based on the man's memoir, not an award winning piece of fiction.

Finally, I have another gripe about the main character. He is presented as too much of a rube, beguiled by Amin's charm and completely unaware of the atrocities until sudden revelation and escape. So not only do we filter the story through the eyes of a white observer but we make him pure as well (pure through naivety rather than goodness, but nonetheless). To the extent that there was a real "Nicholas Garrigan" it was a white British military officer who gained Amin's trust and was much more complicit in the atrocities.

So, my final conclusion is: powerfully acted, slightly morally bankrupt, and victim to certain ugly tendencies in the Western view of Africa (it only matters if white people are involved).

Well, I saw DREAMGIRLS tonight.

I really liked it - didn't love it. I thought Hudson did a nice job. I just wasn't a fan of the music. And I love the Mowtown sound and all the music from that era. This just felt like 2 white guys wrote it. There was very little soul in the music and I was a bit dissapointed in that. I think it was a bit too jumpy. Seems like it took place in the span of 20 years, I would say. I think the progression from what they were to what they became was just very spaztic.

Wasn't a big fan of Eddie Murphy in this. I see where he went, but I just kept seeing "Buddy Love" from the Nutty Professor films. But, I will say, and someone mentioned this on the radio, there is a scene where he's "finished" and he breaks out the coke - everyone in the room leaves and he just gives this very honest look to the CC character. IT was just a great look and I'm sure that's the scene we'll see on Oscar night.

Dreamgirls gets 7 bornieo's out of 10

:iSm: Oddly enough, the movie I've been musing on lately is War of the Worlds :iSm:

I'm one of the twelve people on earth who actually like Steven Spielberg's version. I've heard many people complain they didn't like his take on the story. Personally, I thought the change from 50's scientist concerned about his new girlfriend to everyday citizen concerned about his young daughter was brilliant. That scientist stuff went out a long time ago, and it's not cool to portray gals as so helpless nowadays.

But besides that, I've heard complaints about the scenarios played out in the Spielberg film ... and I've wondered how much of that stuff was from the book, never having read it. The book has a reputation for being snoresville, so the next best thing would be the infamous 1930's Orson Welles radio broadcast that caused a public panic. Well, it just so happens the broadcast is a DVD extra on the recent release of the George Pal War of the Worlds. It was surprising to me in many ways.

First off, the segment that imitates a radio broadcast of Martian attack is less than 30 minutes long! A whole lot of people had to have tuned in 2 minutes late (to miss the announcement of fiction) and gone to the bathroom at the 15-minute mark (when there was a 2nd such announcement) and freaked out so much by minute 28 that they turned off the radio. Because after that point, the show shifts gears completely and becomes practically a monologue by Welles of a diary of one of the lone survivors. Unlike the radio broadcast portion, the much longer diary section is not in real time. Welles speaks of doing one thing one day, and two minutes later he's talking about a week later.

Frankly, this section is so boring, I couldn't listen to all of it. But in the parts I did hear, I gathered that much of what Speilberg chose as scenarios for the film were, in fact, either based on the original book or on the Mercury Players radio teleplay. There were the tripods crossing the Hudson river while refugees panicked boarding a ferry. There was the crazed dude in the abandoned house who spoke just about every line of Tim Robbins dialogue. Other scenarios - such as the suspenseful probe and Martian encounters in the abandoned house, and the world-gone-mad mob scene with our protagonists dragged from their cars - are right out of the earlier George Pal movie.

I think Spielberg's film ultimately has a great pedigree of influence from all the previous versions of War of the Worlds, and for that I admire it even more than I did as simply a great alien-invasion movie.



Anyway, sorry for a completely irrelevant post ... but that's the film I happen to be musing on. :p

The Orson Welles version of the isn't particularly close to the book either.

Personally, I love the book and had never heard it describes as snoozeville (it is pretty tight and moves along pretty well). It's well worth a read, particularly keeping in mind when it was written.

I actually liked the Spielberg version too, for a conversion into an action movie. My only two major problems are:

1) His son lives. That was just stupid.
2) The ending, like the rest of the movie needs to be updated. When the book was written, germ theory was still relatively new and it was easy to imagine it as a cutting edge issue that would be overlooked by an invading species. That just isn't true any more; I understand the meaning that the means of their defeat is supposed to have but it is no longer appropriate unless they also don't update the rest of the story.

It is kind of like if a similar story had been written shortly after the development of radio technology and so it was cool at the time that we defeated them because the aliens were unaware that broadcast communication was possible. Then in 2006 we made a movie where everything except this was updated. In 1900 aliens that don't know about germs is a reasonable and clever ending; in 2000 they're just stupid aliends.

Otherwise it was an intense movie. But read the book, it isn't as bad as you've heard.

I totally agree about the dumbness of the germ thing in this day and age, but it's one of those elements - I think - that if you leave out or change till it's unrecognizable, you're simply not telling "War of the Worlds."

I would have liked there to have been some gobbledeegook rationalization how a technologically advanced civilization could have overlooked some area of infectious danger ... but I suppose such convoluted exposition would have slowed the ending to a crawl.


Perhaps Tim Burton did it best by having mortality result from hearing the Indian Love Call. There's no way the Martians could have anticipated that!

:iSm:

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what the solution would be that wouldn't completely pervert it, it'd still have to be something relativley passive on our part; our victory can only be serendipitous. The TV show just said "screw it" and used the set up and then went in a new direction.

But facing that, my view is you either just leave it on the table until you figure out how to get around it (as they tried to do with the equally silly plot point from the original that the invaders were from Mars) or you go back to basics and do the book and keep everything grounded in a thoroughly Victorian sensibility.

Of course, it is the modern-day stupidity of the conclusion to War of the Worlds that provides the humor of Mars Attacks!

Hahahaha, in the radio show, astronomers see the Martians launching from Mars minutes before they reach the Earth!!

My movie viewing this weeks so far has been Moonstruck and The Big Easy.

I'd just like to say that movies in the '80s sucked.

Having somehow seen several early Nicolas Cage movies recently it truly is bizarre to me that Cage's "early career" isn't now known as his "career." I understand that the movie is meant to be operatic, particularly Cage's character, but it was just painful to watch. That said, it has two great scenes. One in the restaurant between Olympia Dukakis and John Mahoney and the other between Dukakis and Danny Aiello (who was really pleasant in this movie).

I'm pretty sure that in another couple weeks I won't remember that I even watched The Big Easy it was so forgettable. All I'll remember is what I already remembered about the movie. The best man at my first wedding tells that he learned about finger****ing from this movie and when he tried it for the first time (before actually having sex) it was quite a shock to him to learn what it felt like.

I can't remember how it is in the radio show, but is it the same ships that they see launching minutes before they land? In the book, if I remember correctly, they discover the first aliens and that prompts them to see further ship launches from Mars.

Although that could easily be the case (and is the assumption I made for sanity's sake), the radio show presents much more of a direct connection between launch-spotting and Here's Martian! They don't outright claim the newly arrived aliens are the same ones spotted leaving Mars a moment earlier, but the radio announcers make no effort to disuade their listeners from that absurd conclusion.


I have to say that anyone fooled by this 30-minute radio show was absolutely stupid enough to believe in two-minute travel between the two planets.






Oh, and though I haven't seen it in a long time ... I love Moonstruck.

Agreed. Very well put together. This is our first DreamWorks animated film and I was pleasantly surprised. Far beyond watchable - it was enjoyable. And pretty too!

Just finished watching This Film is Not Yet Rated, a documentary about the MPAA and its rating system.

It is somewhat rough in its construction but is an interesting discussion of a force of evil among us (not that I'm taking sides).

I just watched this one too. I liked it. Very interesting doco. I recommend it. I hope a lot of people see this one.


I also watched 'Jesus Camp' as well. All I have to say is, "Wow!"
Good stuff. I recommend with one as well. It has to be seen to be believed.
:)

Yeah, the storyline felt surprisingly non-contrived, and a good mix of gags vs. plot and other humor. My only knock against it was the turtle character. Anthropomorphized out of scale with the rest of the characters, and the running gag of him getting tossed around in ridiculous situations got old quick. I likes me some slapstick, but not when the character of interest is just a passive object being thrown from gag to gag.

I agreed with you last night, but seeing this statement again this morning it suddenly occurred to me...duh, Shrek.

POTC - Dead Man's Chest
I finally managed to start to watch this thanks to Netflix last night. May I say I was sorely dissapointed in what I've seen so far. Loads of effects, all the familiar faces, but not the least bit engaging for me. In fact, I turned it off right when Davey Jones showed up. I'm going to give it another shot sometime this weekend, but at first glance, visually stunning, but sorely in need of a cohesive script.

Color me grouchy this morning.

Nope, I gave POTCII another shot recently. It's complete crap.


BoxOffice RecordBreaking Crap.



* * * * * *


It's been pretty much substantiated (as far as industry rumors go) that This Film is Not Yet Rated is at least partially responsible for the MPAA's recent overhaul of the ratings appeal system. Matter of fact, reps of the MPAA are at Sundance this week to meet with Indie filmmakers in crafting the details of the appeals process. New rules include the ability to reference previous films in making a case for a ratings change on a new film. (i.e., to paraphrase mousepod, if Dumbo can get a G Rating with a drunk-induced psychedelic episode, why am I stuck with an R?)


* * * *

GD and CP - - my fave Dreamworks animated movie is, I believe, their first ... Antz. I highly recommend it. (Warning: the ants are anthropomorphized out of all proportion).

Also, I'd have thought the two of you would surely have seen The Prince of Egypt. Tsk, tsk ... bad jews.

I don't have a problem with anthropomorphizing, I just thought that the turtle was more anthropomorhpized than the rest of the characters, so he stuck out like a sore thumb. He had a butt, for crying out loud. A human-style butt (when his shell was off). Even though a rather important plot/character point was all about his tail tingling, without his shell on he had two cheeks and a crack.

But the rest of the movie was more than good enough to make up for that one shortcoming.

I watched "The Devil Weas Prada" tonight. What a terribl predictable film! Not that I wasn't entertained for the whole two hours, Streep is always fascinating to watch, the fashion was fun and Hathaway is very luminious, but - was that book REALLY as popular as I think it was and why?

I agree, NA. I got the movie for Christmas and watched it one time. I didn't hate it, but I didn't feel compelled to watch it again.

Every year around this time, we try to watch as many of the Oscar nominees as we can. Of the 40 or so movies, we'd only seen eight, so this month is going to be jam-packed with mainstream movies.

Last night, we watched The Illusionist. Since is was nominated for cinematography, we decided that we would concentrate on the lighting and color palette of the film. On that level, the movie did not disappoint. The plot, for the first half of the movie, was predictable (and telegraphed), but the wonderful acting of Norton and Giamatti kept my attention. In the second act, the plot became less plausible, yet so much more interesting. While the ending was slightly ridiculous, it was also entirely satisfying. Not a bad start for my catch-up month.

I just saw Letters From Iwo Jima, which I found absorbing and impressive, and its two and a half hours flew by. The audience I was with (which looked to include lots of veterans) were audibly disgruntled for the first hour or so, apparently not realizing that this entire movie was going to be presented from the Japanese soldiers' perspective.

A few old men boo'ed the first couple of times the characters said anything about Americans. (The first mention, a man digging a trench turns to his friend and says, "This is a terrible island, we should just give it to the Americans." And then someone shouts Boo! Them was hardly fightin' words.) One group walked out halfway through.

For those who remained, I think they warmed to it. It's hardly anti-American, or pro-Imperial Japan. As such, it deserves favorable comparison to Das Boot.

War films are a magnet for cliche and melodrama, and this one is no exception, (a flashback involving a dog had me shaking my head - bringing in a dog for emotional impact is cheap) but mostly, Clint Eastwood keeps things understated and straightforward. Ken Watanabe, as commanding General Kuribayashi, is fantastic. (The movie is based, in part, on letters he wrote to his son.) Kuribayashi practically wears a halo here, he's so honorable.

I haven't seen Flags of Our Fathers, but I overheard audience members, at the end, saying that Letters From Iwo Jima was their favorite out of the two.

Has anybody else seen Venus?

Edited to add: I scrolled way up and saw that Steve had.

I love O'Toole-- and indeed, it is a fitting last performance (I assume it will be, anyway.) But the movie itself didn't reach me. I think perhaps it has to do with being generally disgusted that attraction to barely-legal really never goes away for most men.

(Yes, I do find it ironic that one of my favorite movies is Harold and Maude. I felt that had less to do with objectifying a child and more with falling in love with ideals. Nevertheless, sex between a youngin' and an octogenarian occurred in H&M, while it's only danced aroundin Venus.)

Anything with the girl-- whose performance did not interest me-- left me cold. Anything with his friends or his ex wife was a delight; Vanessa Redgrave was completely lovely and, I felt, mistakenly ignored for awards season. But then, that best supporting actress category is pretty chock-full this year.

I cna't tell you why, but I am 100% with you on the film, in fact, I could not watch to the end, I finally gave it up and want that time back, never gonna happen. :rolleyes: I love Streep, I think she is an American treasure, but totally wasted in this, no challenge for her and I was shocked at her nominations for it. It was a walk through performance, fun, but a walk through.

Venus is for awesome. A sweet and wonderful and inspiring movie.

I seriously hope Peter O'Toole wins the Oscar. (I think he's likely to take it as a de-facto "lifetime achievement," if nothing else. But he merits it legitimately.)

