Why do I think I'd be better served to see Cate Blanchett do Bob Dylan when that opens than I will be with Elizabeth II, the return of the queen? She looks like a floating island, not queen of one!

Even reading all the scathing reviews of Elizabeth II, I'm really tempted to see it this weekend.

Saw Across the Universe.

Now, I'm definitely not in the intended audience. About 25% of the songs I wouldn't have known were Beatles songs if not for knowing that they were all Beatles songs.

Taken simply as a movie it really isn't all that good. The story is very simple and surprisingly linear. It felt about an hour too long and several times the songs felt crammed in (particularly in the beginning).

So, as a movie it isn't good. But I found myself watching it not as a movie but as a type of artists portfolio where the flaws of one item don't necessarily reflect on the merits of the others. A cinematic gallery exhibit, if you will. When in a gallery I may very well pass up the first 20 pieces saying "ho hum" "nice try but no" "insipid" etc., but if the 21st is a piece where I just want to sit and look at it for a couple hours then the whole thing is a success.

And the very disjointedness of the thing allows for that. I'd say about half the pieces did absolutely nothing for me. They were flat, literal, and/or simply boring. Most of the others had some element that kept them entertaining. But three or four were absolutely magnificent in staging or audacity. T.V. Carpio's "I Want Hold Your Hand" as she ditches small town Ohio. Max's induction. The 1-2 punch of "I am the Walrus" and whatever the next mostly spoken piece was after that with Eddie Izzard ("The Benefit of Mr. Kite"?). Definitely when Taymor was willing to go the surreal and psychodelic it worked better than when she was playing it straight.

Those made it worth it and so I don't care that as a movie it really isn't very good. That is the strength of the genres of action movies, musicals, and porn. They can be 90% suck (excuse the pun in relation to porn) and redeemed by the 10% great.

And I don't know if this will annoy Steph, but when Bono first appeared on screen, for about a second and a half I thought it was Robin Williams.

Tuesday night I saw the best movie of the decade: The Game Plan.

Now some of you may wonder why someone of my age would enjoy a treacly Disney "family" picture so much. But if you look closely at the scene in the restaurant/club, you will see an incredibly beautiful basketball player—one I'm especially fond of—hanging out and enjoying the party.

I can't wait for the DVD!

Argh! Hehe. I'll harass you about it in a couple of weeks...

How funny - that is exactly the way I described it to the team of LoTters with me. (I also said the same of "Me and You and Everyone We Know.")

Has anyone had a chance to see the Ian Curtis biopic CONTROL? It looks pretty amazing to me, but it's not playing anywhere I can easily get to.

Lars and the Real Girl. What would have been a one-trick pony was surprising, full of hand-and-hand pain-delight. Tom said - and I agree - that there was a small ledge upon which the concept might have been well-executed... and the movie confidently strode out on that ledge without so much as a hint of doubt.

It's a story about a man whose crippling insecurities leads him to develop a full-scale delusion that his mail-order sex doll is a real person. It sounds like a tawdry gimmick, really, but the film takes the concept to such.. dare I say... innocent places. Sweet ones. More than just a film about a man trying to bring himself emotional comfort, it's also about the family and the town that stands firmly behind him through his crisis, despite their own struggles with the situation.

The screenplay was well-crafted, the directing lovely, and the performances excellent all around, particularly Gosling-- I have been touting him as the new generation's best for a few years now and I continue to feel vindicated. Gosling's subtle path from a man who refuses touch to a man who seeks it was beautifully realized. Supporting performances by Emily Mortimer, Paul Schneider and Patricia Clarkson all excellently handled the myriad reactions to a loved one's (or a patient's) lost mind.

This isn't a movie that will interest realists. It's a fairy tale, and requires a fair amount of suspension of disbelief (though there were moments that were so believable it made the rest seem practically plausible.) But if you open yourself to it, I think it will surprise and delight you. It certainly did so for me.

I'm watching Xanadu on HD Movies as I type..

Wow, what weird memories this brings back.

It played at the Aero when we were in PS, so I haven't seen it yet. i really would like to see it.

Ok, I've never heard of Contol or Ian Curtis. Huh? and What?


^ and except for LSPoorEeyorick's review above, Lars has been pretty much universally panned. I guess different people disagree about where that ledge is. But as it's starring Ryan Gosling, I will be seeing this film .... eventually.

Ian Curtis was the lead singer for Joy Division, an influential post-punk artist prone to epileptic seizures, and a suicide at age 23. Newcomer actor Sam Riley looks to be a dead ringer, and the film should be intriguing for folks interested in the era. Obviously, it isn't going to be a feel-good pic.

What reviews are you reading?

Nine of the fifteen reviews listed on MetaCritic skew strongly positive. 77% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

Manola Dargis and Lisa Schwartzbaum and a few others panned it - those with qualms were those who, IMO, simply didn't allow for the fairy-tale aspect or the suspension of disbelief.

I'm interested in Lars but am put off a bit by the fact that several of the critics I tend to skew with all have issues with it. And I must admit that when I watch the trailer I get a very strong whiff of Kapra which generally isn't a good thing.

On the other hand, an article in today's Chronicle referenced Harvey which is a very good point in its favor.

So, I'll wait and see it and find out. But you can say of any movie "it is good if you just go along with it." Any nonsense or setup can fly, in my opinion, but the responsibility isn't necessarily on me to just relax and open myself up to it but on the film to make me want to.

In other movie reviews, Michael Clayton is very solid. Not great and a little too long. But it really brings home two emerging truths:

1. George Clooney, somehow, has become the person that simply doesn't make bad movies. They're not all great, but it has been a long time since he was in an outright bad one. The only other name of someone similar (who works regularly unlike say Daniel Day-Lewis who works every few years) is Russell Crow.

2. Not since Cary Grant has god put on this earth a man so perfectly designed for wearing suits on the big screen.

Reviewers in Variety and the L.A. Weekly panned it. Those are the film reviews I read in passing, in the periodicals I actually see on a daily and weekly basis.

If I care all that much, I'll check Rotten Tomotoes for something, but I'm usually only interested in those opinions after I've seen a film.


Going in, I only register the opinions I didn't go looking for.


Friends' opinions matter most, so LSPoorEyorick's trumps anything I've read. A film featuring Ryan Gosling needs no prodding from anyone, though. I even saw his last piece of trash, Fractured, and it sucked ... but he was still good.

While I am in nearly full agreement with LSPE's review (not surprisingly, as I am quoted in it), I would change one statement. I didn't think that the film required you to open up to it. I thought the film did everything one could ask to bring the viewer in, and in my view was spectacularly successful. I would account bad reviews not to failing to open oneself up to the movie, but to deliberately closing oneself off from it. The pans I read, after seeing the film, seemed very offended that the film isn't darker and meaner than it is.

It has been a long, long time since I have been to the movies.
I think "Hairspray" was the last thing I saw...

But I did buy "Zodiac", "The Lives of Others", "Host" and "Flags of our Fathers". Used. 4 for $20 at Hollywood Video. I have yet to watch them...

The Lives of Others was seriously overrated, imo. Zodiac only mildly entertaining (but it's got, mmmmm, Jake), and I liked Fags of our, er, excuse me, Flags of Our Fathers way better than the better-received Letters from Iwo Jima.


Never heard of Host. Huh?

I liked The Host quite a lot. There have been several comparisons to Jaws, including a quote on the DVD cover, but, really, it's almost nothing like Jaws at all. I did find it engaging, though.

"Flags of our Fathers" was also compelling, though I liked its companion, "Letters from Iwo Jima", much more.

Jake Jake Jake... :)

I liked Letters from Iwo Jima a great deal, too.

I bought The Lives of Others just because I like the director's name a lot: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck.
It makes me laugh everytime I say it. :D

The Host is a reasonably fun South Korean monster movie masking some interesting commentary on SK culture and government. I found particularly interesting the schizophrenic reliance on, and revulsion at American interference.

Worth checking out.

It's a real pity The Jazz Singer didn't flop in October of 1927. P.U. what a stinker! I'm sure from the back row of the balcony of the Winter Garden that Al Jolson was a wonder in 1916, in 1927 in extreme close up in a really sappy story, he's not entirely pleasant. And it is rather disconcerting to have all these silent bits and then whenever he opens his mouth to sing, then we get a vocal sound track. I appreciate the history, but I don't need to see this again. Apologies to any Jolie fans out there.

While waiting for the next vitaphonized silent film to start, I've been subjected to several Vitaphone Shorts. Now I know what killed Vaudeville, Vaudeville killed Vaudeville. Eeek, some of these acts were just terrible! I think in this respect, some things are best left to someone's warm and fuzzy old memory. Although I did enjoy Trixie Friganza's "Little Bag O Tricks" except when she pulled out the bull fiddle. The comic recitation was still pretty funny. Interesting person, though, at least it inspired me to look her up!

I guess I'm a bit of a curmudgeon tonight!

Bee Movie: forced, kind of tedious and with very few genuine laughs. Seinfeld does carry the movie along vocally. Some genuine emotional impact and very pro-New-York-Jew, which may not be a plus unless you are one. Also, a bold statement that forcing your way into a cockpit to wreak havoc on an airplane can still (still?) be the stuff of comedy. Gratuitous zany peril sequences, which are my main complaint about all animated films these days.

30 Days of Night is a complete waste of everyone's time. Do not go.

Well, I'm glad you posted this, because if you can find certain classics awful, then I feel justified when I find certain classics awful. :)

On a completely unrelated note - Thanks to our resident archivist, I got to see The Ruling Class for the first time. Peter O'Toole was brilliant in what's basically a double role. I absolutely adore this type of late 60's/early 70's movie making (think Tommy - is there a term for this style?) and highly recommend it. Fantastic dialogue.

