I think Mrs. Miller delivers the definitive "Yellow Submarine." And her "Downtown" brings tears to my eyes!

On the other hand, Xanadu makes me want to smash things.

Sczcerbiak - Have you endured the awfulness that is The Apple?
(Surely this must have come up here before.)

Happy to be of service. FYI, her "greatest hits" CD is still available.

About 20 years ago I rented it, but have not seen it since. I may have been too young to appreciate it for its craptacularity.

I'm watching a SciFi movie, "BloodMonkey" (no, I don't have a good excuse).

It's awful in an indescribable way.

Nothing says entertainment like a giant primate golden shower scene.

submitted to quotes :evil:

This weekend's fare (besides UP) was Ne le dis à personne (Tell No One) and The Reader.

Tell No One stretched plausibility a good deal, but it was not a bad film. I especially liked the character Bruno.

The Reader was, well, meh. Beautifully filmed okay performances, but can any explain to me why Kate Winslet won every award imaginable for this? Do not get me wrong, I like her, but she's done other work that more richly deserved, say, an Oscar nod than this (Eternal Sunshine).

UP was totally the highlight and I think I must go see in 3D very soon.

Saw Angels and Demons. I enjoyed the book a few years back. It was a fun Saturday morning diversion. I don't remember if it follows the book exactly or not.

I recently watched My Man Godfrey. I loved the writing for the most part, the set-up and William Powell. But I found myself liking Carole Lombard's character less and less as the film progressed. Despite her being Lombard, I was hoping her character was a foil and the real romance was going to develop between Godfrey and the maid, whose character was more interesting. I may have been more fond of Irene Bullock if there was more to her than bliss ignorance and kindness (though I loved that about her at the beginning). I don't know. The film ended and I felt like she got more than she deserved. Namely, William Powell. Heh.

Is it just me or does Land of the Lost look really, really bad?
I have no desire to see it.
Only 6 reviews in at rottentomatoes.com... These 6 critics give it a 00%. But it's early.

It does look not-so-good BUT they did not seize the opportunity to do a slick digital monster update on the Sleestaks; they look just as cheesy as the 70s TV series, so I will give the movie a chance.

I don't personally trust rottentomatoes - it's like they assign a pass or a fail to each critic's review. Clearly nothing is that black and white.

I find that metacritic.com is a much better resource for a movie's full potential. Each critic's review is assigned a number that reflects how good they thought the movie was. So when a critic doesn't think a movie is all that great but it's better than, say, The Love Guru, it can get a 52%. But when a movie is super-brilliant, it can get a 98%, reflecting that a critic thought it was wonderful but, say, had a small problem with the ending. If you average all of those scores, you get a much better idea of how good the movie may be. If you average the rotten tomato ratings, you're just averaging whether the critics thought it was good or bad - no matter if good is 52% and bad is 48%.

For instance, a movie like Up might have a 98% on metacritic (based on the average of the critics' reviews) and it might have a 98% on rottentomatoes (based on how many of the critics gave it a fresh tomato instead of a rotten tomato.) But then a movie like The Brothers Bloom might have a 49% on average on metacritic, but they'd have a 61% on rotten tomatoes because many more critics felt moderately positive about the film, despite having problems with it. rottentomatoes is telling you it's fresh, when the majority of the critics think it's not actually a good film.

But, no, I don't expect Land of the Lost to be very good, no matter how much I love Anna Friel.