I, too, am SHOCKED Meryl Streep is nominated for best actress. And I am one who finds Devil Wears Prada a delightful piece of fluff. There's nothing wrong with it ... it's a comedy, and it's cute and it's funny.

But best actress? Um, no. There was no work for her at all in this role. And she really did not have a lead role, despite being the titular character. (heheh, I said "titular").

I don't know what the Academy might have been thinking, except that perhaps it's some sort of law that Streep must be nominated. (Frankly, she did a much finer piece of acting in Prairie Home Companion.)

The first part of the movie interested me. The second part is where it lost me completely.



So far for me it has been a four-movie weekend. Two on DVD, two in theaters.


Saw Smokin' Aces on Friday. This is the new "aren't we hip" action thriller where a dozen hired guns are competing to kill Jeremy Piven in a Lake Tahoe penthouse. I love that the location was moved from the stereotypical Las Vegas to that little four casino cluster at the Nevada-California border on Lake Tahoe. Just gave it a nice low-rent feel that went with the mood of the movie. I suspect it was filmed there because Vegas would have been too expensive but nice nonetheless. There are definitely some good moments of the film but it really doesn't have any of the payoff you'd expect, the movie isn't much more than attitude and in this regard really reminds me of last year's mildly satisfying Kiss Kiss Bang Bang which also won a lot of points for style but negative points for story. One big surprise about the movie, which I didn't realize until hours afterwards is:



Finally, as much as the actor might prefer otherwise, but after being the the photographer on Suddenly Susan and Bat Manuel on the shortlived live-action The Tick, you just can't sell being a hard-boiled assassin. Sorry.

Second up for the weekend was Little Children, my Oscar-nominated pick-up for the weekend. First of all, let me say that this movie has reinforced my belief that it should be federal law that Kate Winslett appear nude in all movies, at least one. There is a point in the movie where Winslett and Jennifer Connolley are compared purely on appearance and while I'll agree there was some competition before Connolley lost 30 pounds (10 of it from her boobs it appears) that is simply no longer true.

The performances are great, particularly from Winslet (a woman who is started to find herself inexplicably living the life of a suburban stay-at-home mom) and Jackie Earle Haley as a sex offender trying live in suburbia. So no complaints about those two nominations from me. Haley is particularly suprising as he is 45 years old and really hasn't had much of a career in front of the camera. Really, his most prominent role to date is as Kelly Leak in the many Bad News Bears movies when he was a kid. Prior to this year, his last non-TV movie was 1993's Maniac Cop 3, which I am sure we all remember fondly.

Unfortunately, while the performances are great the movie doesn't really do much. It is more of a painting, filling out the details of an at-first tranquil scene than a story. That isn't a bad thing by any means, but I'd categorize this as a "quiet little film" and a lot of people want more than that.

Then we came home and watched Alien vs. Predator. Last weekend we were in Reno and Lani saw an AVP slot machine which prompted her to say "I'd like to see that." So I added it to the top of the Netflix queue and she actually sat down to watch it yesterday (most of the time when she says I should get a specific movie from Netflix she takes weeks to get around to it). It sucked, but I'm guessing you all knew that. But I learned something about Lani, she knew a lot more about the mythology fo Alien and Predator than I did.

Then as a night cap I watched Cast a Giant Shadow finally, which I've had from Netflix for about a month now. Cast a Giant Shadow is a 1966 movie telling the story of Mickey Marcus an American officer who helped establish the new nation of Israel's military as a power to be reckoned with. It has some good dialogue (after being told he should go to Israel to help because he's Jewish: "I'm an American, that is my religion. The last time I was at Temple I was 13. I gave a speech and got 42 fountain pens. I don't have to go again, I have enough pens.")

It was interesting to watch, especially with another 40 years of futility since it was made (and 60 since the events depicted). I've always found Kirk Douglas to be a mixed bag as an actor but this is one of his better performances. Being a movie of the late '60s it also benefits from more realistic language while not yet going full bore into graphic violence.

I hope I don't get in trouble with the mods for saying this, but I think Alex has ice water in his veins.

Firstly, imo, the point of The Illusionist was not it's mystery plot of "is it magic or fakery?" It's the romance of the story, no matter which plot point is true. mousepod alluded earlier to the unique art direction and cinematography of sepia-like imagery to evoke the time period and mood, and the sterling performances of Giamanni and Norton. I think Rufus Sewell was really good, too. Taken as a romance piece and not a mystery, I think the film turned out just perfect.


Secondly, the theme is the thing about Little Children, and not its lack of lots of plot. It's an exploration of adult immaturity and how that might -or might not- be grown out of or otherwise escaped. I'll agree with Alex that Winslet and Hailey were deservedly nominated for Oscars. But I must differ about the film as a whole. The script and direction are brilliant. It's a character piece, not a plot machine. That said, there is a distinct story being told, and a fascinating one - in this humble reviewer's opinion.



.

I did not see any romance in The Illusionist. There was zero chemistry. There was only love because we were told that there characters are in love. And with the few people I've talked to about the film, none of them really mention the romance but rather how blown away they were by the "reveal." I certainly won't claim to be the most romantic guy in the world (and since most movie romance rings false, it is difficult for movies to so move me) but I felt absolutely nothing of this romance. For example, the passion (though not romance) between Brad and Sarah in Little Children is real and moving.

I also agree with you on what the theme of Little Children is, but I don't think it really goes anywhere with that theme. Rather it paints a picutre of people who realize that they've got issues of immaturity (primarily the desire for escapism) to deal with but doesn't show them actually dealing with them. That is all left (except for one character) for after the credits roll and over dinner Lani and I had a nice discussion about what we though Brad and Sarah did the next day.

But ultimately, in my view, it is a movie that asks a question, not one that answers a question.

I said "unfortunately" before saying the movie doesn't do much without appropriate clarification. I meant "unfortunately for its chances of being seen by many people" more than "unfortunatley because I think this is a bad thing." Little Children is simply not the kind of movie most people enjoy watching. I think they should, and I did, but they don't.

Today I will re-watch Bambi and attempt the direct-to-video sequel Bambi II. I will share my thoughts on my podcast. If anyone here wants to chime in... skype me (mousepod) or call me (714-408-7855).

As far as my earlier post on The Illusionist, to clarify: the entire concept was predictable. My problem with the plot of the first half was a result of the framing technique of the opening scene. Since it was clear who "she" of the first scene was within moments of the flashback beginning - I had a "get on with it" feeling that disappeared after the story "caught up" to the opening.

I'm actually with Alex on both counts.

I thought The Illusionist was-- much like a magician's act-- all flash and no substance. Very pretty to look at, but not at all emotionally involving. I also thought Norton's acting was woefully overstated.

Little Children had its moments, but it was uneven at best. Acting? Yes. Overindulgent? Indeed. An oops-we'd-better-wrap-this-all-up-neatly closure? Quite.

I just finished watching Jesus Camp.

This was a depressing experience. Watching this group of bright, gregarious children being indoctrinated, emotionally manipulated, harangued and exploited made me queasy, the moreso because my own childhood included similar experiences. (Thankfully, not quite to this extreme)

The movie serves as an interesting litmus test. To me, it looked like an exposé, but its central figure, camp leader Becky Fischer, reportedly thought the movie was fair, and showed her operation in a good light. (She has, however, shut down the camp since as a result of vandalism and negative scrutiny engendered by the film.)

As an unblinking document of pathological faith, Jesus Camp has few equals. I realy hope there will be a follow up in a few years. I'd love to know how these kids do further down the line. Will they stay with this lifestyle? (This type of highly charged "spirit-filled' Christianity is emotionally exhausting, for one thing. These kids are pushed to tears again and again in the course of a week.) Will they start asking important questions? Will they rebel? I'd be curious to know.

Pastor Ted Haggard, y'know, the guy who bought some meth and didn't take it but got a nice massage, appears here, just months before his fall from grace. He comes off poorly, seeming arrogant and cynical when he talks to one of the kids. Also, there is a moment, comical in retrospect, when he turns to the camera and, with all the machismo of Liberace, says "This is a FABULOUS lifestyle!" (Millions of dollars, a luxurious mansion and sex and drugs on the side? I'm sure it is!)

Just out of curiosity what would distinguish non-pathological faith from patholigical faith?

I'd be tempted to say that all blind belief in irrational things is a kind of pathology, but that's painting with too broad a brush. I probably reached for the phrase here because it's one that I picked up back in my days as a moderate liberal Christian.

Pathological faith could be described as the type of faith that places additional psychological burdens on the believer, increasing anxiety rather than relieving it. This may involve;

- Forced accountability to a leader or hierarchy (as in the "discipleship" type ministries)
- Expectation of enormous commitment of time and resources (especially financial)
- Intolerance of questioning or independent thought
- Subjugation of personal identity
- Inordinate "Us vs. Them" mentality
- Ostracism or punitive treatment for those who deviate

These are just some elements that could distinguish an unhealthy faith or community, as opposed to those that espouse a more compassionate outlook, are less judgmental, or more community oriented. (Y'know, those wishy-washy mainline churches with their emphasis on "love.")

This is just a quick reply - this is obviously a huge topic.

Yeah, but is it patholigical if it turns out that god is an asshole?

Anyway, not a religion thread.


Saw one and a half movies today. To fill out the Oscar ballot I hauled myself out to The Painted Veil. Of course, when I got home I remembered it hadn't actually been nominated for anything and I'm trying to figure out why I thought it had.

Oh well. The big reason for my reticence is that Edward Norton has just gone sour for me. Haven't liked him in his last several movies.

He's ok here, though he still feels miscast. Decent performances. Prettily flimed. But it just never connected to me. But the book never did either so I'm not surprised (significant changes from the book to the movie).


Tried to watch Don't Tell (La Bestia Nel Cuora), the 2005 nominee for best foreign language film from Italy. I've only made it about halfway through.

On this one the subtitles are killing me. Now, when I'm at all into a movie I don't even notice them, but when I'm not absorbed my eyes tend to wander. I get distracted by other things in the house.

I really enjoy being taken by surprise. The Last King of Scotland was not at all what I expected; the marketing-- and the award clips-- are not showing the depth and tone of the movie as much as they're showing a few key moments of Amin's fury. But in truth, the movie spent about two hours showing only Amin's charms; we only begin to see the cracks in the facade once the young doctor he dupes into acting as his advisor discovers Amin's heinous crimes for himself. I have never laughed more in a movie about a dictator. And this, I think, is an excellent choice. Dictators are able to take power because of their ability to trick people into believing they are worthy of following. This is, I think, rarely shown in films about leaders like Idi Amin. Whitaker's performance is the best male variety of the year, yes-- but sadly overlooked is the young doctor's performance; it's a tricky part and he handles it well.

We also saw Notes on a Scandal. I don't have much to say, as I thought it was a puffy melodrama not worthy of Oscar attention. I will say that it seemed strange to meet a character (Dench's) who was so terrible, so pathetic, and so lacking in complexity that Idi Amin seemed quite pleasant and layered in comparison.

Thanks, Alex, I did not know that. And it would have made for a more interesting movie. Having been in the dark about everything but the fictional nature of Garrigan, I just enjoyed it at face value.

We saw Junebug last week. We were both kinda ambivalent about it. I thought the characters were really "great" ("great" as in well portrayed, but horrible, horrible people). Contrary to Bornieo's assessment, it started out well then slowed to a painful crawl. It was really in need of an editor with the balls to tell the director, "You know, an extended establishing shot of a grassy field is a nice trick one in a while, but not the WHOLE DAMN MOVIE!" 3/4 of the way through, CP and I found ourselves spontaneously turning to each other and saying either, "Aaaaaaand action" as a scene started with some over-long still shot or, "Okay guys, scene's over, next scene please" as one ended with the same. It was figuratively every scene. I would have liked it a whole lot better had it been edited a bit more crisply.

I need to add that I'm already finding it forgettable, which is a bummer, because it could have been great. Wonderful concept, poor execution.

I know this is a little different, but I really enjoyed "Step Into Liquid". This is a surf film documentary from 2003, done by Dana Brown, the son of Bruce Brown who made "Endless Summer". If you need a change of pace, I highly recommend adding it to your netflix queue. It's really well done, and the footage of Cortez Banks (100 miles off the coast of San Diego) is spectacular. It does a good job of capturing the essence of surfing and its lifestyle.

I suggest watching Mickey's "Hawaiian Holiday" as the cartoon before the main feature.

Step Into Liquid was filmed in 1080p, and looks FABULOUS.

I saw 'Venus' with NA and the Euro man tonight. I liked it. Peter O'Toole was amazing in it. He's a magnificent actor, I love him.
I think the Academy may just give him the Oscar for this. More so for the body of his work I think.
So very frustrated with the director of this film though. He recites Shakespeare and the entire monologue is focused on his co-star. Bleh. I wanted the camera to be fixed on him.

I couldn't take my eyes off of O'Toole the entire film. He was so wonderful to watch and incredibly expressive. Great film! I hope he gets the Oscar.

Forrest Whitaker seems to have a lock on it but without having seen Venus I'm willing to defer to a non-impersonatin role.

Ok, then I'll just have to get out to see Last King ... because Peter O' Toole was magnificent ... and I'm getting a little tired of these real-life immitator roles.

One thing I think Alex and I have agreed on is that these types of roles, with unknown quantities of impersonation mixed in with the performance, come into the game with a handicap.