Oh, absolutely, just because it's old does not mean it's a classic, nor is it good. Many "classics" can be awful and some just do not age well, no matter how much I love them. Not everything needs to be dipped in bronze and revered as a treasured heirloom. Granted, sometimes I make it sound that way!

How do you know you're God?
Simple. When I pray to Him, I find I am talking to myself.

I don't think I've ever run into anybody who really thinks The Jazz Singer is a great movie, just a groundbreaking one.

My recent forays into the multiplex (slow time at work when there is a theater across the street + multiplex across the street from our new apartment = lots of movie action).

Michael Clayton - Can't remember if I already talked about this one but it was good.

We Own the Night - Not bad but not as good or epic as it should have been. Good acting generally, nicely shot and edited. Opening with a mostly nude Eva Mendes getting finger****ed by Joachin Phoenix was certainly attention getting but supremely gratuitous. I'm also troubled by the re-ascension in quality movies (as opposed to action porn) of the idea that when society won't give justice that it is ok to take it for yourself (oh, by the way, justice is a synonym for murder). I blame the Bush White House and its idiocy of not even be able to clearly say waterboarding is torture (not really, I view them as both symptoms of the same problem but let's get political).

Four Weddings and Funeral - The success of this movie is quality evidence that the world is populated by stupid people. No insult intended to anybody here who likes this movie (even if it is evidence you're stupid, but really, no insult meant (stupidhead)).

Dan in Real Life - Not great but a very pleasant fluffy diversion.

License to Wed - Watched on a plane. Absolutely horrible. The general non-success of this movie is prime evdience that people aren't generally as stupid as they looked after the whole Four Weddings and a Funeral debacle. Good on ya, former stupidheads.

Lars and the Real Girl - Hated it halfway in, but it mostly redeemed itself. Ryan Gosling and Emily Watson are both credits to the screen so it is worth seeing for them.

Things We Lost in the Fire - If you want a two-hour movie watching experience where you spend the whole time in a low grade sniffle go see this movie. I enjoyed it a lot but if you're a cryer you'll need to grab a supply of napkins on your way through the theater lobby. Benicio del Toro gives lie to the P.C. nonsense that smoking doesn't make you look cool. Well, maybe it doesn't but Benicio del Toro certainly makes smoking look cool. I don't support the "any smoking gets an R rating rule" but maybe I would support a "any smoking by del Toro gets an R rating rule." Even though he is a junky and generally pathetic in the movie I still left the theater wanting to stop by a convenience store and pick a brand.

American Gangster - Compelling. Unfortunately it has been billed as a face-off between to of the great actors of our time. But ultimately it is no Pacino/De Niro in Heat (and even that was a disappointment). The Russell Crowe part really could have been cut entirely from the movie without much impact and if it had been played by a no-name actor the same part would barely get billing. The subplots involving Crowe felt like fluff added in to puff the part up into something more significant. But even at 2.5 hours it was very watchable and I was never bored or waiting for them to move on the end. The big drawback is that being based on a true story it has the flaw of real life in that it generally doesn't perfectly fit a narrative arc and so the ending is a bit soft.

I loved "Four Weddings and a Funeral." Except for the relationship between Hugh Grant and Andie MacDowell. And her character. And her acting.

I agree - she really is HORRIBLE yet I still LOVE the film.

I was wondering why she had a career - one of the worse actress' but nice to look at.

I saw 30 Days of Night yesterday.

I met the writer and artist years ago in my comic book dealings and it's a pretty original graphic novel, both in content and look. The film really tried to capture it, which I can really appreciate and it was a moderatly good film.

THe issue I had was really, really, REALLY bad editing where people would appear/dissapear and I totally found myself saying "What?" Example, our hero and the remaining folks are hold up in a house. The cut is to our hero OUTSIDE. WTF?

Then, a fairly prominate character at the beginning of the film -totally dissapears only to reapear to "assist" with the ending.

There are some fun special effects and the look is pretty cool especially blood on snow. It falls short due to bad editing and I would suspect directing to some effect, IMHO. The acting really wasn't deep or worth while by any means - it was Josh Hartnet. He was trying way too hard.

30 Days of Night gets 5 out of 10 Bornieos.

"Is it raining? I hadn't noticed."
:rolleyes:
I hate her. But I love the film.
:)

Having spent a good chunk of the last week on the couch, sneezing, sniffling and under a blanket, I got some movie watching in.

Ratatouie: Another gem from Pixar, I really really loved it. The animation and movement was awesome, story was lots of fun and it made me hungry!

Chocolat: Continuing the food theme of a sort, I'd seen this before, but I was feeling crappy and this was just the ticket to make me feel better and also inspired to make some seriously delicious hot chocolate (not quite the thickness or richness of Starbucks' departed and discontinued Chantico) but stil the best I've ever made.

Saving Grace: Lightweight and fun with a bit of the British humor wackiness I love.

The Lives of Others: Taut and a very good film, I was engrossed immediately. I may buy this, I liked it so well.

Nanny McPhee: Emma Thompson, always worth a rental and this was a fun film.

Shadow of a Doubt: One of my favorite Hitch films, I never get tired of it, perfect for a cold rainy night like last night.

Charlie Chaplin Mutual Comedies: Lots of Chaplin, back to back, is not the best way to see these films. I'm a heretic anyway, Chaplin is my least favorite of the silent comedians (save for Arbuckle). That said, some of these are his very best shorts and the always wonderful Eric Campbell as the over the top bad guy and the always charming and somewhat benign Edna Purviance only add to the fun. Also a funky documentary on Campbell (who died from an auto accident in 1917, and his wife remarried only a few months later, weird story)

Braved the Oracle World madness to go see No Country for Old Men at its only Bay Area screen yesterday.

It is amazingly good. Go see it. In addition to just being a great movie, Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh ascends immediately to the cinema bad guy pantheon. Robert Mitchum has gone to get him a welcoming drink. Jack Nicholson is, as always, pretending to be too cool to notice the accomplishments of others but is mightily impressed. Anthony Bates has put out a fresh new chair. Anthony Hopkins is in the corner waiting for people to realize he's a bit overrated. Angela Lansbury sings a welcoming song.

His seen in the back country gas station is going to something the geeky movie dweebs are quoting in its entirety for decades.

Tommy Lee Jones is perhaps even better, though he plays a role in the movie that will probably leave a lot of people mildly dissatisfied, but that is only because a lot of people aren't going to realize what the point of the movie is until long after they've seen it.

I saw Fred Claus. I really liked it. I know it's getting poor reviews, but I liked it. The whole disfunctional family of Santa I thought played really well.

One review of Fred Claus tickled me in its stupidity (I have no real interest in the movie itself). It started by saying (paraphrasing, I can't remember which alt weekly I was reading at the time) "Christmas movies run the gamut from Bad Santa to Elf."

Apparently, in the of this reviewer, Christmas movies are only ironic and range from ironic with bad language to ironic with clean language.

Volver.
A fantastic, beautifully shot film.
Penelope Cruz is gorgeous.
One of Almodovar's best.
:)

I loved it! Agree with you 110%

Walt Disney's The Jungle Book.

I saw this when it was first run way back in 1967, I had the soundtrack, the golden book and all manner of Jungle Book tie in things. I had not thought about this film in year, really. The instant I heard the opening notes of music, it all came back. I really loved this movie, I loved seeing it again. All the voices were perfectly cast and what a lot of heart and warmth this film has. Sure, it's not Kipling, but it's Disney! It's a keeper for me. Hopefully will have time for the bonus materials this weekend.

The documentary material on this disc is especially good. It gives a lot of specific attention and credit to the indiviual animators and artists involved. The coverage of animator/ children's book author Bill Peet's early treatments are especially interesting. (Peet isn't credited for Jungle Book, but the storyboards he created clearly remained the cornerstone for many sequences in the film.)

Cool, I will make sure I make good time to watch it. I'll probably re-watch the movie too.

We saw Destino at LACMA, it was totally unexpected and truely a delight. I think that piece of animation illuminated Dali's work in ways that no art history tract ever could. Beautiful.

It also created for me a desire for Disney to capitalize on it and create a Surrealist Princess. After all we need something for when the Pirate thing dies down - Adventures in Negative Space anyone?

What a fantastic idea. It's too bad Bunuel isn't around, but maybe John Lasseter could get Jodoroswky to sign on.

I've probably said this a ton but if I wake up the next day still thinking about a movie I saw the night before, then for me it's a good movie.
Volver. :)

Then again, I will sit through a movie that is so bad that I will also wake up the next day still striking my forehead with a two by four.
:D

I would like to see Volver again. It was fantastic, but still not my favorite Almodovar.

I bought it for $5 at a Hollywood Video. Being a foreign film, it was barely touched and practically new.
;)

I have a soft spot for Women on the Verge..., I think that's my favorite. Mostly because it was my introduction to Pedro Almodovar's films. That and him writing "Keep fu cking, but stay safe!" on my roommate's t-shirt in big black Sharpie at the premiere of one of his films.
:D

Okay, I swear to God this movie is why I've recently gained ten pounds. I saw the movie twice at the El Capitan and have been hungry ever since. And, sadly, not for inexpensive food. So, I guess, it's quality fat I'm dragging around.

I need lunch.

We saw Fred Clause today- it was decent, but could have been much better. Lots of great talent, and Paul Giamotti (sp?) was really a sweet Santa. The elves were kind of disturbing, mainly because most of them (if not all) were average sized actors CGI'd down to elfen stature and it wasn't a totally seamless merging on film. Still, it wasn't a bad movie at all.