So, I'll have to see Scotland, Volver, and I think Notes on a Scandal and I'll be the most "prepared" non-Academy voter I think I've ever been ... and that's not to mention I'm likely to see programs of the nominated live and animated short subjects. Sheesh!

Still need to see:

Notes on a Scandal
Babel
Blood Diamond
Volver
The Last King of Scotland
Half Nelson

We're done with the major noms. We just have to get to the lesser-known foreign and documentary films now. And the short films!

Also, I know that the "impersonation" performances come with a handicap for Alex and iSm, but it hasn't seemed to hamper AMPAS lately. O'Toole might have a shot, but Whitaker is highly favored at the moment.

As far as it goes, they actually did a good job this year with only 3 of the 20 acting nominations going to characters that were real people: Idi Amin (Forrest Whitaker), Chris Gardner (Will Smith), and Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren).

Sorry for what follows, research bug popped up and I might as well share.

Last year it was eight out of 20 nominations: Truman Copote (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn), Johnny Cash (Joaquin Phoenix), June Carter (Reese Witherspoon), Laura Henderson (Judi Dench), Lois Jenson (Charlize Theron), Joe Gould (Paul Giamatti), and Harper Lee (Catherine Keener).

The year before it was 8 as well: Ray Charles (Jamie Foxx), Howard Hughes (Leonardo DiCaprio), J.M. Barrie (Johnny Depp), Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle), Owen Brewster (Alan Alda), Katharine Hepburn (Cate Blanchett), Tatiana Rusesabagina (Sophie Okenedo), and Clara McMillen (Laura Linney)

So, considering the relative paucity in this year's nominations, it is somewhat ironic that it is almost certain that th maximum number possible will win.

Saw Rocky Horror Picture Show last night, for what must be the first time in 15 to 20 years. After getting over the personal Horror of realizing that I first saw the film when Morigoon was 1, I was amazed at how it has evolved over time.

Back in the day, we just saw the movie, threw rice, toilet paper, toast, and bantered with the film. Nowadays, there's an elaborate pre-show. Last night included a band, an animated short, previews for the Princess Bride, not to mention complete choreographed announcement and virgin ceremony all with their own sets of scripted call and responses. (honestly, this old-time was starting to wonder if they still watched the film) It seems the film now has every pause filled with some comment of other, many completely new to me. I'm still also not used to the on stage actors, which result in rules about throwing things on stage, though I did enjoy the stripper for the credits.

All in all still a fun show/experience, though the abundance of scantily clad 16-year olds did make me feel like a bit of a pederast, it's still something one should do at least once to see what all the fuss is about.

Just saw Notes on a Scandal and it is a rock solid performance from Judi Dench.

I've now seen all five nominations for Best Actress and I would rank them (from top to bottom):

Penelope Cruz - Volver
Judi Dench - Notes on a Scandal
Kate Winslett - Little Children
Helen Mirren - The Queen
Meryl Streep - The Devil Wears Prada

All moot of course, since Mirren will win in a landslide. It has been decreed.

Was less impressed by Cate Blanchett, though she does do a pretty good orgasm (if you ignore the fact that it is being provided by a 15-year-old). Bill Nighy continues to impress me with every appearance on screen. He doesn't have much time to do anything and still does more than you could fairly expect.

It is very unflinching and I am glad it doesn't romanticize any of the three relationships in the movie. Could have done without the final scene in the movie but pointless prologues seem to be all the fashion these days. People apparently just can't live without certainty as to what happens after the actual end of the story.

Woohoo, another one off the AFI 100 list. Network.

That movie delivers. Save for Dunaway's performance (I'm sure I'm committing some sort of sacrilege, but sorry, she was bad) I thought it was damn near perfect. It tackles so many issues so well, and remains entirely relevant. Just outstanding.

What I want to know is, how many times has Lewis Black seen this movie, because his act might as well just be called an impersonation of Peter Finch's performance.

I agree with your asessment of Network, GD. Great movie, still very relevant, and Faye Dunaway is only so-so in this. Truth be told, I can't watch her anymore- Mommy Dearest keeps popping up in my head every time I see her. I

Box Office Poison!

Oy! I just watched Mommie Dearest recently. (It had been a while, and WOW, I had forgotten how overwhelming Ms. Dunaway was.) I was curious to hear John Waters commentary, but was surprised to find that for the most part, he defends the movie and Faye's performance. I can't quite agree with him, and yes, it will be hard to watch her in anything else without thinking of her shouting,"Tina! Fetch me the axe!"

Network is a remarkable film, though.

I caught the last 40 minutes of Match Point. And I have no desire to see the rest. The unevenness of the performances alone might be enough to keep me away.

Aww-- you missed the only thing that I truly liked about the moment-- the set-up of the gimmicky "gravity" bit in the climax.

I liked how the ring from the 1-sheet worked its way into the story in a way I wasn't expecting, but over all, blech bah boring.

Wow, and I really liked that movie.


Well, not really really liked it. Just thought it was one of Woody Allen's better films.




Yeah, that's not saying too much, huh?

I liked it too - though I confess Scarlett Johansen may have been a factor in my enjoyment

I enjoyed everything about it except for the couple who jabbered the entire way through it. They were trying to over-intellectualize a director who is already over-intelectualizing. SHUT UP AND WATCH THE FILM!

I liked it as well. I'd be inclined to think it was just a reaction to finally getting a decent Woody Allen film after the last decade, but then Scoop stunk mightily.

I enjoyed Match Point. I thought it was one of his better films. EH1812, did you watch the entire thing eventually or just the 40 minutes you mentioned?

I love this name:
Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
He directed The Lives of Others which was released today.
I haven't seen the film but his name is hilariously awesome to say.
:D lol!

I actually am looking forward to seeing Bridge to Terebithia this weekend. It was required reading at my private grade school back in 7th grade for me.:)

Just the 40. I'm really not a fan of JRM - aside from Velvet Goldmine I think he tends to deliver uneven performances: good in one scene, absolute crap in another. And SJ, who I love in some movies and am ambivalent in others, was equally on/off in this. I don't think seeing it from the beginning will change my opinion of their acting.

Granted, I like only a handful of Allen flicks. Much to my surprise, I enjoyed Melinda Melinda a great deal. I thought I might like Match Point more because it was supposed to be so different from his other films, and he was pleasantly absent. For similar reasons, I liked The Purple Rose of Cairo, as well. And The Sweet and Lowdown. I think he ruins his own films when he's in them for the most part. Scoop might have been okay if Allen was out of the pic and didn't direct his actors, SJ in particular, to speak just like him. I guess I just don't like her in his movies.

That's interesting. Among people who liked it, the only major complaint I heard was that it was very much like one of his other films (Crimes and Misdemeanors). I'm not much of a Johanssen fan so far, but did think she did a creditable job on this one.

I'm one of those, except I did not like Match Point very well when I saw it in the theatre. For me, it was contrived and predictable and Allen did the thriller thing much better in C's & M's. SJ seemed just annoying and petulant, as Nola. In real life, I find her to be a stunning creature gowned and coiffed as she is for the Disney campaign, but on film, meh.

I've not seen Scoop. Used to be I'd go see any Allen film as they came out, not so much any longer.

Have you seen Bullets Over Broadway? It's one of my all-time favorite Allen films. (And he's not in it.) ;)

I will check that one out. :)

If you need a copy I have one to borrow. :)


Okay, I guess this is the best place to confess this. And I just quoted someone just now who cut mousepod some slack for liking Debbie Gibson in the past. :D

High School Musical is on it's way to my house from Netflix.

Here, I'll post a :rolleyes: right here for everyone who just did the same. :D

I'm curious as to why this movie is such a big dang hit.

That is all.

Whoo, GC and I agree on a movie? BoB is a scream! I need to get that on DVD but can never find it. :snap:

Great movie, this along with Radio Days is one of my all time favorites of Allen's films.

GC -Having seen High School Musical oh about 30 times, the regular version, the sing along version, the dance along version - DON'T OPEN THE ENVELOPE, RETURN IT AS IS ;)

Once was kind of ok, not so much after that. I mostly spend the whole time trying to figure out why Ashley Tinsdale's hair bugs me. It looks like bad Malibu Barbie hair. Are they extensions? Is it just too much hair spray? It doesn't move and it's quite un-natural. I do that while trying to resist the urge to snip Zack's bangs. How can he see?

I read somewhere today that they want to make High School Musical 3 a theatrical release. I sincerely hope that Madz will be over it by then and I won't have to watch.

But it's a hit Broadway-bound show, too! And a DVD board game that I got for Christmas, how could it be bad??




Of Allen's post-personal-scandal films, I really and surprisingly liked Deconstructing Harry. And Allen's even in it!

I just got back from seeing Babel. Meh.
The acting in this film is great. The cast was marvelous. There were some really wonderful moments in this film.
But it's about a half hour too long and not as clever as they would like you to believe it is. And the movie needed to find a clever way to work more comic relief into this film. It could have benefited from it.
I liked it better than Crash and about as much as Magnolia.
2 and a half stars out of 5.

I'm glad I'm not alone on Babel. I just thought it was absolute crap. I'm at 1 star per 5.

Aud, as for Match Point-- there's a writing construct that made the rest of the movie worth sitting through; and opening that has to do with that ring useage climax. I liked that writing construct. I didn't like much else. (And aside from Ghost World and Lost in Translation, Johansen does nothing for me.)

And as for High School Musical, I admit I watched it once (the first time it aired) and once again with Tom to make fun of it. It's not particularly well-made but it has a nice message (don't pigeonhole yourself.) And because I don't have children, I didn't have to watch it ever, ever again so I don't have to feel the pain. Watch it once. It's fine.

I wholeheartedly agree!


Did you see Midnight Insanity at the Queen Mary?

That be the one

Watched Radio Days, speaking of Woody Allen, today. That was a big lump of nothing. I know it is well regarded but other tham some interesting moments I'll have completely forgotten it by the time I sleep tonight.

Aww - I loved Radio Days - even without Scarlett Johanesen

For me it just seemed 90 minutes of Woody Allen saying "I have fond memories of childhood, which was essentially unremarkable and normal." I didn't find the actualy stories presented (either the family one or the radio ones) to be compelling in any way.

OMG. File under be careful what you wish for... Went to Target this evening and much to my surprise? Bulits Over Broadway on DVD. $10.

Oh yeah! Watching it now! :)

Watched Destination Tokyo today as well. WWII propaganda piece (1942) starring Cary Grant as a submarine captain who sneaks into Tokyo Bay to provide intelligence for the first U.S. bombing runs.

I'm partial to submarine movies and this is an early one. It is interesting to see many of the conventions already in place as well as some amusing model work (it would seem the ocean is never more than about 200 feet deep).

Lani was not so amused when I repeated back to her what the movie had taught me about the Japanese people (did you know that they sold their girls off to factories when they turned 12 and because women were only good for working and babies the language doesn't have a word for love?).

Woody Allens I like:

Annie Hall
Manhattan
Hannah and Her Sisters
Crimes and Misdemeanors
Husbands and Wives
Bullets Over Broadway
Mighty Aphrodite
Everyone Says I Love You

Woody Allens I'm Meh about:

Zelig
Alice
Radio Days
The Purple Rose of Cairo
Love and Death
Sleeper

Woody Allen I Hate:

Shadows and Fog

Heh - long ago PBS did a series on propaganda films including Triumph of the Will (Nazi) and Know the Enemy (American film about Japan). The later had lots of great misinformation about Japanese Culture.

I generally LOVE Woddy Allen films. His wit always amuses me. However, my favorite Allen film is Interiors, followed by Hannah and Her Sisters.

Haven't seen Interiors... I should check it out.

Take a Prozac before you do.

For me, swap out Radio Days for Mighty Aphrodite and were good. My favorite part of Love and Death is the use throughout the film of Prokofiev's Lt. Kije Suite.

The music is always one of my favorite things about Woody Allen films, much humor, much irony in it. In Bullets Over Broadwa, it never fails to have me on the floor in , LMAO when

I always love the music Allen uses as well. Manhattan shines with it and Hannah....has one of the most wonderful sountracks ever.

Interiors is awesome. Deconstructing Harry is along the same vein, but without the necessity for Prozac.


Don't be put off by the pill-taking, though. Interiors is the superiors.

I watched Monster House today. I'm really kinda meh about it. It started out fun and then got kinda corny in the last third of the film.
Interesting idea, though.
I'm thinking it would have been a cooler film had it been a live action sfx fest.

Legends of the Fall today. It was big, sprawling, nice James Horner score and Anthony Hopkins. A little long, but the scenary was gorgeous.

!

Okay, I just watched High School Musical.




I liked it.
:)


Even though it was like a Mormon Grease, sanitized and completely rated G, I thought it was fun.
The acting was so so and the story was all too familiar, but I thought it was good.

I don't know why Disney keeps giving Kenny Ortega projects after Newsies and Hocus Pocus, but I'll cut him some slack with HSM.

I can see why kids went nutty over it last year.

Sarcasm meters on:
I can't wait for High School Musical 2 and 3.
The name of High School Musical 3 is Haunted High School Musical, btw. lol!
:D

Great movie. The score is wonderful. I listen to it all the time.

Julia Ormond - Whatever happend to her.

I watched "GWAR: Live From Antarctica"

I saw something about Julia Ormond a while ago. She married some activist guy and apparently has been spending a lot of time working on human trafficing issues. My sense was that she was more focused on that than acting.

(Though it may be that roles stopped coming so she shifted.)

You'd have loved the bus ride I took with a load of 6th graders last year....on the way up we watched it more than once. On the way home, almost twice. Thank God I had a cd player and headphones and fall asleep easy and can't see without my glasses on. :D

But, what you really would have loved was how the kids got in to it. On the way home, one kid was getting up and doing the dance perfectly. I couldn't help but wonder how many times he'd seen the movie. But, it got the bus cheering and a couple of other kids got up and danced, too. That led the kids in to playing other games and so that was fun. But the movie, almost 3 times???? I am glad my son doesn't like it.

And did you mean 'Monster House'? I haven't heard of 'Monster Hose' but if it made you horny, I can imagine it isn't in the front aisles of Blockbuster?

Today was movie day for me. Wedding Crashers was good, too. It was funny. I laughed. Something about Owen Wilson cracks me up. He's hysterical. I've loved him ever since Bottle Rocket.

Something about Owen Wilson makes me want to throw up.. Or shove icepicks into my ears. Yup, it's his voice that annoys me.

Something about Owen Wilson gets me all melty.

Not a movie per-se, but we just watched an "interview" with John Cleese. Some PBS production from a couple years ago where Cleese is introduced as "the reclusive 96 year old," and they purport to show his favorite sketches. They show some good rarely shown bits, and the new filler material with Cleese is great. He may be a total sellout at times, but he's still got it every once in a while.

^ Lest we forget, now that he's in his twilight years, that John Cleese is the funniest man ever to be born on Earth.

...Next to Buddy Hackett

Just saw Pan's Labyrinth for the third time, this time with the rents. Every bit as wonderful as it was the first two times I saw it. And they loved it, too. Made me happy.

Came home and decided to watch the parts of Match Point I missed, and it didn't make me like the last 40 minutes any more. Guess it's just not a pic for me.

Hmm... got that from a bluff game. Weird.

We went to see The Queen today - about time! Helen Mirin was gret and I just love Stephen Frears' style of film making. I found it very odd to see a film about subjects who are still alive and dealing with a period of time that is so recent. I kept wondering of the Royal Family had seen it. And, boy that Prince Phillip is a dick (at least he was protrayed as one.)

We also got to see Music and Lyrics. There was a talker aand general mouth-noise maker in the theater for the first, intended, showing of The Queen and he would NOT shut up (and he was asked to). I was getting ready to walk out anyways when Chris got a page from work, so we left the theater so he could call while I complained. I didn't get much response from the theater people so I just took our own initiatinve and walked into another theater. Music and Lyrics was just starting and ended just as the Queen was starting again, so we got to see both.

Music and Lyrics was charming. Hugh Grant is charming, hot, woderful, hot - well, you get the idea. It was a nice, fun film and the opening and closing credits are great fun. It wasn't as predectable as I thought it would be - which was my biggest fear. I even laughed out loud at a few of the 80's jokes. Hugh is a master of the self depricating humor. I could watch him all day long.

I saw it over the weekend as well. I thought it was well done, and it gave me some insight as to why the Queen handled Diana's death the was she did. If the movie was indeed acurate, that is.

And yes, I wanted to slap Philip as well. Charles was portrayed as a sniveling idiot. I don't know how acurate that was either.

yeah i went and saw the QUEEN last night, actually we had a nice dinner. we...

ooops wrong thread...

Beg pardon?

The proper title is Commodore.

Toot!

The Departed -

I saw the film last night - finally! Had to be the best Scorsese picture since Casino or even Last Temptation. The script was a bit weak in that you knew everyone's role and there were no real secrets. I think the story was more about the evolution of everyone and "how it happend." Jack was "Jack" but always great to see him on screen in this type of role. Marky Mark was good, but i expected more from him after his nomination. One of the best films of the year!

9 bornieo's out of 10

Not to quibble ... but I don't recall any review ever getting less than 9 Bornieo's Out Of 10.


Is there anything you didn't like?


just curious. If you happen to simply be a generous film viewer and reviewer, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm just wondering why there's 10 possible Bornieo's if only two of them get used.

I'm picky about what I review. The low "Bornieo" ratings are usually not worth talking about. :)

Here's some films that got low ratings:
- Hostel
- X-Men 3
- Miami Vice
- Jackass 2
- Clerks 2
- Taladega Nights

Saw Venus last night and it overcomes a lot I didn't like (the score, the tired practice of opening the movie with the final shot, the first half hour trying too hard, to much mining of the "old people cursing is inherently funny") to become a very thought provoking film.

I'm still not sure what I think about it, though at the moment the dominant feeling is pity and I'm pretty sure that isn't as intended.

Anyway, despite a little bit of showboating in the first half ("oh, look me! ain't I ooooold?) Peter O'Toole is great. I'm still two actors short in the Best Actor category but both Whitaker and O'Toole easily trump DiCaprio in Blood Diamond and with the "real person" handicap, the choice goes over to O'Toole though both are amazing.

To me, though, the real stunner of a performance was Leslie Phillips as Maurice's friend Ian.

A couple random thoughts:

- Until I saw his name written at the end of the movie I thought his name was Morris, not Maurice. Stupid accents.
- When did Vanessa Redgrave start looking like Michael Caine in drag?
- When Maurice and Ian had tea in those posh environs (after climbing the long stairs) where was that? The movie seemed to assume you'd know; I didn't.
- Where did they go after that with the plaques on the walls for famous dead actors?
- The score and soundtrack were intrusive and while the songs by Corinne Rae (or whatever her name is) are more than fine, I didn't care for them in the movie.



Also watched Drugstore Cowboy last night. I'm not easily disposed to "drug movies" of any bent but enjoyed this one. One thing I found interesting for its filmic rareness is that when Dillon's character decides to go clean, it doesn't seem to have been all that difficult. Yes, the straight life was boring, but not difficult.

I haven't seen Venus, so I'm not sure about where the characters had tea. My guess would be either at Fortnum & Mason or Harrod's.

I assumed that tea was at at old haunt men's club from thei past. As for the church, I don't know but I'd be willing to scout around London for it. :)

Actually, if I could remember any of the names on the plaques, that might be a good research starting point.

I guess you never saw the '80s Merchant/Ivory film "Maurice," based on the E.M. Forster novel and featuring Hugh Grant as a closet case, where the character's name was also pronounced "Morris."

Watched The Departed again tonight.
I predict:
Best Picture
Best Director
and
Best Adapted Screenplay.
:)

I love this film.

In my netflix queue, coming soon. Still on the big screens in SF, I think I had better see it there, to hell with netflix!

Best Director, certainly. The "overlooked till now" factor is overwhelming in Scorcese's case. Too bad, because Greengrass pulled off a far better directorial feat.


Peter O'Toole might right the sentimental wave as well.

Ah well, I hardly look to the Oscars to determine the best of anything, and either of the two sentimental votes would be legitimate winners for their current works in any case.

While I still haven't seen King-Scotland, I really want Peter O'Toole to get the golden boy. I predict I will cry if he does.

Gremlins was in the Under $5 bin at some store so I picked it up a few weeks ago.

Many good memories about this movie when I last saw it in 1985 or 1986. I remmeber loving it. It was funny and a little bit scary.

Yet more evidence that I was quite a retarded child. Not that I was wrong to be retarded when I was 11, but I wonder what my parents' excuse was.

We just got back from Music and Lyrics. Fluffy chick flick. Catchy tunes though. Sadly I may have to buy the album filled with faux pop songs almost all sung by Hugh Grant.

Also saw Letters from Iwo Jima today. It's very well made. It continues to amaze me but Eastwood really may be our best commercial director going today.

That, despite its unique point of view, it really does boil down to a basic "pointlessness of war" storyline and doesn't really probe any original territory. But I really do admire the balls of Eastwood going to whatever honchos he has to go to and saying "I'm going to make a World War II movie, covering the same event I will have just covered in a different movie but from the Japanese point of view and I'm going to do it in Japanese."

I have to wonder if he just did it as an "in your face" to Rob Marshall who said it just wasn't feasible to do Memoirs of a Geisha in Japanese using unknown Japanese actors.

Well, Ken Watanabe is hardly an unknown actor. And I'm frankly sick of all the ballyhoo about the film being in Japanese. Guess what, so are lots of Japanese films ... and it would have been just beyond stupid to make a gritty war film from the Japanese perspective with the cast speaking English ... in clippped British accents no less.


Letters was a fine film, but stereotypical galore ... whereas the Flags companion piece was, imo, shamefully overlooked - and far more interesting in perspective, story, and storytelling.

Haven't seen flags yet. And the reason Marshall used Chinese actors was because they didn't think there were any Japanese actors with enough face recognition. Yes, Watanabe is somewhat known, but he's also barely in the movie.

And, I'm sorry, but I think it takes some artistic balls to make a movie in a language you don't speak. And I think those are precisely the artistic balls that Rob Marshall lacks (and if the studio insisted, he should have passed or at least insisted on Japanese actors). Why go with clipped British accents when you could go with clipped Chinese accents?

When you say stereotypical, do you mean stereotypical war movie or stereotyping of the Japanese? If the latter I found it more restrained than most and also pretty accurate in attitudes as I hear them second hand through Lani (who's father applied to be a kamikaze pilot). Say what you will, but the circumstances under which Saigo fled Suribachi is not something you'd see in an American war movie.

Haven't seen Flags yet so I have no problem with the thought that it is better than Letters (though you're the first person I know that has seen both that thinks so) and has been overlooked.

Personally, I'm still somewhat burned out on war movies and the reason I saw this one is because it is nominated for best picture (Babel is no longer playing anywhere near me) and because it was the only thing within 25 miles that I haven't seen and have any interest in (at the last minute I almost went to Ghost Rider instead).

I definitely would not put Letters in the top five for the year (The Queen was already on my list of the five that should be in line behind Children of Men and now Letters is back there as well.) Both Scorcese and Greengrass are more deserving for director (and I'm with you that Greengrass should have it, though I'm ok with Scorcese winning).

The screenwriting categories still continue to confuse me. Letters credits source material (the letters of General Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe)) and is an original screenplay while Borat is mostly unscripted and is still an adapted screenplay. Anyway, Letters doesn't come out on top for this one, either as I'd give it to Pan's Labyrinth if I had my druthers.

I was at the mall today, and thought I would check this out, except that it's no longer playing there! I was seriously pissed. Instead they're playing all kinds of worthless ****. I mean, Night at the Museum is still playing! WTF? Asshats.

Good. At least I know there is someone else singing the Pop hit besides Chris and I.......over and over again.

Yay - I am not alone. Madz really wants the CD now so I'll be listening to it quite a bit I'm sure.

Oh, heheh, I was referring to Watanabe in Lettters from Iwo Jima, forgetting that he was also in Memoirs of a Geisha. The latter was a frothy piece of period soap opera, so I competely forgive it for being in English. It was a confection. The war movie required much more realism.

And so...
... I don't think Marshall lacked balls at all. He (or the studio) simply knew the audience for Geisha ... quite different from the audience for a bitter war film.

I mean the characters, actually. Though I grant their reality, for purportedly being based on actual letters, the Watanabe character could hardly have been more stereotypically noble samurai, and the humble Baker similarly so for the lowly infantryman with whom the audience is meant to identify.

I don't want to insult anybody by insisting they were wrong and I am right when it comes to "better," but Flags was far more ambitious and audacious in its storytelling, and I grant it more props for perhaps falling short of a loftier goal than I do Letters for nailing a more pedestrian goal.

Which is why I can wholeheartedly recommend Flags of our Fathers (now available on DVD). It's not really a war movie, per se. It's NOT merely the American side of the battle depicted in Letters from Iwo Jima. The war scenes and battle stuff are sparing, shown fleetingly in flashback. Rather, it's the story of a happy, peppy war bonds tour, its ironies and creepiness in relation to the war it supported, and the toll both the tour and the public relations fraud of the iconic flag-raising image took on the men who participated.






.

The other night we caught the bulk of Ken Burns' piece on the Brooklyn Bridge.

The man is just a master at what he does. I can understand why people might get bored as they are definitely long winded and formulaic. But I have to admit that I'm a sucker for it. I watched the entire Civil War series when it first aired, and much of the baseball one. This one was nice because it was self-contained. A single documentary rather than a long drawn out series.

In a city on the scale of modern day New York, it's easy to overlook the Brooklyn Bridge for the truly monumental marvel that it was. Burns did a magnificent job of presenting the enormity of the project, the impact on the city (and nation), and really illustrated why the bridge was such a talked about thing.

It made me really really happy that we're planning on being in New York later this year. It also made me want to see a whole lot of movies. Both informative like this documentary as well as movies featuring New York. So, to the NY folks here, give me the short list of "must see" NY movies (preferably not ALL Woody Allen).

And, for that matter, we'll need a similar list for Chicago. Anyone?

ETA: Oh yes, the documentary also had me thinking about how pathetic SoCal is. We have zero monuments. True, public works, spectacular monuments. And don't even THINK of calling the Hollywood sign a monument.

Off the top of my head, I'd recommend:
- the Ric Burns PBS documentary on NY is great, for one
- almost any Scorsese flick (Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, After Hours etc)
- Breakfast at Tiffany's
- Rosemary's Baby
- The Hot Rock

... I'm sure there are one or two more...

I also gotta recommend the Ric Burns documentary "New York" as well. I was pretty glued to the screen throughout. It's absolutely amazing. I would go as far as to say it's a "must see" before your trip.