Yeah, damn, last year was a great year for moviegoing. Between Volver and Pan's Labyrinth and Little Miss Sunshine, we were in cinematic heaven.

I really want to see I am Legend but someone needs to tell me if the dog dies. :(

From the looks of the trailer

If you know, you can PM me if you prefer. I don't do well in movies where animals die. Screw the humans, but don't touch the animals.

The book is really pretty straightforward and isn't so much about the events as the ending and what it means. Frankly, I don't know how the book could really be translated to film without drastic changes (and, in fact, the first two times it has been movie-ized it was been change very drastically).

It was previously turned into The Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price and The Omega Man with Charlton Heston. This one looks like it may be more faithful but there are quite a few things in the trailer that are definitely different from the book (moved from LA to New York, for example).

I would definitely recommend reading the book, on its own merits, as it is short, but very effective. I doubt this movie is going to do it any more justice than the first two. (I have a feeling it's going to pander to mass-market blockbuster conventions, which a straightforward adaptation of the novel would not.) I plan to see the movie, but I'm keeping my expectations dumbed down.

To be honest I didn't know it was a book until I looked the movie up on Google.

I will read it after the semester is over.

I saw part of the filming of that. I can't imagine how much it cost them to shut down Fifth Ave. in NYC.

I liked the screenplay, actually. Not as good as the book, though. (What is?)

Good question. I'm starting a thread...

That's so funny because I was thinking of doing the same thing.
:)

So, GC, maybe you would know. The new DVD (or Blu-Ray, for those able) release of Close Encounters of the Third Kind is said to contain the original '77 release, but, does it really? I'll be getting it regardless, but, I'd love it if past omissions have been repaired.

You know who would totally know? iSm. He's the biggest CEOTTK geek I have ever met.
:D

Ah! I redirect the question then.

I sent him a PM to report here asap.
:D

You know, I'm just not sure about Beowulf. It has the same "dead eyes" problem that Final Fantasy and Polar Express had. Everyone looks dead because they can't get the eyes right... Some of it is great looking, but they should have gone with live actors and animated everything else...

What they should have done is leave poor Beowulf alone. Hasn't that story been mangled enough already?

Saw Beowulf last night. The dead eye problem didn't really bother me though one thing I realized about half way through it that may contribute to it is that the eyes have no major lighting reflections in them like eyes in any photograph and live action movie do.

I wasn't really bothered by the plot changes they made, especially if it gives us Barbie (in shape and genital smoothness)-naked Jolie.

Judging by the pictures I've seen of Beowulf himself, I don't think I'll notice the other characters in the movie (or the dialog, or the plot.....). :D

:D :D :D :D :D

I dunno about the Beowulf movie, but I do enjoy their viral site...

Reporting for duty. (I'll get to Beowulf in a mo.)


I'm buying the new CE3K DVD - maybe tonight in fact, if it was released yesterday, as scheduled - - with the hopes that it will have the 1977 original. But I seriously, most seriously doubt that it will.

Back in the days of laserdisc, the reputable Criterion company put out what it billed as the original 1977 version of CE3K, but it wasn't. If Criterion would either commit such fraud, or fall for false representations by Columbia Pictures without doing even a modicum of research ... then I don't put it past Columbia to tell such lies again now. And I fear the 2 lost scenes and 2 missing miscellaneous shots may be lost forever to the mists of time and careless film preservation.


Keep in mind that Lucasfilm recently issued a DVD which it advertised as the original 1977 version of Star Wars ... which it wasn't. But it was closer than the new CE3K DVD is likely to be. Star Wars had several sound differences and the opening crawl was most likely a recreation of the '77 version. But Close Encounters will, unless I will be overfreakingjoyously wrong, be missing two entire scenes (plus some other footage).


If the DVD is already available, I will report back tomorrow.

From what I hear, the eyes in Beowulf are improved over prior efforts like Polar Express ... but it still seems as if the actors aren't really there, and imagining them as the animated characters they really are doesn't much help. It will be interesting to see if they come off as better characters than Muppets, who have no eye movement at all.

It's always amazed me that we accept the Muppets as true characters. But these Beowulf creations may do themselves in by being so close to lifelike and yet not lifelike enough. I have the feeling it will look like a really cool video game. That's not good enough for me.

And I don't care that they buffed up Winstone to the point of not even looking like him. JW Bear's creations notwithstanding, computer hotness just doesn't do it for me. I think the thing I will enjoy the most about Beowulf's fight in the buff will be the AustinPowersy ways they strategically hide his junk rather than the salaciousness of nude death fighting by a hunky warrior king.

BUT ... being that this one's probably best in 3-D, I will be seeing it in theaters instead of my customary Netflix wait for the type of film I'm merely MEH about.

See? That iSm is real learned, he is.

I thought the hobo in Polar Express was hot!

Hey iSm! Wanna go see Beowulf in IMAX 3D for Free?!? PM me!

I saw the IMAX 3-D. I have to say it has really improved but still not something that is great for a feature length experience.

Especially if you're someone who tends to tilt your head. I didn't realize I was such a person but the 3-D glasses only work when straight up and down (because of how they polarize) so as my head tilted the picture started to ghost.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind


ARRARRRRGHGHJSKFFFGGHGGHGHGHGH!

Why Must They Frelling LIE?!?!?!?


Ok, I haven't watched the DVD yet ... but there's a handy comparison chart provided with the set. Handy, that is, if you don't mind outright FRAUD.

The fact that they bothered to print up a chart that lies about the two missing scenes and other changes pisses me off even more than if they just left that stuff off the DVD.

DON'T BUY THIS SET!

I will watch the movie anyway, but UGH. This is not good.

Most people who saw the film in 1977 don't remember the missing scenes. One of them is pretty inconsequential, and I can understand why no one seems to recall it. The other one is not really a big deal either - by itself.

But if you ask anyone who saw the film in '77 whether the Mashed Potatoes scene was hilarious the first time they saw Roy Neary carving the infamous "shape" in the spuds, they will undoubtedly recall that the joke was funny precisely because the man could not stop carving that shape.

The scene still garners laughs because it's just plain silly for him to carve mashed potatoes. But the real joke is lost, and the two prior scenes where Roy goes from merely seeing the shape to actually recreating it in his model train set are (apparently) still and (likely) forever missing.


In all subsequent and now existing versions of the movie, we don't see that Roy's been carving a mountain shape in his model train set until after he does it with the potatoes. Pardon me, but that's revisionist BULLSH!T and a crock of total fraud for them to put this out as the 1977 original theatrical version.

Arrrgh! One of the greatest movies ever made, and it existed for only two years and then was LOST to the annals of history. Bah and double and triple and infinity BAH!





I bet they have that insert shot of the UFO shadow over the truck, too.

And I bet they use the long shot of Roberts Blossom saying "They can run rings around the moon, but we're years ahead of 'em on the highway" from the cutting room floor instead of the close-up that was in the movie.

And I double-down bet they have the shots of the astronaut's pre-departure prayer meeting that were NOT in the '77 film.


Oh, here goes two hours of my life about to be wasted in frustration and wrath.



Sigh.

P.S. What if iSm is just plain wrong about what he remembers from seeing a film thirty+ times in 1977 and '78?


Yeah, well, they all thought I was wrong about the Star Wars opening crawl from the same year. And we all know how that turned out.

:p

Sounds like an endorsement to me :) :snap:

It sounds more like a seizure to me.

I saw the film on first release, once and maybe twice. I remember the mashed potato carving scene and I remember laughing. But, that's about it. I'm sure if I saw the film again today, I'd think I saw the same film.

That's what the Spielberg and/or the Studio are banking on: that no one really remembers the details of the film, despite it being a huge hit in 1977. The problem with lying about a 30th Anniversary restoration release is that SOME PEOPLE ARE STILL ALIVE 30 years later.

They should have waited till the 75th Anniversary when everyone who saw the original film would be dead.


The mashed potato scene still gets a laugh, but I don't know why. Yeah, it's silly. And people who saw the film in '77, like Snowflake, remember they laughed at that part ... and still laugh today. But it was a joke with an elaborate set-up. And the set-up is no longer in the film.


Ok, I've watched the new DVD .... more in a bit. (Hahahah, put me on Ignore for a day or two if you don't want to read more about Close Encounters than you ever cared to know!)

I get so confused by this film. I feel like I've seen many versions of it now. I don't know what's what. I remember a version that ends with the interior of the big mother ship. I remember a version where Dreyfuss is throwing junk through the windows of his house as his family flees...
Confusion.

Okay, I've not seen the inside of the mother ship (that was aded later, right?)

I do remember him throwing junk out the windows to make room for the Devil's Tower sculpture out of dirt from the garden (when he was ripping out trees and such) Teri Garr was not too sympathetic! ;)

Well, the long-awaited and too-expensive DVD set of Three Kinds of Close Encounters of the Third Kind is extremely disappointing in its false advertising of containing the original 1977 theatrical release. It most certainly does not.

What it does contain is the closest restoration yet released, but only by the most incremental of measures. In the early 1990's, the reputable Criterion Company released, on laserdisc, a purported restoration of the original theatrical release that was nonetheless missing several scenes ... and that version, more or less, was the one broadcast by television stations across the country until 1998, when a "Director’s Cut" of Spielberg’s 20-year’s-later preference for the film was released on home video. Since then, TV stations have been running either version.

The only "improvement" of the new DVD release purporting to be the "original" version is the inclusion in the film of two so-called "trim" sections previously available only as disc "extras" on the Criterion Collection laserdisc. These trim sections, lasting less than 10 seconds in total, correspond with two segments of footage excised for the 1980 "Special Edition" release, but are not necessarily the actual footage excised.