Netflix has it, by the way.

I have Half Nelson and Marie Antoinette sitting on the DVD player and don't have much desire to watch them any more. Weird how by the time you order it on Netflix to the time it gets to you how your mind can change.
:)

Age of Innocence
Gangs of New York (both Scorsese)
King Kong (original)
You've Got Mail
Falling in Love
Stewart Little/Stewart Little 2
Eloise at the Plaza
New York Stories (Scorsese/Allen/Coppola)
Bowery Boys
Ghostbusters

We have fancy HBO so I've been catching up on old fluff movies.

Date Movie - painfully stupid. I want those 2 hours back
Wedding Date - very cute. All things lead back to Air Supply.

Heheh, and I wondered why I even had Black Dahlia in my queue. I didn't even open it before sending it back. Primarily, though, because I'm ironically in a hurry to see Half Nelson before the Oscars on Sunday. Otherwise, it might have sat around for a few weeks before I decided I'll never have the desire to watch it.

I also hope to get Babel by Saturday. Not because I want to watch that piece of filth again (though my hating it almost ensures it will win Best Picture) ... rather because I want to demonstrate that its Oscar-nominated score is not original, but is note-for-note identical to an earlier score by the same composer. If I'm able to do the comparison, and if I'm right - - I'll try and post a link to the two identical music cues.

You bring Marie Antoinette right on over here so we can see it with you. OK? What time shall we expect you? ;)

Oprah?

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

They filmed at my friend's school in a suburb outside the city.

My favorite Chicago-based movie:

Medium Cool

Runners up:

Risky Business (you can recreate the scene on the el near the end of the movie)

The Untouchables and Thief to balance out the mob movies on the New York City list.

No one does New York like Woddy Allen. Many of his film have the city as the most famous uncredited star.


It's funny Chicago doesn't bring much to mind. Episodes of ER are what I think of first. It's a fantastic city in it's own right. I wonder why that is? (Other than the fact that actors tend towards the right and left coasts.)

I can see the Brooklyn Bridge right now from the window.

We watched Marie Antoinette on the plane. My review:

The costumes were pretty.




That's about all the positive I can muster. I found the modern music to be really off-putting. There's so much amazing music from that time and they're playing Bow Wow Wow? Plus, it was boring. Really boring. Lots of lengthy shots of people emoting or something. Whatever it was they were doing. The whole thing was basically: scene opens. Uninspired and uninteresting vignette plays out slowly. Fade to black. Repeat until credits. I should have taken a nap instead.

I guess the Blues Brothers takes place in Chicago. Then there's Chicago.

Chicago... How about Chicago? Or The Untouchables? Or any other Capone-centered flick. The Blues Brothers. High Fidelity. Hoop Dreams. My Best Friend's Wedding. The Sting. Adventures in Babysitting.

New York... Godfather I and II. The Seven-Year Itch. Barefoot in the Park. An Affair to Remember, and its cheeseball protege, Sleepless in Seattle. Allen, duh, (Annie Hall's the best) but also much of Scorcese. From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler. Breafast at Tiffany's is my favorite, though.

I just got back from seeing Letters from Iwo Jima. I was blown away. I enjoyed it immensely. I think Ken Watanabe was robbed. He should have been nominated for Best Actor. He was superb. There were many levels to his character and he played them all well.

If I had to rank the Best Pic noms best to worst, they'd be in this order:

The Departed
Letters from Iwo Jima
The Queen
Little Miss Sunshine
Babel

With that being said about Iwo Jima, I'd like to just say that I think the WWII film has been played out for the time being. I think there needs to be a break. especially a break from Spielberg's take on it.

Empire of the Sun
Schindler's List
Eyes of the Holocaust
Voices from the List
Shooting War
We Stand Alone Together
Price for Peace
Saving Private Ryan
Band of Brothers
Flags of Our Fathers
Letters from Iwo Jima
and the upcoming The Pacific War

All these films are Spielberg's take on WWII. He's diluting his take on the war by constantly focusing on it.

Um, what did Spielberg have to do with Flags of Our Fathers or Letters from Iwo Jima? Was he an exec producer or something?

Even if so ... those films were the artistic vision of Clint Eastwood and no one else. (well, I suppose the writers, blah, blah)

Watanabe would seem great in a slasher film. He's got moxie to spare, and he's great in everything he does. Still ... Letters from Iwo Jima = standard war film (in Japanese) ... Flags of Our Fathers = not your father's war movie.


* * * * * *

Tonight I watched For Your Consideration. Let's just say ... Hollywood satarists should not turn the lens upon their own world. Least funny outting by the group who gave us Best in Show and A Mighty Wind.



(And .... it skipped ahead of the "long wait" movies on my Netflix queue, which means I will not be seeing Half Nelson before the Oscars on Sunday. Bah.)

If one thinks that the only vision you see on a film is the Director's vision, then someone's been watching movies wrong for a long, long time.
;)

These were very, very personal films for Clint Eastwood. Not all films are "auteur" pieces ... but these two most certainly were.




Why did you list a dozen war films as "Spielberg's take on it"???

I still need to see LEtters from Iwo Jima. It plays saturday night over at the Archlight. I might sneek over after the Swanking to catch it. :)

OR .... we can re-enact it for you on Hollywood Boulevard, after cocktails at Musso & Frank!

We'll try to infiltrate the Green Zone west of Highland, and engage the Oscar Security Forces in mortal combat.


Hilarity Ensues!

Dreamworks shared in the production costs for Flags and Letters (with Warner Bros.) and Spielberg's support may have helped get both movies made but Spielberg is listed as producer on half of the movies that come out of Dreamworks.

I'm sure his interest in WWII had much to do with him wanting Dreamworks to be involved, but if there is one thing people who work with him agree on, it is that Clint Eastwood makes the movie Clint Eastwood wants to make.

Also, the script was commissioned and written before Dreamworks or Spielberg were involved.


But yeah, Spielberg's interest in WWII is kind of like James Cameron's obsession with deep water.

We finally saw Peter Jackson's King Kong last night. I enjoyed it quite a bit and regret failing to get motivated to see it in the theater.

That said, it had no right to be 3 hours long. IMO, for a movie to be 3 hours long, it better have a damned good reason. This one didn't. I wouldn't say there was anything "wrong" with the first 50 minutes, before they reach the island. But he could have told the same story in half that time. Same goes for the next 90 minutes while they were on the island. I probably would have been less critical of the length/pace of the island segment if I hadn't just sat through the first act which was a half hour longer than it needed to be. But it still could have been tightened up some (dumping the pointless side plot with the kid and his mentor would have helped).

But despite all that, I still enjoyed it.

And now I can't get Tom Waits' "King Kong" out of my head. They thought he was a monster. But he was a king

It's been playing on HBO 17 times a day, so I've probably seen it 6 times (in unchronologically ordered segments) over the last month.

Yes, it's toooo long. So much absurd excess could be cut ... with the double effect of tightening the movie and eliminating some of the laughable stuff that takes you out of the film.

Delete brontosauri tumbling over each other to plunge off a precipice, tyrannosaurs swinging from vines, and inexperienced marksmen shooting giant insects from people's heads without harming people's heads.

Peter Jackson desperately needs a boss.



(Someday I hope to hear the Howard Shore score for the film that was dropped last minute. I like the score they ended up with, but it's a tad bit repetitive.)

Yes, there is a wonderful movie trapped inside the bloat that is Peter Jackson's King Kong. Mind you, I've got the extended cut, which mostly compounds the problem, though I did like the added "river raft" monster scene. (I would have ditched the risible bronto-stamede and included this more suspenseful sequence.)

If I had nothing better to do, it would be tempting to assemble a leaner, meaner "phantom edit," but I imagine other fans have probably already done so.

One advantage to having this on video - I can break up viewings of it into three chunks.

I loved King Kong. I thought everything was necessary and was glad it included what it did. I'm a big fan of the original which I watched countless times as a kid. Jackson took all the best things about that movie and made them even better.

I know I'm in the minority here so I'll refrain from pounding the table (even if I did pound the table last night at the swanking).

And in feeling Jackson 93% "took all the best things about that movie and made them even better" - I think that puts us in fair enough agreement that his King Kong remake was pretty darn good.

I loved the Empire State Bldg scene in Jackson's King Kong. It was wonderful.
But they were at King Kong Island a half hour too long and the ice skating scene with King Kong scooting around the ice on his a$s was too stupid for words. (I mean, he weighs how much?)

My only long standing complaint about Jackson's King Kong is just how horrible the dinosaur stuff on Skull Island was handled. I liked the stuff before the island and the stuff after the island. But most of the stuff on the island sucked.

Yeah, that would be where the scalpel would best serve. I liked the Kong stuff on the Island, but most of the dinosauer (and giant insect) stuff would have to go.

My one exception ... the mano-a-dino between Kong and the (last standing) tyrannosaur would stay. As CP and I discussed last night, that segment - - the one which essentially duplicated the T-Rex scene in the orignal - - was the best bit of dino action in Jackson's remake.

The dinosaurs were a bit heavy handed. I liked some of it, but a few things definitely triggered my gimmick alarm. Piles of brontosauri, t-rex swinging in vines. Just unnecessary. I like the idea of increasing the dino roles, he just went too over the top for my taste.

*pounds table* It was awesome, damnit!!!

I actually quite liked Kong. I remember being in the minority when it came out.

We're happy today! A good friend of Tom's took home the Cassavetes award (for best film with a budget under .5 million) at the Independent Spirit Awards last night! She produced Quinceanera, which I really enjoyed.

I'm watching Smokey and the Bandit...

I loved this movie when I saw it at the drive in, and I still love it today.

I will NOT be buying Bridge to Tarabitia when it comes out on dvd. I wish I had been properly warned ahead of time. It is a good movie, but I don't do well with situations like that. It was not my idea of a good time.

I assume this means you found it to be a good adaptation of a very sad story? I read the book some years ago, and on that basis, decided to skip the movie until such time as I'm in the mood for a good cry. The trailers don't appear to set audience expectations for the emotional mill, do they?

No, they didn't. I had never even heard of the book and went solely on the trailers. If I had know I could have been better prepared or not gone at all.

I, on the other hand, am more interested in eventually netflixing it now that I learn it's a weepie.

On a trip to Fry's on Saturday, Flags of Our Fathers and Babel DVDs were prominently displayed so on an impulse I bought both to round out my pre-Oscars nominee watching. I can't remember the last time I spent more than $10 for a single-disc DVD but both were $19.99. I'll do my best to avoid such impulse in the future.

Babel was very much a disappointment. There really aren't specific things that I can point to (other than the stupid Gael Garcia Bernal/Adriana Barraza) that came up short but it was too long, too self-important, and ultimately boring.

Flags of Our Fathers is indeed, as iSm says, a very worthy effort. It isn't so much a war movie as a post-war movie and as such my complaint it that it is overly padded by actual war stuff. Also the 20-minute epiliogue is just too much and very kludgy. I still prefer Letters from Iwo Jima but it is a slim thing and taken as a unit the two movies are an impressive endeavor by Eastwood.

We saw "A Good Year" on the return flight. It was certainly better than Marie Antoinette. It wasn't bad, actually. It's not particularly memorable, either, but it wasn't bad. It was actually a nice, fluffy, mindless, entertaining airplane movie that I'll never watch again, but which occupied the time nicely.

I watched "Airport 75" on my last flight home from the East Coast :evil:

It was beyond weeping.I was sitting there sobbing through the last 20-30 mins. Even today when I was telling people at work aobut it, I was still tearing up.

I just read the Movie Mom review of Bridge to Terabitha, and I'm already crying.

Oh, wait, that's the Norbit review.

Seriously, though, it's kind of fun sitting in a theatre full of snuffling viewers. Joy Luck Club and Unstrung Heroes come immediately to mind.

The Notebook had the loudest sobbing I've ever personally experienced. And me not crying finally proved to Lani that my lachrymal glands are completely broken.

I appreciate the heads up on this one- I do not like seeing sad movies at the theater. The last one I saw was Finding Neverland, and while I didn't break down crying I did leave the theater a bit depressed. I save sad movies for home viewing- I don't want to sit in the middle of a theater fighting off tears and getting buttery popcorn salt in my eyes.

The World According to Garp was the only film that I loudly and uncontrollably sobbed. oh, and Charlie the Lonesome Cougar.

The Notebook was touchingly predictable, but I wouldn't use it as any litmus test. Finding Neverland was a bit of a weeper. Garp certainly had its sad moments amidst the grotesquerie. I guess the part when his mother couldn't hear him say "I love you" over the helicopter noise was the saddest.

I never saw Charlie the Lonesome Cougar, but I did get worked up once over an episode of The Rockford Files.

I cried 3 times in Brokeback. It stayed with me for days. Then again, Proulx's short story made me cry and things I read never, ever do that to me. (Except maybe for 'Harry Potter IV'.)

Billy Elliot made me cry twice as did Iwo Jima. I'm a weeper. :D

The Notebook was a stinkfest. Bleh.
Terms of Endearment, Beaches, Life is Beautiful, Ghost, Fried Green Tomatoes... these are fine weepy films. :)

I can't say I got weepy over Billy Elliot, but the father's shocked gasp at the end when he watches his son's leap stands out for me as the best movie moment about the transformative power of art.

I wept for Peter O'Toole in Venus

Life is Beautiful was a good cry - but it hit mostly afterwards in the car.

I sobbed during Braveheart when he is about to be beheaded and sees his dead wife walking in the crowd. I'm sure I'll be mocked for that one.

My other huge cry was Sean Connery's death scene in The Untouchables.

At the moment those are the two that come to mind.

An Oscar-winning performance that was voted worst movie accent of all time, edging out Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins.

I cried when Braveheart won Best Picture. I thought it was a homophobic POS.
;)

I do ok during most movies. If I know ahead of time I can avoid it. The things that really, really get to me are the deaths of children. For the last 10 years I can't handle seeing anything that involves the death of a child.

I laughed out loud when Jon Bon Jovi's character was shot in the movie "Cry Wolf", I got a really dirty look from Rose :D

Speaking of dirty looks... I kept giving Ryan Gosling dirty looks all throughout Half Nelson. He's hot to trot. I wasn't a Gosling fan until I saw this one. He's really good in it. He deserved the nod. (But given the choice between him and Watanabe, I'd vote for the latter.)

I haven't seen the movie yet ... but he was a hottie at the Oscars last night ... and I'm more anxious than ever to see Half Nelson.






And everything else he's ever done.







Hmmm, turns out I recently saw the trippy ending of a movie he's in ... called "Stay" - and I already wanted to see the rest of it. Double wanna now.

If you want to see a great Gosling performance check out The Believer.

I've got this DVD. Better include that too.

Well, I added The Believer and Stay to my queue, but I'm not going near that thing Steph linked to. Arrgh!


Anyways, Half Nelson is still listed as a "long wait," so my Gosling film fest may not work out after all.

He's even decent in the otherwise completely forgettable Murder by Numbers. This will not be Gosling's last nomination.

On the Netflix plate for tomorrow, Little Miss Sunshine will be arriving, can hardly wait! Sorry I missed it in the theater, but there you have it.

Also The Prestige and an old favorite, Mrs. Brown with Dame Judi Dench.

One film I'm looking forward to is 300. I really liked Sin City and I'm hoping this one does Miller justice as well.
:)

It looks interesting. When Heather and I saw the trailer, the first thing I said was "This is going to be very popular among gay movie fans."

Yep, so don't think I'm buying that the Cricket is looking forward to its Millerosity.


He might as well admit, as I will right now, that it's the armies of bare-chested, amazingly-built Spartan warriors that's the big draw.

iSm,

Thank you for not leaving me and my potentially offensive observation hanging out in the wind...

Naked muscular Spartans?! I had no idea.








:D

I'm really looking forward to Sakuran, which is based on an adult manga. The soundtrack is by Shiina Ringo, which, if you look at the current music thread, is making my evening right now....

Just watched Princess Mononoke. Stunning from start to finish.

Oh, nice one - one of these days we'll watch Grave of Fireflies - though I'm still afraid to

I liked Princess Mononoke as well. I liked the clicky ghosts in the forest.
:)

Fireflies = depressing. A beautiful non-Miyazaki Ghibli, but depressing.

I've heard the same thing and have been avoiding it. But I'll see it someday.

Same thing with:

Before Night Falls
Johnny Got His Gun (I saw parts of this but not all...)
House of Sand and Fog

One day I will brave Fireflies. I will get a big can if teflon, spray it all over me and park myself on the couch with lots of chocolate. Then I will watch it.

I thought of another sad animated pic: When the Wind Blows.
Mega-depressing but well made.

I read 'House of Sand and Fog' and I loved the book but just can't bear to watch the movie. Not that there is anything (that I am aware of) that is wrong with it, but the book was sooo sad.

Princess Mononoke is great, but I still prefer Spirited Away.

Just watched the Prestige, it was very hard to follow, not as good as some of the hype I expected.

I thought Mononoke was extremely tight and well made. But, for some reason, it didn't wow me the way Spirited or Howl's did. I loved everything about it though.

I loved Princess Mononoke muchly at the time but it hasn't aged as well in my memory as others. Probably because Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle were so much better while things like Porco Rosso and The Cat Returns are more purely entertaining.

Howl's had problems. It was overly long and suffered from multiple endings, many of which didn't make much sense. I remember having trouble liking Howl's character.

But still, it was breathtaking in scope, visuals, and concepts, which was enough to make it very memorable. Mononoke seemed somewhat the opposite to me, in that it was well put together but lacked wow, even though the concepts were great. I dug it a lot.

Fireflies was sad, but mostly because it was not really all that good.

And oooh, I'd forgotten about When the Wind Blows, thanks GC. Maybe my quest for a sad but good anime won't be fruitless after all.



And don't resist House of Sand and Fog for sadness avoidance ... it's a great film.

I thought Mononoke stands up to Howl's and Spirited. I found the animation gorgeous and the story the best of the 3. I think I'd still put Spirited Away ahead of it, but only very slightly.

Watch Spirited Away for the backgrounds, the general art design, and the increased fluidity of the (stylistically limited) anime animation ... and I think it becomes clear it's the Pinocchio of the Miyazaki canon.







But I'd sure like to watch Princess Mononoke on acid.

For me, Spirited Away, Kiki's Delivery Service and Porco Rosso have stood the test of repeated viewings more than any other of the the Ghiblis. Beauty aside, it's the storytelling that gets me every time.

(one cartoon I never ever ever want to see again: The Plague Dogs)

Like I said, Spirited Away remains tops. But Mononoke's style just resonated with me. From the moment the first hint of the demon boar appeared on screen I was transfixed. Plus I prefer the tighter story telling. That puts it right on Spirited Away's tail.

Honestly, attempting to rank any of them is becoming a meaningless exercise for me as they all offer something to love.

Have you seen Princess Mononoke? Because of those (well, Kiki's and Spirited, haven't seen Porco), Mononoke is a far better example of story telling.

I agree with iSm's House of Sand and Fog sentiments. It was a really wonderful film.

I am too lazy to see if anyone else saw The Number 23. Me like.

I refuse to see it. Not because I think numerology's a load of crap. I can still enjoy a good story based on numerology despite that. But the trailers keep showing "2/3=.666". It most certainly does not. It's .667 if you're going to 3 decimal places. Picky? Yes, but the whole point of numerology is being picky and if they're using something as blatantly wrong with that, there's no way I can enjoy it.

My desire to see The Number 23 is a perverse one. I don't really have any interest in it natively but the fact that a movie where the intent was to make a good one (as opposed to something like Norbit where the intent is to make a successful bad one) but ends up with a 9% RottenTomatoes rating has me curious. Curious about just what went wrong with it (assuming I won't like it either) or what the critics are missing (assuming I would like it).

I'm guessing the former, though, since one of its rare positive reviews is from the San Francisco Chronicle's Mick LaSalle. We disagree a lot.

The whole point of numerology is to be selectively picky.

I liked Howl for the most part. The animation was neat. The castle itself was super. But in the end, I just don't think I get it. It was kind of dull to me. And the creepy scarecrow dude reminded me of a character on the Animaniacs.

Spirited Away was great. Lots of neat animation, too.

Well, yes. But they could have at least made it a challenge to pick it apart.

I don't think I could rank the Ghibli films. There are those I love more than others but they all have their redeming qualities. Some have a tighter story, some a more entertaining, some a incredibly beautiful some are just damn charming. I'm not sure I could ever pic a favorite.

I DO, however, have favorite characters.

Yeah, ranking the Ghiblis is pointless. Most are great, for different reasons. I adore Mononoke ... but also love the fun of Porco Rosso. I'm a big, big fan of Howl's ... especially after reading the book at ElizaHodgkin's suggestion. With another Pinocchio anology, Howl too (imo) took a mess of a written story and masterfully adapted it to film (with a few kinks that I found far easier to forgive after reading the story).


I'm ultra curious about Number 23 and will likely see it today or tomorrow (I took a week off work, 'cause I'm supposed to stay off my feet .... movie theater ass-sitting is perfect!)





ETA: Hahaha - the byline above my current avatar is perfect for my present situation!

Of course I've seen Mononoke. I loved it. It might even be Heather's favorite. I was talking about repeat viewings. For me, the story of Mononoke, however engaging it is, was just a sliver below the three I mentioned the last time I watched them all.

Like NA, it's hard for me to rank Ghiblis, so expect my order to change next time this conversation comes up.

...and GD, I think you'd really like Porco Rosso.

Why I won't pay to see Number 23 in the theater: two words: Joel. Schumacher.

I also really like Castle in the Sky and, once I got used to it's early style oddness, became rather fond of The Castle of Cagliostro.


The one Ghibli I couldn't stand, despite it's Mononoke-like mythos genre, was Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind. Bleh. Oh, and yeah, Grave of the Fireflies was meh.



Hmmm, "Bleh" and "Meh" ... maybe I ought to give "Nine Borneo's Out of Ten" a run for its money in the film critiique biz.

Slight momentary movie derail:

I watched Miami Vice last night on DVD. I'd never seen the TV show, so I've no idea if they were linked in any way other than the characters' names. It was an OK cop actioner, but that's not what I'm here to say about it.

Ultra-fast speed boats played an important role in the story ... and one such prominently-featured boat was called Mojo.





That is all.

or Jim Carrey.

Although, I did love Batman Forever, which had both of them, and Val Kilmer (hubba hubba), to boot.

My 2 words are Jim. And. Carrey.

In light of Oscar-reminded comics who've been MUCH better at serious roles (i.e. Will Farrell in Stranger Than Fiction and Jack Black in King Kong), I'm willing to give Jim Carrey a shot at this. In fact, he's already proved himself to be a fine seriouser actor in Eternal Sunshine ..., so I will avoid his comedies like the plague, but give anything halfway serious he's in half a chance.

Is it OK if I use all four words? I hear this one is a particular stinker.

Will Ferrell is one of the few people I've changed my mind on in the whole funny/not funny debate. Though I can't say he did a bad job in them, I absolutely hated every single one of his recurring skit roles at SNL. They were all from the era when SNL writers would pick out some weird grotesque they'd run into somewhere and beat them to death week after week without doing anything funny. Ferrell started to win me over when he played a politician who kept running negative campaign ads about his opponent long after he'd won the election. He's now become one of those actors who, when I see him, I want to laugh.

So whos do you stiffs thinks is funny, anyways?

Saw a press screening of Wild Hogs last night. I have to review it for MousePlanet so can't share my thoughts on it yet.

But I did discover something, when you're sitting their waiting for the movie to start and things have pretty much filled up, the last thing you want to hear from the person sitting in front of you is an exclamation to another person that "we're going to be all Jerry Spring in this section."

The audience ended up being mostly invited guests from local Harley-Davidson motorcycle clubs. It maybe goes without saying that such an invitation in Oakland does not really produce the yuppie weekend rider class of people that maybe resulted in other towns.

Strangler Lewis: I find Jim Carey to be funny when he's reined in. Balls to the wall slapstick and he's awful though. Steve Carrell has proven himself though his style could get old after another 10 movies. Sandra Oh amuses me (though it is more often a dramedy type thing). I liked Jerry Lewis in many of his movies.

Outright comedic acting frequently doesn't appeal to me, though. I prefer something more subtle and generally more ironic and unlike dramatic actors I find that a consistently comedic actor is much more likely to be inconsistent.

Will Ferrell is about 50/50 for me now. Like SL, I loathed him on SNL save for one or two shining moments. Stuff he's done since then has softened me on him, but even when I like him, he still can't resist going for the screaming/crying moment that he thinks is hilarious and that just makes me want to hurt him.

Ferrell rocks my socks in his new pic, and that isn't even colored by the fact that we worked on the site. [work plug] bladesofglorymovie.com [/work plug] But I enjoyed him far more in Stranger than Fiction than ever I had before; it was a subtler brand of comedy, which I generally prefer.

Steve Carrell also amuses me pretty constantly. His Daily Show work, The Office, 40-Year-Old Virgin... all I enjoyed immensely.

Colbert is forever good for a laugh. I watched a lot in a row, though, and I'm a little burned out for the time being.

Charlie Chaplin. Buster Keaton. Harold Lloyd. These are a few of my favorite things.

I think the last comic/actor I found habitually funny was Steve Martin.

I laugh easily

Ummm, I find Woody Allen funny. David Sedaris is funny (but he's not really an actor). At the moment, no one is funny. Which is funny in and of itself because I laugh constantly.

Comedy these days really makes me feel like a dinosaur. "Borat", Sarah Silverman, Dane Cook - all intermittently funny for me, but overall, they leave me feeling depressed and old. Mean-spiritedness and open mockery have trumped wit and satire. Many of my fellow actors (at the Sleuths Mystery Dinner Theater) idolize the above-named and seem to believe that unless it hurts someone, it isn't real comedy.

That said, I did like Talladega Nights (lord help me), parts of The 40 Year Old Virgin, and, umm, wow, I haven't gone to many other comedies...

Oh, and I watch The Office every week, but not because it makes me laugh. (It does, but not often or loud) I watch it because it feels so uncannily like places and people I've known, and the supporting cast are very interesting and fun to watch. (I don't know if it can last, though. The whole "Jim and Pam" thing really seems to be the engine that keeps this one ticking, and if that ever truly resolves, the whole enterprise is likely to jump shark.)

Just got back from seeing Zodiac. Don't rush out.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. First of all, though he's top-billed, there simply is not enough Jake Gyllenhaal in the film. Alas, that's a fault common to all too many movies. (le sigh)


It's the story of four men trying to crack the Zodiac killer case of the late 70's/early 80's ... two San Francisco cops and two San Francisco reporters - - or, more precisely, one reporter and one unlikely cartoonist (swooon, Jake) - who stays with the case longer than anyone, eventually writes a book about it, and seems to have been the one to solve the identity of the killer.