The two shots are 1) Roy Neary driving his truck through a tunnel, just after his first close encounter at the stop sign intersection; and 2) Roy, Gillian and Larry (from L.A.) pushing past Hazmat personnel to break out of the army helicopter that’s set to fly them away from the Decontamination Camp at the base of Devil’s Tower.

These snippets of film do indeed match up with tiny segments that were cut from the original release version. But there’s reason to believe they are not the cut footage, or at least not all of it. It’s telling that Criterion chose not to insert the footage into its restoration attempt (at Spielberg’s specific request, if the laserdisc’s printed materials are to be believed), while - at the same time - they inserted two other tiny snippets also cut from the ‘77 version (the line "They can run rings around the Moon, but we’re years ahead of ‘em on the highway" and the extension of the Days of Our Lives opening, "This is MacDonald Carey, and these are the Days of Our Lives.")

Further, the "trims" do not make sense. The first one of the tunnel is certainly part of the missing footage. But the "restored" scene now cuts directly from Roy driving away from the stop sign to a shot of him suddenly inside a tunnel. I’m fairly sure there was some connecting shot, and though this piece was found on the cutting room floor as a "trim," Criterion notably did not include it in the film.

More jarring is the scene of Roy and Co. pushing past Hazmat Guards to escape from the helicopter, because there is no sign of pursuit in the next few shots ... which would have seemed bizarre in the original cut if they pushed guards to the ground and were not chased. In fact, the footage of Neary, Gillian and Larry running through the camp shows only puzzled onlookers among the personnel unloading Piggly Wiggly and Baskin Robins trucks, with an element of pursuit added post-production by an off-screen dubbed voice shouting, "Hey, wait a minute!" There is definitely some missing footage when Roy and Gillian escape from the helicopter, but I don’t believe this is it. Criterion notably did not include it in the film.


HOWEVER, I must look upon the new DVD’s inclusion of these two snippets as a legitimate attempt to get closer to the 1977 version. And that’s as far as they went.


Major and minor differences still remain, and it’s a pure and despicable LIE and fraud to claim this new release as the 1977 Original Version.

It’s closer than the disastrous "Special Edition" of 1980, closer than the vaguely-palatable "Director’s Cut" of 1998, and a teeny, tiny bit closer than the previous restoration attempts by Criterion and aired on various TV stations.

(continued)

But here’s what’s still different about Close Encounters of the Third Kind ...

1) Right after Roy Neary’s first close encounter, inside his truck at the stop sign, a new effects shot of a UFO shadow passing over Roy’s truck was inserted for the Special Edition. The new DVD uses "trim" footage of Roy’s truck driving through a tunnel as a restoration, but there is likely still a brief shot missing from this segment. Tiny difference.

2) The actor Roberts Blossom plays an unnamed old coot character who "saw Bigfoot once" and is mysteriously present and waiting with his hillbilly family when Roy and Gillian first see the UFOs whiz by on the highway, and are pursued by police cruisers. After the police zoom by, and before Neary says the line, "This is nuts!" ... Blossom’s character had a line, "They can fly rings around the Moon, but we’re years ahead of them on the highway." The restoration uses an alternate-take shot of this line, and inserts it in the wrong place. It uses a very long shot with a car headlight in the foreground and Blossoms way in the background. The original was a much closer, waist-up shot of Blossom. And of course, the line makes zero sense if it’s uttered before the police drive by in pursuit. Nice try, but this is still a minor difference from the original film.

3) The first scene of Roy and the mountain he’s built in the center of his miniature train setup is GONE. Missing Forever. Arrggh. It’s part of the really important progression of Roy’s descent into seeming lunacy and a vital element of Roy’s obsession with the "shape" that was a central theme of the original movie. In this scene, we are introduced to the train set mountain and the "shrine" Roy’s assembled in his hobby room of newspaper clippings and Star Trek model spaceships. In the scene, Roy promises Ronnie he’ll give up the crazy obsession if there’s no positive result at the Air Force News Conference (the following scene). I remember the Enterprise and Klingon ship models got a laugh from the audience, and a prominently displayed magazine cover of projected NASA ships of the post-Moon-landing future is also one I cut out of that magazine as a kid. (It’s still visible in the far background of the existing versions of the film when we now first see the clippings and Star Trek models much later). Big, substantive difference. Entire Missing Scene.

4) There is still some missing footage from the start of the following Air Force News Conference scene as Roy and Ronnie are waiting in the reception area - before Gillian arrives in the scene, hounded by reporters about her missing son, Barry. Obviously lost when the prior scene was cut. Sloppy, but a small difference.

5) The second scene of Roy and his miniature mountain is one of the most important scenes in the entire movie and it’s MISSING and assumed LOST FOREVER. In it, Roy is seen getting more intuitive about transforming the mountain into the "shape" he’s had implanted in his mind. Just after the scene where the audience learns about a butte-shaped feature called "Devil’s Tower," Roy for the first time starts carving grooves and ridges into his mountain sculpture. This was a particularly suspenseful scene for the audience because, even though most people were not familiar with Devil’s Tower before it was popularized by this very film in the late ‘70's, the audience had just figured out all Neary had to do was lop the top off his mountain. He was getting warmer and warmer as he carved ridges and was just about to have the all-important epiphany ... when he’s called away to dinner. On the menu: Mashed Potatoes.

Since 1980, all versions of the film would have you believe that Roy Neary has never sculpted the "shape" until he starts doing so with a fork in a pile of mushy spuds. The action of obsessed mashed potato carving is still funny as a silly thing to do. But there is no set up for this big joke. The audience never sees Roy carving his mountain. Worse and stupider ... we never see Roy losing his marbles. He’s just suddenly insane.

In all modern versions of the film, we last see Roy on the mountain road waiting for the UFOs to return. Military helicopters show up instead. Roy is just beginning to notice the "shape." Here, he sees it in a pile of dirt being molded the little kid, Barry. Earlier in the day he saw it in a blob of shaving cream and (in some versions) an upturned pillow. After an interlude about LaCombe in India and Barry being abducted by aliens, we next see Roy at the Air Force News Conference and then sitting down for Mashed Potato dinner. There’s no indication that his obsession with the "shape" has progressed into his own sculpture attempts, or that his UFO obsession has progressed into shrine-making. (The element of him building an observation platform on his roof was cut from all versions of the film, but you can still see it when Ronnie leaves home with the kids a little bit later in the movie.)

One minute, Roy’s a mildly curious man ... and the next he’s a completely bonkers mashed potato masher. His growing obsession with The Shape and losing his grip on day-to-day realities, while a central element of the original movie, is now eviscerated in all remaining versions of this iconic film. In fact - until the film breaks out into action mode and UFO encounterism in its final act, this is what the movie was ABOUT. And yet, all semblance of it is gone - - even in the so-called "Director’s Cut" - which leads me to sadly assume the footage has been irretrievably lost.

In the very next scene after the mashed potatoes incident, where we NOW see the model train mountain FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, the effect is jarring. It’s palpably obvious to almost everyone who saw the original film that - wait a minute - that mountain’s "been there" since long before "now." (Less obvious, but still within the realm of recollection, is that the Star Trek models and newspaper clippings "first" seen in an even later segment have also "been there before.").

BAH on this. Very important Missing Scene. The two missing scenes represent a BIG DEPARTURE from the original movie, and frankly ... Roy Neary’s character arc just does not make sense without them.

Though they may be legitimately (if negligently) lost ... it is purely fraudulent to label any version that doesn’t include them as the 1977 Original Theatrical Release.


.

(Third and Final Part)

6) Later, when Roy is tearing down all the news clippings and Star Trek models, there’s an insert shot of the Pinocchio musical figurine and strains of its music-box rendition of "When You Wish Upon a Star" on the soundtrack that were not in the original film. It was sheer laziness to not restore this to the original version. A small but irksome difference.

7) There is some missing footage when Roy, Gillian and Larry escape from the military helicopter. The "trim" footage added back-in on this new DVD release is almost certainly not the footage removed from the original cut back in 1980. A small difference made bothersome by the clumsy effort to restore it.

8) Just before we see that Roy Neary has been suited-up in red astronaut garb, joining the end of the queue of hopeful Mothership passengers ... a new series of shots featuring an astronaut "prayer meeting" were inserted in the 1980 Special Edition, and have never been removed. As the musical score does not appear to have been altered, there must be a significant amount of missing footage at this vital part of the film ... which now practically "gives away" the Roy Neary ending a few seconds too early.

This segment is 17 seconds long! That’s a lot of missing footage. In the original version, the astronauts were kept way more in the background ... so that Roy leaving on the Mothership might be a surprise. We never see them in their astronaut uniforms until a second or two before we saw Roy as a new member of that group ... and thus we didn’t really know they’re astronauts at all when we saw them in the background of a couple other scenes. This 17 second gap at the movie’s finale is a Big Difference.

9) Though the really lame and stupid Inside the Mothership scene has been edited out of both the Directors’ Cut and all restoration attempts, the original music editing has been lost and all re-mix attempts have been surprisingly poor. The new DVD has the best re-mix yet, but it’s not the original mix. A very minor difference.

10) Finally, the effects shots behind the end credits were switched around for the 1980 Special Edition, and have never been restored to their original 1977 order. In the original, the first credits (Speilberg’s and others) were displayed over close-up shots of Mothership detail, and the progression was from a series of close-ups to full-shots of the gargantuan spaceseship, to a far away view of the UFO, and then a blank starfield.
The revised credits start with the full-shots of the ship, then progress to the series of close-ups, and only then to the far shot and the starfield.