The thing is, though the movie focuses on Jake's decades-long obsession with the case, it never becomes clear why he's that fixated on it. The other top obsessory, Mark Ruffolo's cop character, at least has the motive of a cop. Anthony Edward's cop retires from homocide investigations at some point before letting the case dominate his psyche. And Robert Downey Jr.'s crime reporter seems to fall off the scene simply because he's an alcoholic.

Of the two staying with the case through the long-haul, Ruffolo's character is semi-interesting ... but, with a throwaway reference to him being the inspiration for Steve McQueen's "Bullit," you get the impression the movie's not quite doing justice to this particular character.

Which leaves Gyllenhaal as the most interesting fella in the film. Just not quite interesting enough. Though he does have some lovely close-ups. Yum.


A bit more mainstream and toned-down for a David Fincher effort, but I found it unFincherly weaksauce.

Flippy - did you watch Arrested Development? If not, you must rent it. I think you'd enjoy that. Scrubs is surprisingly well written. I recommend the reruns to get you into the characters.

Truly good comedy can be elusive.

So true, so true. But if it has James McAvoy, you're not gonna notice it's missing Jakey.

My friend and I were torn between Zodiac and Starter for 10. We chose Sf10 since I am home alone in a big house this weekend. :creepy: I recommend Sf10. It stars the hottie James McAvoy (Last King of Scotland/Mr. Tumnus) fumbling through his first year at university. It is set in 1985 UK so it has great music from The Cure, Morrissey, Echo & the Bunnymen, Tears for Fears, and more. A lovely story with a little Cameron Crowe/John Hughes feel to it. I do not seem to see many movies anymore, and I am very glad I saw this one. Cheers!

Oh - we also saw previews for a few films that I am looking forward to. Namesake with Harold & Kumar's Kumar, In the Land of Women with The O.C.'s Seth and Across the Universe which looks like a psychadelic 60s wartime musical and has Evan Rachel Wood. I don't like chicks but damn she is HOT!

In the San Francisco Chronicle review (a solid meh) there is an offhanded remark that Rufallo seems to have done a lot of work to match the mannerisms of a man known the the reviewer.

I'm stoked for a Fincher movie but I doubt I'll get around to this one before DVD.

I can't go to any, but if anybody down that way is interested in such, Quentin Tarantino has programmed a couple months of '70s exploitation films at the New Beverly (apparently it is a bit of promotion for Grindhouse later this summer).

Of course, most of them suck (and only Tarantino's brand of ironic revisionism would believe otherwise) but there are some interesting things in the mix and most of them are the kind of movies that are fun for group outings.

Just thought I'd point it out.

Hey, I really dug The Blood Spattered Bride, a trashy take on LeFanu's Camilla. Also, I have fond memories of being scared silly by The Town That Dreaded Sundown, and have longed to revisit it, but its been a long time no show.

Speaking of Grindhouse Pics ... I just got back from seeing Black Snake Moan ... it was quite a hoot. A good mix of comedy and music and sex and religion. Samuel Jackson good as always, Christina Ricci perfect as the town loadie/slut, and Justin Timberlake surprisingly good as her messed-up boyfriend.


Yes, she's chained half-naked to Sam Jackson's radiator for a good part of the movie. Yes, Ricci got herself to look the part via a steady diet of junk food. And Samuel L. learned a couple of cool songs on the guitar. All in all, a fun night at the movies.

I finally got around to seeing Little Miss Sunshine, and while I liked it fine I can't say that I loved it. Steve Carrell was great- I felt he deserved the nom for BSA more than Arkin did. I loved Arkin but his performance was very abbreviated, unless you count the time his cadaver was onscreen. Carrell was funny, sad and very believable, even as a Proust scholar. I'm going to watch it again, just to make sure I wasn't in the wrong viewing mood and giving it less kudos than it might deserve, not that the producers or anyone else gives a rats ass what I think of it.....

We had a movie marathon yesterday.

I finally saw all three Saw movies - really good storyline beyond the gore. I liked the first one the best. The third was really good and ties a lot of things together and the second was OK. The first wasn't super gory and the gore was 'necessary' or implied. In the second and third the directors admitted using gore for the sake of gore. We watched the extra features and the making of. Great stuff.

Little Miss Sunshine - Bought it. I love that movie. Second time for me, first time for the rest. They loved it too.

Brokeback - Bought it. Love that movie. Watched it with my friend who hasn't seen it. He loved it and is now walking around saying "I wish I knew how to quit you" with a fake drawl. Roommate and crowd didn't want to watch a movie about gay cowboys. Uh cowboys = yum. Duh.

Poor friend. Finally gets the joke and it was old 18 months ago.

I saw it this last weekend as well and I agree. I was scratching my head, I love Alan Arkin, but I thought Steve Carrell deserved a nod much more than Arkin.

I thought the movie was good, fun, sad, quirky. Did it deserve a best pic nomination, to my thinking, no.

I watched The Prestige over the weekend. It was over long, a little dull, predicatable, but it had a nice look to it. Am I the only person finding the Scarlett Johanson nymphette pout to be tiresome. Enjoyed her in Lost in Translation, everything else is just more of the same. Hugh Jackman, where's the fire? David Bowie, a fun cameo as Tesla. I heard the book may better, so I will add that to the growing pile of books.

We watched Stranger Than Fiction over the weekend. I really enjoyed it, definitely Ferrel's least annoying performance ever.

It suffered some in my mind simply because it kept bringing to mind other films/stories that are much better. With the whole watch thing, I couldn't help but think of Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it was a very Adams-esque device, but not executed with quite the cleverness (close, but not quite). Hoffman's character and performance couldn't help but be compared to his role in I [heart] Huckabees. And, being of the "wacky actor turned serious" genre, Eternal Sunshine was in my head the whole time.

I like all three of those better than I liked Stranger than Fiction. But I still quite enjoyed it and it continually surprised me in its cleverness, even if some of the elements came up a bit short.

At least it was leaps and bounds better than the other work that my brain decided to compare it to, Adaptation.

He got it then too.

For years I had it in my head that the line "Could be worse. Could be raining" was from the crucifixion scene in "Life of Brian." This weekend I re-watched "Young Frankenstein," and found that I was wrong. I felt, well, "Life of Brian" must have copied the line, but the script I looked over online says no. Nonetheless, I still have a very strong visual in my head about this scene having occurred in "Life of Brian." Strange.

We watched three movies this weekend.

The Illusionist which I really enjoyed even though I figured it out really early on. It was still really well done. I liked the score and they way they did the lighting. It made such a great atmosphere.

Zoom-Academy for Superheros - This one was actully much less sucky than I thought it would be. I wouldn't run out and rent it but it was a kind of fun movie for what it was.

Man of the People - This was the worst movie I've seen in forever. I kept trying to turn it off but Madz kept saying she liked it, even though she had no idea what was going on. It's definately not a comedy. It's actually an interesting premise but it just went no where. It was just plot that went no where interspersed with Robin Williams rants. Lucikly I had to take Madz to her Dad's before it was over so I didn't have to sit through any more of it.

Saw Ghost Rider. Wouldn't waist any time saying that it sucked big time. Nothing worth talking about. It'd be more worth your time sitting in your bathroom and cleaning the scum off the base of your toilet than to sit thru this movie.

2 Bornieo's out of 10 (2 because the female lead was in a hot outfit)

During a break in MousePod production this weekend, I watched I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang. What a great flick.

I was talking with LSPE this weekend and it struck me that I'm really less and less excited with mainstream cinema lately as a vehicle for good storytelling. Short films (less than 30 minutes) tend to be worthwhile, because the time constraints force a certain amount of directness to the storytelling, and long-form drama like HBO's The Wire are great because they allow for real character development along with a more complex and ultimately satisfying plot.

Somehow, the films made in my two favorite eras (the '40s and the early '70s) seemed to be able to work. The "dumbing down" to the lowest common denominator for the world market has hurt mainstream films as much as studio bloat did in the '50s.

Thank god for DVDs and TCM.

Amen!

The recent Wired magazine has an article about this. On the one hand You Tube is shaking up traditional media by making certain things "snack-sized" - why watch all of SNL, or Letterman when it's just one sketch, band, or monologue you really want to see? Of course on the other side, HBO style mini-series, Tivo, and Net Flicks makes it easier to tell a really elaborate story without the normal constraints of traditional broadcast media.

Last night, zapppop's gayification continued with his introduction to Victor/Victoria and Mommie Dearest.

I'd forgotten how funny the Faye Dunaway/Joan Crawford pic was. A veritable laugh riot. Heheh, after the movie we found a $9 DVD of the film that was apparently issued later than mine, as it had a running commentary by John Waters! That might have been worth the ten bucks for a movie I already own!


And Mary Poppins fans ... please leave the room.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Victor/Victoria is Julie Andrews' best film. Period.

What? Not S.O.B.?

Heather and I saw V/V on Broadway when it first opened. It was odd seeing a 60-year-old woman playing a 20-something singer, but somehow it worked. God bless Julie.

Tonight's Bill of Fare the restored Peter Pan. I'm excited, it arrived last night and looks good. :cool:

Heheheh, zapppop and I watched the live-action Peter Pan yesterday.


I saw the restored Disney version at the El Cap a few weeks ago, and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. It's a very comedic version of the story, really tight and concise. Alas, it's far from the best movie version -- though perhaps it is the funniest.

Has anyone seen 23?

I thought S.O.B. was good, but I love Victor/Victoria. I need to find a copy and watch it again- it's been years.

I love V/V. I was in the stage production in Honolulu. It was fun.

I love the movie. I don't think I've ever seen SOB.

I have Victor/Victoria and have yet to watch it.

OMG, pop it in immediately! It's awesomely great.


SOB is meh.






And I decided against seeing Number 23 till it's on DVD.

Is SOB available? I don't particularly love it, but I did enjoy the Disney-esque opening number, the hysterical "adult" version of it later on, and, of course, the much publicized glimpse of Julie Andrews' rack.

Yes, indeed. It is available on DVD. Maybe it's because I was 15 years old when I saw it, but made a heck of an impression on me. I always associate that movie with Serial, another skewering of SoCal culture which is sadly unavailable.

I've only ever seen three Julie Andrews performances:

The Sound of Music
10
Princess Diaries 2 (stupid airplanes)

So I'm still waiting to see whatever it is that makes people love her so.

Well ... um, try Victor/Victoria or Mary Poppins - her only two good movies.


Please don't tell me, Alex, as professionally Disney-oriented as you are, you've never seen Mary Poppins???!?!

I've admitted it many times (both on this board and the other). In fact, while subjected to practically perfect tea I've been mocked by it from an incarnation of Mary Poppins herself.

I own the DVD but the one time I put it in to watch I fell asleep within 15 minutes (I was exhausted when I put it in, I don't blame the movie).

ok, well then my advice stands. It won't necessarily make you a Julie Andrews fan ... but there's certainly no way to tell if you don't watch the only two good movies she's ever made.

And don't forget that old Oscar drama. Julie Andrews, the original Eliza Doolittle, was passed over for the film in favor of Audrey Hepburn/Marnie Nixon. While My Fair Lady beat out Mary Poppins for best picture of 1964, Julie Andrews won best actress. Audrey wasn't nominated.

ummmmmm.... Star!, The Sound of Music, The Americanization of Emily....

Blasphemer.

Thoroughly Modern Millie, thank you.

Those all suck.


















ETA: disclaimer - I've never seen The Americanization of Emily. The other movies suck, and that's why I'm not recommending them to anyone whom I'd urge to appreciate Julie Andrews' work.

OK, maybe The Sound of Music was such a part of my childhood that I can't tell if it's great or not, and perhaps I only enjoyed Star! because my first exposure to it was the restored roadshow version on LD, but The Americanization of Emily kicks serious butt. It's a movie that I avoided seeing for years, but finally got around to it when it was released as part of Warner Bros. "Controversial Classics" DVD set (see my comment about I Am A Fugitive From a Chain Gang above). It's a fantastic movie that uses a WWII backdrop to make some interesting points about war and pacifism - certainly a film that no big studio would make today.

So go ahead and slam all the Robert Wise movies you want (he'll always be tainted to me after he butchered Ambersons), but leave The Americanization of Emily be ...

Which is why I added my disclaimer about never having seen it.


Hmmm, is it netflixable?

I just got back from Starter for 10. I really enjoyed it. James McAvoy is yummy and I think I must run out and purchase the soundtrack. And didn't Rebecca look EXACTLY like Molly Ringwald circa 1985??

According to Kim Masters Shia LaBoeuf is a leading candidate to play the son of Indiana Jones in the fourth Indy movie (sadly it seems to be coming ever closer to reality). Casting rumors frequently don't pan out but it is an interesting choice if true.

What I think of it really depends on whether the character is a "cut from Dad's jib" type or not. I like LeBoeuf. He was pretty good in both Holes and The Greatest Game Ever Played. He did a decent job with complete crap in Constantine. But it is hard to imagine him in an action mode (should they be giving even slight thought to continuing the franchise through his son).

It wasn't until you mentioned Holes that the name Shia LaBoeuf even registered. Does he have big kid appeal? I don't get it.

I've sat throught a gazillion episodes of Even Stevens - huge kid appeal.