As one who claimed the biggest problem with the also-1977-maimed Star Wars opening crawl was that it no longer properly matched the brilliant John Williams music that was scored to match it, I certainly contend the same holds true for the Close Encounters ending. Williams scored the film to match the visuals ... and when the visuals changed, the score no longer had as eloquent an effect. This is a pretty big difference in my book - - and failure to restore it was just plain laziness and inexcusable error.


Yes, the Directors Cut and now this new DVD restore many of the elements of the 1977 original from the ill-conceived Special Edition. But it’s NOT the 1977 original and it’s just another corporate LIE to claim it is.

The picture quality is remarkably restored in some sections of the film and curiously poor in others. An uneven attempt at visual quality.

All-in-all, I cannot recommend this set ... unless, well, you want to get a fairly reasonable semblance of the 1977 original version of Close Encounters on DVD. It’s a shame to have to pay for the absolutely retarded Special Edition and previously-available Director’s Cut just to get this falsely billed facsimile of the original version.

But - sigh - this is the version I will be watching from now on. And I’ll be cringing at times. In fact, there are parts that are so uncomfortable to me that I may end up continuing to avoid one of my favorite moves of all time.

There’s a scene where Roy runs outside in frustration and shouts to the night skies, "What Is It?!?!" - and then he goes back inside and maniacally starts throwing globs of clay and carving deep gashes in his mini-mountain, all the while fuming, "That’s not right, that’s not right" as the music swells. It gets to me in a very unpleasant way. Because this movie has been so negligently tampered with, with important scenes seemingly lost to time as if it were the most unimportant of films, I have become obsessed with it in a way that vaguely mirrors Roy Neary’s obsession at that moment in the movie. And when he manhandles the mountain that’s been mostly cut out of the movie, shouting, "That’s not right" - that’s exactly what I’m shouting inside my head.

Watching Close Encounters is a bittersweet experience for me. Buy the DVD if you want As-Close-As-You-Can-Get. But be aware it’s all a Big Fat Lie.






.

*sigh*
That's what I was afraid of. I'll still get it, because the most recent edition I have is the collector's edition laserdisc. (I also have that old unlamented Criterion laser.) I only saw that first release twice, and I was 12 at the time, so the differences won't be so apparant to me. I'll just be happy that it isn't the craptacular "special" edition.

Thanks for the very detailed rundown. I hope this release won't be the last word on the subject.

Wow, GC was right, you do know way more than anyone I've ever met!

Is it worth a rental, though?

See? iSm's brain is full of wisdom about CE3K.
:)

And his heart full of angst.

I need someone with mad DVD authoriing skillz to help me create a better '77 facsimile.


I am Neary-like obsessed with this movie, and the new release is driving me mad.

Aren't you like dating someone who can do that for you?
:)

My heart goes out to you, I've never felt that strongly about a film, it's reissue or restoration. I'm obsessed, but not quite ths much, at least I don't think I am!

I am surprised, however, that a film so young has materials that are irevocably lost. It's not like it was during WWII and film was being striped for silver, etc. or earlier when entire warehouses of negatives and prints were being destroyed (deliberate or by accident).

Bam! No love for Mr. Magorium...
:D

Going to see Love in the Time of Cholera tomorrow night.

I've heard crappy things about that movie, cept for Javier's performance. But all the negative hullabaloo makes me want to read the book.

It's interesting that nothing in the theatres right now is making me run to see it. It's been a rather dull last couple of months.

Well, I've not read the book and I love Bardim. I'd love to read the book, too. I'm in the mood for this kind of movie, though. And, I've not read any of the reviews.

Oops, change in plans! (not really, starts next week) So, day after Thanksgiving for me

The Lumiere is showing The Red Ballon and The White Mane.

Janus Films Site

I'm going to have to go! I love both of these films and have never seen them on the big screen.

Am I still on CE3K-minutia Ignore? If not, put it back on for a little while.



I'm being gaslighted all over the interweb. I've gone to about a half-dozen sites claiming to detail the differences in the various versions of Close Encounters, and none of them mention the 2 missing train-set mountain scenes or that the astronaut prayer meeting was not in the original film.

This is a vast right-wing conspiracy to convince me that I'm crazy.


But I know I'm not.



(Um, except real crazy people know they're not, too.)






Grrrrrrrrrrr.

Well, it's been a day and I'm still reading your review.
:D
I'm kidding.

I say stick to your guns. I know someone I can ask about this. I'll let you know.
B

I haven't been to the movies in AGES but that all changes tonite! Beowulf in IMAX 3D. Next weekend: Enchanted AND Stephen King's THE MIST.

December 14: I Am Legend (yes yes, the Will Smith movie, but I LOVE all things Richard Matheson, who wrote the original novella).

December 21: Sweeny Todd (I downloaded the Hi-Def trailer onto my ps3 last nite and WOW it looks gorgeously grey)

December 25: Aliens vs. Predator. That's Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC345233 surrounding that Predator-Alien baby that was born last year, but the Predator just sits around all day drinking beer ordering that Alien bitch around, and she just gets tired of the whole thing so she screws his best friend and Predator gets suspicious that the little monster isn't his and orders a fluorescent-blood paternity test while the Alien spits acid on his crotch and screams "WHO'S THE DADDY NOW *Hisssssssssssss* HUH? *Hisssssssssssssss* WHO'S THE DADDY NOW, YOU BASTARD! *HisssssssS*"

Ohhhhh it's gonna be a good one.

Musing on a movie unreleased.

BE KIND REWIND.

What excites me about this meta filmmaking movie isn't about the dark underbelly of the filmmaking world. It seems to be about the sheer joy and craziness of it all.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/newlin...ind/large.html

Mos Def (hotness!)
Jack Black (cuteness!)

Directed by Michael Gondry (awesomeness!), who has directed some of my favorite films, including:

The Science of Sleep
Dave Chappelle's Block Party
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Human Nature

And some very, very good music videos, of course.

Mos Def and Michael Gondry intrigue me.

Jack Black unintrigues me. So this one will have to wait for some reviews to tip the scales in one direction or the other. Doesn't help that the trailer is one that seems to have the goal of "90 second version of movie."

I had the exact same thought.

Oi, I'm tempted to go to the movies tonight, because I have GOT to see No Country for Old Men and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

Thing is, I'm short on time. And most Oscar-contenders like these are going to come my way soon on DVD screeners anyway. Torn, torn.


The movie I'm less enthusiastic about, Beowulf, will not be the same on my TV set as it will in IMAX 3-D. It's a sad irony that I might end up shelling out time and money for that this weekend rather than the much finer films more worthy of either.

I might actually venture into a theatre to see No Country for Old Men. I've seen so many more movies this year than usual. I might even need two hands to count them!

Steve, while No Country for Old Men isn't a movie that absolutely screams for the big screen I did feel a vibe for being in a packed house watching it.

Oh! Cohen Brothers!

Watched Atlantis The Lost Empire last night. Since I did absolutely no homework, just a spur of the moment Netflix choice as it was a Disney I've not seen. Very different Disney, a cross between anime and comic book artwork. Very angular and moved at an exhausting pace. Not the best and not the worst, I did not feel my 80 minutes was wasted.

I'm one of the few people I know who liked that movie. I thought it was great. I even bought the DVD ... and it's my only DVD to have ever disappeared. Pfft, no one would have borrowed it. No one likes it. Just gone.

Oh well. It's a wrongly reviled movie. Nothing wrong with it. Jules Verny adventure with stock but funny characters.

Count me among the fans of Atlantis, as well. Saw it at El Cap. There were characters in costume at the Masonic (now Jimmy Kimmel) building. I wonder what happened to those costumes? Was there ever an Atlantis presence in the park?

I certainly did not revile it, not in the least. But I was breathless by the end, it moved, I think, a little bit too fast. I thought it was beautiful to look and I would have enjoyed a more leisurely look around Atlantis. And especially enjoyed Don Novello. It made me wonder if Walt would have hired Father Guido Sarducci, but I'm glad they did!

I liked Atlantis as well, and my copy is missing too. What's up with that?

Do they self-destruct after so many years? Weird!

And there was once, if I recall correctly, a tiny Atlantis presence in the Park ... while they were still planning to someday reopen the Submarine Voyage with an Atlantis overlay.

We went to see Beowulf today. we saw the 3D version.

WOW.

We both thought it was incredible. While there were a couple issues with the animation (especially on Queen Wealthow), there were several times that I forgot it wasn't real live actors. And, the 3D really added to the realism, IMO.

The plot moved well, and was engaging. It's been so long since I read Beowulf that I honestly can't remember all the details, so I couldn't tell where the movie deviated from the original. But it seems that all the basics were there.

I only have three real complaints:

• The way they tried to hit you over the head with the 3D effects at the beginning of the film. Fortunately, it settles down after the first 10 or 15 minutes.

• The almost comic way they played "lets hide Beowulf's weenie" during his prolonged nude scene. It was out of place, and too Austin Powersish.

• The feet of Angelina Jolie's character. I'm not going to say more; you'll know what I mean when you see it.

The first time we went to the park there was a small presence- here's a pic of Tori getting a signature and some dirt from Moliere:
Dirty French dude

We intended to see No Country for Old Men, but apparently it's not yet in wide release and we didn't feel like fighting traffic to downtown Seattle on a Saturday night, so we settled for Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium.

It was one of the most wonderful, sweetest, delightful movies I've seen in a long time. It just made me happy. It wasn't full of fart jokes or gratuitous violence or anything of that. Sure, it's totally appropriate for very young kids, but we loved it. There are little background bits here and there that amused me - like an overhead page in the hospital.

Even the credits were cute. First, it actually had an opening credit sequence, which is part of the movie-going ritual I actually miss. Second, the closing credits were actually cute. Not oh my gosh, make sure you watch them, they're amazing cute, but just really nice.

And neither Natalie Portman nor Dustin Hoffman was the slightest bit annoying. They were actually charming. That's magic all by itself.

Even the one "serious" theme was treated in a totally age-appropriate way, without shying away from it, but not making more of it than a child could handle.

Apparently it's an original script, but it felt like live-action children's book - of course, it was set up as "chapters" with a voice over, which contributed to that, but rather than taking me out of the story, I thought it just contributed to the impression of storytelling. Really really nice, wonderful storytelling. Not ooh amazing cinema, but a really wonderful children's story that these two adults wouldn't mind seeing again.

If you don't walk away from this movie with a smile, your heart is as cold and black as the coal Santa's going to leave in your stocking.

No County for Old Men is vastly overrated.


There, I've said it.



My least favorite Cohen Brothers movie ever. Not without its qualities, but the hullabaloo is greatly out of proportion to them, imho.

Sorry you didn't like it (especially if I was part of tipping you to see it with your limited theater time availability right now), but I probably couldn't disagree more. In fact, I'll probably go see it again in the theater because I simply need to see it again. Something which I don't know that I've ever done before (if I see a movie twice in theater it is always because I am accompanying someone who's not seen it).

Saw Into the Wild this afternoon. I thought it was very well done. I haven't read the book, but now I will probably make an effort to do that. I'm not sure what I think of Alex as a person. He certainly seemed to have an impact on the people he came across in his travels, but ultimately he left them all behind and didn't realize what he was missing until it was too late.

I haven't seen the movie, nor read the book.

But we were up in Alaska a couple weeks before the movie opened and Penn had just announced they would premier it up in Fairbanks, so it was a pretty steady topic of conversation in the various local papers.

It was interesting to see the contrast between how it appeared the movie would portray him and the local perception. Alaskans (at least those talking about it in newspapers) seem to pretty consistently view him as an idiot of the highest order.

Still interested in the movie but at this point it looks like it will wait for DVD.

I can definitely see how he would be viewed that way by locals. He was not very well prepared for what he would encounter, and in the end it was his undoing. I can imagine they see way too many of those types pass through.

just fyi ... it's not that I didn't like No County for Old Men. I was entertained throughout, and I have been thinking about the movie a lot since I've seen it ... generally a good sign of "liking." Rather, I found it unsatisfying.

The ending or something more fundamental throughout?

Primarily the ending. Not that I was expecting good to triumph over evil, but to have Tommy Lee Jone's character be so central thoughout to the apparent theme, I just hated him feel out-matched enough to retire without really ever having been close to being on the trail of the creepiest killer in film history.

I liked the quasi-karmic car accident that also sorta ended the film, but the Jones character reached such such a dead-end that I felt conned somehow.


I was also disappointed that the film was a straight-drama disturba, without any of the wry wit and vaguely comic viewport of violent criminality that I'd come to expect from the Cohen Brothers and which I hoped would be at least minimally evident in this film.


Like I said, though ... I haven't been able to stop thinking about it.

For me, that's the sign of a really good film. Or a reaaalllly bad one....
:)

The whole movie, in my opinion, is about that ending (and I don't want to spoil in this general thread so here we go):




Anyway, the ending worked perfectly for what I was taking from the movie. It'll be interesting to see if your thinking on it shifts as it has time to settle or you see it again.

Oh, I agree. Jones's Sheriff was what the movie was about.

But what seemed to me to be the "message" of the film, concisely delivered in the title, did not - in my mind - really play out in the film. Or not enough to satisfy me at any rate.

Hee hee.
I got Hairspray on DVD one day early.
Ha ha. Stupid people at Ralph's putting it out too early.
Haw haw.
:D

I watched Spirited Away again last night.
It's totally mesmerizing.
Beautiful film.
I think Porco Rosso is still my favorite, but this one's cool, too.
:)

Sweet! I think my favorite is Music of the Heart.

I don't think I've ever seen that one.
:)

I like Howl's Moving Castle because it puts me to sleep.






That's right .... it's so psychenautic, it can trance you out from it's oddball strangeness. Love it love it. Can't say which is my favorite Miyazaki, but this one's in the top tier.

When I am having a hard time getting to sleep, I pop in Howls or Spirited Away- it's not that they're boring (far from it, actually) but they are kind of soothing and before I know it I'm asleep. I absolutely love those films.

What I'm about to say will either identify me either as unsophisticated, or a brave and intelligent woman.

I'm Not There is not a very good movie. It has some really great performances, and I do admire its balls-out-of-the-box strivings. But I do think it's possible to strive to storytell in a new way (a way that intends to pay homage to the musical style of a master bull**** artist) and have that storytelling fall flat on its face.

The critics seem to disagree. I am wondering if this is genuine appreciation or Emperor's New Clothes syndrome. In any case, the film seems to be a ride, and either you enjoy it or you don't. If you see it, do go into it with an open mind and prepare for some significant confusion (even if you are familiar with Dylan history.) Because the title is apt - this is a retelling of an enigmatic man who has not been captured in this film any more than in any other interview or documentary. Perhaps that was its point - but I'm not sure I'm willing to spend my time in a quest for someone who's not there.

In other news... I never thought I'd say it, but I think Affleck has a career. And by "Affleck," I mean both Ben (as a director) and Casey (as a leading man.) Gone Baby Gone was terrific. Not flawless, but definitely a sign of great things to come from the brother duo.

Enjoyed Beowulf when I saw it at a press screening but Lani was interested and she picked it last night so I saw it again. Was really surprised how poorly it played on a second consideration. I actually started to nod off during the last battle sequence.

Wow... Those are my bottom two Studio Ghibli films. Actually, I really really hate Music of the Heart -- the only redeeming thing was the Engrish singing of "Country Roads" that I used to sing at top volume, which would drive my roommate nuts.

Contly load! Take me home! To the prace! I berong!

Besides that, oh my god I have never seen a more boring or pointless anime in my life. What about it did you find good, I'm curious?

Porco Rosso was cute, but it would have been better I saw it, and sorta went... wha? That's it?!? Meh.

My favorite is still Princess Mononoke, with Spirited Away a very close second.

Porco Rosso is also in my top 2 (mood changes it from day to day) with Spirited Away battling for supremacy.

Totoro is pretty high up there for me. It makes me smile.

I saw The Constant Gardner last night. Hmmmm. Not a great film at all, but it's always nice to see a bit of Ralph.

soooooooooooooooo depressing in my book.

(yeah, I know that wasnt a very intellectual response.)

I watched Keeping Up With the Steins this weekend.
Meh.. could have had more filler. I loved Grandpa, and any issues I had with the fild were redeemed when Neil Diamond sang.

Wow, I had to go back and read my MousePlanet review to remember what I thought of Keeping Up with the Steins. Turns out I didn't much care for it.

Hmm, I loved Spirited Away, but Princess Mononoke came across as bloated, despite being visually stimulating. And the story in Howl's Moving Castle, again - visually stunning - was better served by the book.

What I loved about Music of the Heart was the simplicity of the story, the simple and lovely friendship/romance, the clock. It was a realist based Ghibli film that contains element of the fantastical, which was a nice change from some of their other films. It just moved me. And I adored the song, as well.

I plan on taking B to see "August Rush" tomorrow. She loves Freddie Highmore. Personally... if she wants to see AR over Fred Claus or our TiVoed High School Musical 2, then it's totally fair game!

Wow, and I was so disappointed in the "Howl" book. At least after seeing the movie. Don't know how I would have reacted had it been the other way around.

I dont' find Princess Mononoke overblown either. It's one of my absolute faves. It's very self-serious, but I'm glad it doesn't take a mocking tone. Most other Miyazaki films have a lighter touch. But I really like this one for playing it straight.

THAT paragraph alone, cracked me up. And I agree. I know they cursed, because my son said, they didnt "bleep" him! Well, no, dear, not in movies.
But I had no idea what they said.

And truly, I agree, the film wrapped up in a hurry. A slam bang to the end. But I did rewind to hear Mr. Diamond a second time.

Amazing Grace

I went into this movie not expecting much, I was pleasantly suprised.
I never knew much about abolition of the slaqve trade in Europe, and really, I still dont.
Nor do I know much about parliment.

Regardless, I loved these men, I wanted to know how their story ended.
Ioan Grufford, what a nice change from the Fantastic Four. Having never seen Horation Hornblower, I was not aware of his talents.

Benedict Cumberbatch, I have never seen him, I want to see more. I want to know more about his character.... I could go on.

Youssou N'Dour, didnt say much, but impressed me none the less.

Michael Gambon, Toby Jones, Ciaran Hinds, Rufus Sewell, and Albert Finney all turned in performances worthy of their stations.

Being a fan of historical fiction, I wanted to know more, and I wish I had seen more of these men, and known where they truly stood.

The costumes were beautiful. Elegent, and understated as they should have been for the time. The scenes were dressed beautifully.

And the very end... a good bagpiper is worth their weight in gold.

Every year around Christmas time, I watch Love Actually. It's treacle, but I like it. However, I can't decide if it's a truly wonderful film or crap.
:D

Either way, any excuse to see Colin Firth and Emma Thompson...

I can't judge Love, Actually because I haven't seen it, but it is one of those movie titles that makes me grind my teeth. (That's no guarantee I won't like it. I resisted The Hudsucker Proxy for years because I hated the title, but I wound up loving the movie.)