So, is it seriously going to take place during the 60's? Or are they going to pretend it's only six years later, and use that face-morphing technique on Ford that they employed for Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan in X-Men 3?

Shia is actually looking kind of hunky these days. I saw him present an award at the Spirit Awards last month.

His film career is going pretty well, actually. He's very popular among the industry mucketies.

Saw 300 last night at the Chinese.


In a nutshell: Meh.

Oh it was fun enough, with plenty of eye-candy (of both the cinematic and homoerotic variety)

I never read the 'graphic novel,' so I am judging it just as a film. Entertaining, but nothing more. It was hokey ... but not quite hokey enough if it was going to go in that direction. The battle scenes were cool, the buff men were gorgeous ... but the most interesting part to me was the prologue about Spartan ritual upbringing ... and there didn't seem to be any fascinating revelations about Spartan way-of-life for the rest of the film.

(There were plenty of over-the-top revelations about Persian ways-of-life ... but these were only good for a laugh and much rolling of eyes.) :rolleyes:


:birdy: The "graphic" look of the film was ok ... but nothing nearly as beautiful and bitchin' cool looking, imo, as the similar comic-book visual treatment in Sin City.


:D As for the gayboy thrills ... I was a bit disappointed. There were a lot of hot bods on those near-naked Spartans ... but with barely 3 of 300 good faces to match, the worked-out battle bodies weren't all that arousing to me.


:eek: But, whew, there was one really gorgeous Spartan soldier ... the young son of the Captain, barely old enough for battle, full of warrior prowess and budding studliness. I hope it's not a terrible spoiler to say that he meets an untimely end. The point of the movie is that all 300 die.



The film will likewise die pretty quickly from my memory ... but it was a fun night at the movies.

Totally, we were saying that too!

He's also in the upcoming Transformers action film, so we will soon see.

Just watched Stranger Than Fiction on DVD. What a great film. It made me smile. I needed a nice happy little film today. :)

I want to invite Will Ferrel over to my house for dinner.

Tonight we watched The Great Race because my friend hadn't seen it before, and I considered that a serious flaw in need of immediate correction. I know it drags in spots, but I love it. I love every silly bit of it, from the pie fight to the twinkle in the Great Leslie's eyes to the silly lines ("Leslie escaped with a chicken?") to the emancipated women...

And then we decided to make it an impromptu Blake Edwards mini film festival and I finally saw Victor/Victoria. And more emancipated women! And more silly lines. It was most enjoyable. I'm too tired to describe it better now. It's a fun vocal role, that's for sure.

I hope you win, you Great Leslie, you. More Brandy!

Thoroughly Modern Millie, Victor/Victoria, and The Great Race are three of my favorite comedies.

I'm doing the Yiddishe Charleston today - My Forbidden Zone dvd arrived :D

Was catching up last night and via neflix saw Infamous (the other Capote movie). Now, I was blown away by PSH's performance in the 2005 Capote, the movie was grim but gripping. So I was unsure how I would react to this film, made (I think) virtually at the same time, but released later, for obvious reasons.

I thought Toby Jones made a nice showing as Truman, but he was much more over the top than PSH was. Not that this is a bad thing, I always do think of Truman Capote being over the top (my exposure to him before reading his work was on talk show TV of the 1960s and 1970s) and let's face it, he was vastly entertaining character. I enjoyed Sandra Bullock as Harper Lee, much more memorable than Catherine Keener to my mind, and she was not nominated and Keener was, go figure?

Daniel Craig was mesmerizing as Perry Smith. Because I am the only person on LoT who has not yet seen Casino Royale, I kept thinking as I was watching the film, this guy is going to play Bond? Now on a good night's sleep, I, of course, can totally see it, he was amazing in this film, though.

So, I think comparing the two films, while they covered the same ground, literally, Infamous was much more bright and full color, while Capote was bleak and grave. Both fine films in their own right, but I was left with the feeling of being annoyed that Infamous did not explain the "Answered Prayers" that opened and closed the film. I guess they were assuming people knew the end of Truman's story, sure I did. But with all the cameos of Truman's society friends, you'd think they might have explained in the end, what happened, it would have wrapped things up a little more neatly.

Saw 300 last night. It has some good fight choreography and a certain flair. But overall it is crap.

Yes, there is some good beefcake but save the $10 and go pull one off at the Safeway checkstand looking at a Muscle & Fitness cover.

While I believe the filmaker's contention that they were not trying to make a politically relevant film I can also understand why those who buy into the idea that everything is political would see significant problem in the portrayal of the persians.

Watching An Inconvenient Truth - liked it just fine until they talked about the polar bears drowning. Why didn't someone warn me? :(

But you are being warned - with each tank of gas, you drown another Polar Bear

/sob!

Goonies where are they now: Chunk!

Haha! Just read about them in my Entertainment Weekly...

I happened to watch Infamous first and haven't rented Capote yet because I enjoyed the other so much. Sandra Bullock delivered her best performance (which to some may not be saying much, but whatever she's made of her career I always *believe* her - she's an honest performer). Twas a magnificent Harper Lee.

And Daniel Craig was AMAZING. I knew of his work before Casino Royale. Have never seen Layer Cake, which gave him quite a lot of notice, but he was wonderful as Ted Hughes in the (IMO) underrated Syliva. I really do think, as cheesy as it sounds, he's a force on screen.

I didn't realize Daniel Craig was also in Munich till I watched it recently post-Bond. (Mmmmm, picked up Casino Royale on DVD today).

I agree the supporting cast was much better in Infamous and found the lead much better in Capote. If only there were a way to combine the two!

We watched What the [bleep] Do We Know? the other night.

How can I say this...

What the bleep?

I knew nothing about this movie going in other than vaguely thinking that a handful of acquaintances have recommend that I see it, though I don't recall who. Once watching it, the whole Marley Matlin thing was familiar to me (not that I'd seen it, but I suddenly recalled people discussing the weird Marley Matlin scenes). But I had no idea what the content of this movie was.

Now I know. Drivel. Complete drivel. Pseudoscience, misinformation, poor analogies, misrepresentation of actual science, unsubstantiated conjecture presented as fact, and a completely incoherent message. Somewhere in there were some mildly interesting philosophical questions, but they were completely subjugated by the overall hokum and cult/infomercial-like qualities.

I'd love to pick the film apart point by point, but I don't want to devote that much thought to it. I tried to pick one portion as an example, but it just lead me on a diatribe on the mess as a whole, so forget it. I'll just say this: If I were to buy in to the concept that we can unlock the power to consciously manipulate our existence and really see all quantum possibilities at once, would controlling my emotions so I could get a date really be my top priority? That's what got me the most, and made it feel SO cult/infomercial-like to me. They go off on the grandiose ideas, but in the end it's selling a self-help book.

I give it .5 Girthies out of 10. It only gets the .5 because the crazy Zsa-Zsa Gabor lady in the Sgt. Pepper's jacket made me laugh.

What the Bleep was brought to you by the Ramtha people. That's enough for me.

Meanwhile, last night I watched the 1936 Fritz Lang flick Fury, starring Spencer Tracy. I loved the movie, but I had one very weird moment watching it. The plot revolves around the lynching of a man who is arrested for a crime he didn't commit. In an early scene in the movie, one of the sheriff's deputies is hanging out at the town barber shop, talking about the arrest. One of the barbers (who will later become a part of the lynch mob) is talking about how he immigrated to America. Though I couldn't place the face, the voice was unmistakable. It was very odd to think of Gepetto as a member of a lynch mob...

OMG, they made a sequel to What the bleep. Yikes.

Actually, I recall reading (it may have beenan interview with one of the nine old men) that Christian Rub (voice of Gepetto) was actually a pretty unpleasant guy who thought the world of Adolf and was not at all the cuddly toymaker he played. I can't even begin to tell you where I read this, or how distorted my memory of it is, but there you are.

It will come as no surprise. I assume, that I loved What the Bleep.

We've discussed it here previously I believe. Needless to say, I wasn't one of the people who may have recommended it to you.

On the flight home the woman next to me was reading The Secret and keeping a journal as she read. Glimpses of what she was writing left me distraught for the human race. I so wanted to lean over to her and say to her that she was obviously doing it wrong since she almost certainly didn't mean to attract a coach seat on a completely full flight with a fat man in the seat next her and a crying baby three rows back.

I've skimmed some comments about What the Bleep on imdb. The people who either gloss over, or simply don't grasp, the glaring fallacies of the "physics" presented by the movie are one thing. But this comment...just...what movie did this person see?

I'll be manipulating quantum potentials with my conscious mind before you ever convince me that there was anything close to resembling good acting and "consistently vibrant and humorous" editing...unless by "humorous" he means laughingly bad. I've seen corporate ethics training videos with better production value than the Marley Matlin story line.

Maybe he was thinking of the Polish wedding scene from The Deer Hunter?

*snicker* Excerpt from JZ Knight's (crazy Zsa-Zsa Gabor lady who claims to channel the spirit of Ramtha) wikipedia entry.

Why is it that supernatural beings have such a fascination with people living in trailer parks?

Because they are the ones who can most benefit from the financial rewards such visitation includes.

I forget her name but when I was about 13 a protege of JZ Knight took up residence across the street from us. They had a giant teepee in their backyard and hosted many (reportedly expensive) retreats back there. Lots of cymbals and humming so the neighborhood started calling them the "humdingers."

Crazy, crazy people but they have been good for that neighborhood in some ways. They buy up neighboring properties as they become available and are good about maintenance. The neighborhood suspects that they were the ones who burned down the drug dealers on the corner. When I was up there I saw that they were running a kettle corn concession at the 4th of July festivities called Humdinger Kettle Korn so they have a sense of humor about the name. Of course, I can't help but think about the Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh and what his group eventually did to Antelope, Oregon.

I don't think I'd eat the kettle korn then!!

Anybody wanna see 'Dead Silence' with me? (for FREE!)

If Rose doesn't find the hamster by the time you get home, you'll have some Dead Silence of your own (if you're lucky).

I finally saw Flushed Away and really, really enjoyed it. Especially enjoyed the screenplay and all the fun soccer humor. If I'm right in saying that this, Happy Feet, Monster House and Over the Hedge came out in the same year, than this is my favorite animated picture from 2006. Loved it, really.

I enjoyed 300. Visually stunning, solid acting, nice bodies and lots of action.

There were a few wtf moments like why Xerxes was a 12 foot tall dubbed queen... but all in all I liked it.

There really wasn't a big climax in this film, which bothered me a little but it didn't make me despise it for not giving us that. It's kind of like having sex without orgasming but hey it's still sex...
:)

Let's see, the last few days:

Mississippi Burning. I would have sworn I've seen this movie before but it turns out I haven't. Some powerful moments and it raises some interesting questions. I have no idea how accurate the techniques used by the FBI to eventually get a confession are, but assuming they are, what do we think of this? Torture and intimidation. But I want to overlook it since it achieved a just end (since it seems certain that those convicted were involved). But can it be overlooked?

The Last Mimzy. Probably reviewing for MP (it isn't Disney so I haven't decided for sure) so I won't go into detail. Seems a reasonable interpretation of the acclaimed short story considering it is modernized. Very much targeted towards the young audience so, I think, not particularly fulfilling for the adult but a fair family outing.

The Namesake. Mira Nair's latest presentation of Indian culture to the American audience. A much better story than Monsoon Wedding and manages to give off some visual style without going for the cliched lushness Kama Sutra. I liked it a fair amount, Lani liked it a lot (the immigrant story is one that certainly resonates with her more than me).

Running on Empty. I never saw whatever it is other people saw in River Phoenix. After finally seeing his Oscar nominated performance I still don't see it.

Finally saw 'Rocky Balboa'.

We {Hubster, Boy and myself} all enjoyed it. We loved the 'Rocky' and characters in the previous movies {not boxing fans} and this was also heartwarming in that sense.

The extras were quite worth watching. Real boxer for his opponent and he {SS} actually took the punches thrown!

I have to add, though, after watching it, my husband said he needed to put in an old movie to see Rocky young.

But, SS looked great in the extras {being himself}.

Flyboys=stinker
Yes, eye candy, but fast and loose with history, totally formulaic plot devices, bad acting and posing and just plain dumb. Gimme Wings or the Blue Max any day.

To bastardize a quote by I-Don't-Know-Who: "If the ends doesn't justify the means ... what does?"

But haven't certain recent events supposedly informed us not only that the ends to not justify the means but that those particularly means don't actually work?

Just watched 'Casino Royale'- I like the new Bond, as well as the not-so-cartoonish style. (Nice butt, too). The movie was a lot better than I thought it would be.

We saw '300' last night... Not a great movie, but a ton of fun in IMAX.
The credits were even fun - I don't recall the last movie that had listings for "Transsexual 1", "Transsexual 2", and "Transsexual 3"

I enjoyed 300 last night. IMAX was a great venue for the film. Larger than life. The film had some weak points but overall it was enjoyable.

I'd recomend it just for the Oracle dance alone. :evil: wholy cow!!!

damn. no IMAX verions nearby, but I too saw it last night. except for the FX, I dont forsee any awards, but it was the testosterone flick of the week for sure.


yeah, that was pretty hot wasnt it? :D

{anyone who rents/buys Casino Royale...be sure and watch the Chris Cornell video....just because you can....:D}

Finally watched Casino Royale {not just the video} and I thought it was pretty good.

It was different to see a real side of a 'Bond'.