Bergman's Fanny and Alexander is my choice for Christmas movie-watching this week. (Probably in installments. I have the long Criterion edition.)

Apropos of nothing, I re-watched Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone last night, and I was astounded by how little I liked it. Much of the blame goes to the horribly slow pacing, and John Williams' score, which seems to think it's Jurassic Park. I don't know how the rest of this series will hold up to repeat visits, and I probably won't be trying again too soon. (For that matter, I found Lord of the Rings difficult to re-view earlier this year. Guess I gorged on big budget CGI heavy fantasy for so long, I've lost my appetite for it.)

Love, Actually is no Hudsucker. Pretty weak film. Enjoyable enough fluff - full of holes. :)

I'm a sap for Love Actually. It makes me happy. (Maybe it's just Hugh Grant.)

I think it's the dance he does while the Pointer Sisters' "Jump" is playing.
:D

It's wonderful crap is what it is. Good cast, sentimental as can be, and fun.

Alan Rickman and Liam Neeson float my bot, tyvm

Everytime I watch it, I say to Laura Linney's character, "You are stupid. Stupid... Stupid! Turn the freakin' phone off!!!"

And the guy in love with Keira Knightley? Hunkadola.
:)

Oh, with you 100% GC! I now know why Elvis used to shoot guns at the TV.

I enjoy Love Actually, but I was disappointed in a recent viewing to see they cut some of the more Misogynist lines from Bill Nighy's character, I guess to make him more likable. Bah.

Still the movie give me warm fuzzies

Per your recommendations, I am going to have to watch Love Actually. I have actually owned it for some time....sounds like it is time to dust it off. :D

Re-watched it in the Christmas spirit just the other night. I don't think it's the seamless web they think it is, but it's fun, moving and you care about the characters.

Saw No Country for Old Men and I really enjoyed it. I thought it was very smart and made me feel like I was seeing something really different as opposed to the "usual" hollywood flicks. I thought the ending, though I "wanted" the just deserts, was pretty perfect. I think going outside the relm of what we expect as an audience and making us think about what we saw and why is the reason I enjoyed it so much. Plus it was the first time in a LONG while that Tommy Lee Jones broke out of his "Fugitive" acting shell.

9 bornieo's out of 10!

Wow. I mean, just wow.
So, I got Transformers used on DVD for $5. Watched it. And I'm stunned for several reasons:

1. Some of the best visual effects I have ever seen. Truly fantastic. This film's going to win a Best Visual Effects Oscar. Without a doubt.

2. Shia LeBouf is really good. Very likable. I can see why he was picked for Indy 4.

3. With 1 & 2 being said, this is a crap film. Horrible dialog, bad acting everywhere, too much cheese and just stunningly bad performances from Voight and Tuturro.

4. Michael Bay should be forced to retire. Yuck. This film was exactly like Armageddon. Bleh. Cookie cutter romance, car chases, and other dreck.

5. Okay, LeBouf and his family were funny. But, hello, the mom saying, "Are you masturbating?" American Pie, anyone?

It was worth the $5 I paid. And a whole heck of a lot of work went into making this flick... but geez... what a piece of garbage.

Not to mention that half of the film was this weird orange/bronze color. Bleh.

Oh well, curiosity got the best of me. I'm glad I saw it. Loved the battle through the building shot. Nice stuff...

All that ^ plus I think the effects were terrible. Um, but it was like the highest grossing film of the year.



Figures. :rolleyes:

I too wasn't bowled over by the effects. But I saw it on IMAX, I'm wondering if I'd like them better on a TV.

I thought it was tops too on the box office but apparently it is third. But the actual top one managed to suck even more than Transformers: Spider-Man 3.

The top 10 money earners is a pretty creaky list, having to get to #6 before you find an actually good movie (as opposed to just ok):

1. Spider-Man 3
2. Shrek the Third
3. Transformers
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
5. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
6. Bourne Ultimatum
7. 300
8. Ratatouille
9. The Simpsons Movie
10. Wild Hogs

I'd like to take a moment to shake my fist in ire at the people of America that launched Wild Hogs to that spot on the list, prompting Disney to greenlight Wild Hogs 2 which I will have to watch and review. Way to ruin an evening two years in advance America!

Are those measured by box office, international box office, or gross post-budget? Because, sadly, I think that Wild Hogs might've been a better bargain than #10. (Blech, blech, blech.) I ask because it strikes me that the other films might have hemhorraged more funds through effects and market-market-marketing.

I find it kind of disheartening that the top three were not movies I enjoyed. In fact, I thought the top two were so bad that I considered walking out on them. I felt unclean after watching them - and not in the good way.

On the upside, Potter, Ratatouille and Simpsons were delights of my viewing year.

In other (semi-related) news, Tom just realized that Wild Hogs is probably William H. Macy's top-grossing film. This made us both feel sad. He suggests that someone ought to cast him in a Pixar flick posthaste, so that he can be prouder of his top-grosser. (Or so I can be prouder of his top-grosser, but something tells me that it wasn't Macy's favrorite credit, considering his previous body of work.)

They've started filming Land of the Lost at Universal... I can't wait to see what happens with that.

I saw Fletch Lives and of course, there was a quick Disney reference: Fletch singing "Zip a dee doo dah" I rented it partly so I could get a good look at the hat he was wearing during that scene because I want to buy one like it.

Howdy and welcome! :)

You know, I haven't seen either Fletch movies. I've never gotten around to seeing them. But I hear people talk about Fletch all the time...
:)

The original is a great movie. Lives is...not so good. I mean, it has its charm, but it's mostly just a retread of the first.

I just saw "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" for the first time, and WOW.... I need to see more Tennessee Williams stuff. I know I've seen "Suddenly Last Summer" before and totally loved it too. Wow. Paul Newman and Elizabeth Taylor are just stunning (both looks and acting-wise) in "Cat", and it was great to see Judith Anderson out of "lesbian housekeeper" mode.

I know they cut a lot of the overt gay stuff out of the movie, but if you were looking for it, it was obvious where that played a role.

Any other Tennessee Williams stuff I should check out?

Streetycar Named Desire should be on the top of that list. That along with "Suddenly" and "Cat" are my favorites.

Sweet Bird of Youth and Glass Menagerie are his but I haven't seen either in 30 years.

Suddenly Last Summer creeps my out, but it's a good movie.

Streetcar, Joe. And after that, The Simpsons episode with the production of "Oh, Streetcar!"

I'm living in hell-a! STELLLAAAAA!!!!!!

:P I love that episode. Thanks for the netflix suggestions!!! I love watching (or reading, i.e. John Steinbeck) something with the preconceived idea that it is old and stuffy, and finding out that it is indeed entertaining and accessible.

Gross domestic. I'm not finding anything that easily ranks the movies by total global box office, but playing with numbers, here is the current Top 25 Domestic box office reordered by total global box office. Parenthetically before each is their ranking on the domestic only list (Ocean's Thirteen is the biggest ranking boost from furriners). It gives proof to the idea that comedies don't play internationally.

I don't know if Wild Hogs is the profit champion of the bunch (as a percentage return) but 300 and Knocked Up are probably in the mix as well.

1. (4) Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End ($961)
2. (5) Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ($938 million)
3. (1) Spider-Man 3 ($890 million)
4. (2) Shrek the Third ($794 million)
5. (3) Transformers ($702 million)
6. (8) Ratatouille ($612 million)
7. (9) The Simpsons Movie ($525 million)
8. (7) 300 ($456 million)
9. (6) The Bourne Ultimatum ($437 million)
10. (13) Live Free or Die Hard ($382 million)
11. (21) Ocean's Thirteen ($311 million)
12. (14) Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer ($288 million)
13. (12) Rush Hour 3 ($254 million)
14. (10) Wild Hogs ($252 million)
15. (22) Ghost Rider ($228 million)
16. (11) Knocked Up ($217 million)
17. (19) Hairspray ($196 million)
18. (18) I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry ($184 million)
19. (23) Evan Almighty ($172 million)
20. (16) Superbad ($168 million)
21. (15) American Gangster ($166 million)
22. (24) Meet the Robinsons ($159 million)
23. (25) Norbit ($158 million)
24. (20) Blades of Glory ($144 million)
25. (17) Bee Movie ($140 million)

Last Night's Screener Double Feature was Michael Clayton and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

I can highly recommend the Jesse James movie as a sleep aid. OMG, what a bore! Brat Pitt plays a piece of wood named Jesse James, and Casey Affleck is actually really good as the creep Robert Ford who kills him and puts us out of our misery. The movie is only enjoyable in the last half hour after James is killed, when Ford is making himself infamous as a cowardly assassin. The cinematography is beautiful, but the movie is dullsville.

However, I did enjoy the stunt casting of Garret Dillahunt in a supporting role, since he played Jack McCall on Deadwood, the Cowardly Assassin of Wild Bill Hickok. Tee Hee, I was amused.



I recommend Michael Clayton on its own consderable merits. George Clooney is playing to type, as an attractive, world-weary cynic down on his luck. But he carries the movie as a real movie star, practially on camera the entire time. The film is a neat riff on corporate corruption and the toll it takes. Tom Wilkinson is, as usual, excellent as the attorney who knows too much and takes a dive off the deep end of sanity.


See Clayton, skip James.

Yay! Finally somebody else who thought TAoJJbtCRF was as boring as can be!
The History Channel documentaries about Jesse James are FAR more interesting.

A lot of people have found it to be a big bore (the critics who don't like it generally say so; interestingly it is getting a worst cream of the crop than overall at rottentomatoes).

I'm intrigued but those who like it seem to generally compare it to Days of Heaven a film I really can't stand and also think is a horrible bore.

I just watched The Long Riders (1980), a very non-boring movie about Jesse James and pals. James Keach as Jesse James was a bit of a weak spot, I thought, but Stacy is great as Frank James, and David Carradine's performance as Cole Younger is fantastic. In this version, Bob Ford is played by Christopher Guest. He and his brother seem to be played for comic effect, but are underwritten. On the whole, this is very entertaining, but dramatically left me just slightly dissatisfied. However, the amazing musical score by Ry Cooder has got to be heard. It lifts the movie from "pretty darn good" to "I've got to own this!"

Of Juno: the reviewers' reviews are very apt; the opening act involves line after line of precocious dialogue that, while clever and amusing, doesn't quite ring honest. (Not that I hated it, mind you. I like my share of clever dialogue.) But as the film began to open up, it deepened and became very satisfying. I cried - and not just because conception problems hits a nerve, but also because the several sweet and honest performances did.

Ellen Page, the titular pregnant teenager, gives a terrific portrayal of a cocksure (vulvasure?) youth whose know-it-all morphs into knows-it-less. Michael Cera is her confused best friend who impregnated her; he gives the sweetest delivery of my favorite line in quite awhile. J. Jonah Jameson and Allison Janney seem very much like real (and loving) parents. Jennifer Garner surprised me with a terrific ice-queen-melting performance as the potential adoptive mother, and Jason Bateman nails the role of her husband. It was like everyone knew exactly who their characters were and what they wanted and how they hurt and why.

The screenplay (by the much buzzed-about "stripper," Diablo Cody-- who, as I've gathered, has successfully invented herself in the way she imagines would be buzzworthy, since she started stripping AFTER she was already working in writing/advertising) other than the flaws I talked about earlier, is strong and took the story to places that I thought were kind of surprising (in their, you know, realness. This is Hollywood, after all, and who expects an emotion or a plot point to ring true?) The soundtrack is great and I'm planning to purchase it. The directing continues to show that the younger Reitman has real potential.

Of Atonement: I really regret not reading it first. I suspect it's the better of the two. Nevertheless, the first "movement" of the film completely involved me and was surprisingly funny. Performances very good all around, particularly those of the younger sister (Briony) at her various ages. Keira Knightley was as Keira Knightley is, but her scenes with James MacEvoy were quite good. I tend to think she (like Natalie Portman, her Star Wars doppelganger) reflects the talent around her, and when it's good, she is too. And James MacEvoy - he has absolute star quality and I look forward to seeing him performing for the rest of his life (and mine. I hope.) Side note, if you still haven't seen The Last King of Scotland, you're missing out.

The film lost me a little during the war years, as I'm sad to admit that "mid-film war periods" tend to do. (That, I think, is my personal problem, not the film's.) There was a hell of a tracking shot that swept me back in, though - and really gave a perspective on the soldiers' lives that I appreciated. The direction was strong, and I suspect it had a fair bit to do with the very, very interesting soundtrack (which is already on my iTunes.) The soundtrack, in retrospect, is a very clever nod to the plot. From what I have gathered, it's a hard novel to adapt, but I thought the use of time flow, repetition, and the concept of truth in storytelling, was quite good. Worth seeing, particularly for the very strong first act. But (though I haven't yet) I'd advise you to read the book first.

Sigh, I want to see both of those ^, but I'm never getting to the movies, let's face it. They'll have to wait for Netflix, along with Charlie Wilson's War, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, There Will Be Blood, and other current releases I can't think of at the moment, plus a ton of Fall releases that I missed with my busy schedule.

Alas, with my Bro-in-law now officially retired from the movie biz, the screeners will be fewer and fewer as the years go by. This year's crop is noticeably slim.


Of those, I watched In the Valley of Elah last night. Another enjoyable laconic performance from Tommy Lee Jones, with Susan Sarandon very effective in a small supporting role. It was gripping and sad, but a little hackneyed from a whodunit point of view, which is basically what the movie is. But since it's based on real events, and the whodunit is basically who-really-dunit, I can't complain much about the plot points.


Not great, but I'm glad I saw it.

We finally watched Rosemary's Baby. It's been one of those movies that's shown up via Netflix and sat for months. We actually had it for months once, and sent it back without viewing it. This time we actually kinda let all of our Netflix sit around for months and months.

But today was the day! Well, actually, we started watching it yesterday but got interrupted.

Turns out we were just waiting until after our trip to New York so we could visit The Dakota, site of John Lennon's assassination and the location for the exterior shots of the apartment building in the movie.

It's a fabulously shot movie, engaging throughout. The conception sequence was awesome. But the end was kinda anti-climactic.

OMG, John Lennon's assassination was 27 years and 6 days ago. Wow.




On a movie note ... saw something in theaters for a change, but not one of the many movies I'd been looking forward to. Surprisingly, I Am Legend did not disappoint. I really quite liked it.

Oh, and I was tres amused to find a LoT reference during I Am Legend.

$76 mil for I Am Legend. Holy crapping Jebus. That's really good!

Oddly, the 7pm Saturday night show we saw at the World Famous Gramaun's Chinese Theater in Hollywood USA was only half full.

Haw haw!
I'm watching The Simpsons Movie on DVD and you are not.
:D

I FINALLY saw The Women on Saturday Night (thanks to the wonderful GC). What a wonderful film with some sassy dialog. I want to watch it again in slo-mo so I can catch the dialog I missed! I adore films with quick and witty banter and this was faster paced than even His Girl Friday! Wheeee!

At least I understand the references to "Jungle Red" now. :)

Oh geeze. Is nothing sacred? It was an awful show when it was remade for TV in the 90s. It was horrible on Cox's Retro Saturday Morning. It was good in the early 80s.

When is MacGyver coming out?

Oh and can someone who's see I Am Legend tell me when the please? I think I'll need to use the bathroom right about then.

Thank you.

Soon enough you will be shouting out La Publicite, as well.

A great movie and fun to share that with all of you, too. The katsu was icing on the cake of a very heavy eating day.

Excuse me while I go unswallow

Watched the Dark Knight trailer yesterday. Wow. Between that and Indy 4, it's going to be a cool summer.
:)

I love me some Heath Ledger. His Joker is going to be teh awesome!





Now how is it Not Afraid managed to see The Women before I have? I'm gonna lose my gay card for sure!

Honey, I was a FH before you were gay.

That's enough to keep me from seeing the film.

You'll need to take a long bathroom break, as this doesn't happen quickly. For the record...


I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. It felt more like a remake of Omega Man than an adaptation of the Richard Matheson source novella, but it was nicely done, and Will Smith carries the whole thing admirably.

Follow question about I Am Legend.

Not entirely on topic, but pretty darn amusing...

From George Carlin:

"If you're going to insist on making movies based on crappy old television shows, then you have to give everyone in the Cineplex a remote so we can see what's playing on the other screens. Let's remember the reason something was a television show in the first place is that the idea wasn't good enough to be a movie"

:D

swanie

Hahaha^.


Um, I never read the novel, so I have no idea what spawned or became of the dog in the book. But if you chicken out on the dog's fate in the movie, you will miss the best part of Will Smith's rather good performance.

My National Treasure: Book of Secrets review.

I only had about 90 minutes to write it so I'm not really fond of the result. But short version shorter: I didn't like it.

Did you like the first one?

I found it surprisingly charming. Not that it means squat for a promising sequel.




ETA: Ah, I see you did not like the first one. I will read your review of II with the appropriate filter.

No, I didn't like the first one but I did admit that if you allowed for the underlying stupidity that things actually hung together and made sense. That's not even true this time around.

Well, I Netflixed the last one. I'm certainly not going to waste my precious out-of-house time and too-scarce funds on the sequel ... but I'll likely Netfllix it when it's out on DVD in March or so.

Who pays to see movies these days? These shiny gold tickets are so much fun!

We watched Myra Breckinridge tonight. I had forgotten how incredibly odd that movie is.....

OMG! I haven't seen that film in manymanymany years.

Neither had I.

We finally got around to watching Velvet Goldmine. Why did it take me so l long? I really need to own this film and watch it again carefully because there's a lot of references I missed that I KNOW I should have caught. The music was, of course, right up my alley. Not a film I think I'd recommend to everyone, but for the rockers amongst us, it's a good one.

Saw Walk Hard last night. Hilarious! Perhaps not a laugh-a-minute but plenty funny.

John C Reilly cracks me up so bad with just his expressions. Jenna Fisher (Pam from The Office) was fantastic in the "Reese Witherspoon" role. It was mostly a scene-by scene spoof of Walk the Line with some references to Ray, the Doors, and all other musician biopics. Cinematically it matches Walk the Line perfectly - they didn't cheap out on anything, from film quality to set design to costuming. The "we are in this decade now" style of costuming is a joke in itself, and I found myself laughing at that as much as any other gag.

The movie is riddled with familiar faces from the Apatow and SNL/30 Rock groupings, leading us to say "dude, it's him!" every time someone came on the screen. They must've had a blast making this thing.

Another great Apatow-related movie. From the previews we realized that he's been busy throwing his money around, and there are many more lined up to come. Yay. :)

Hmmm, I have that movie sitting in my living room ... but I hate the ubiquitous billboard soooo much, I'm doubting I will actually watch it.


* * * * * *

Took zapppop to see Scrooge at the Aero yesterday - - a wonderful 70's Brit musical adaptation of A Christmas Carol, with Albert Finney as Ebenezer Scrooge and Alec Guinness as Jacob Marley. I don't know that I'd ever seen it in a theater on a big screen, and it was marvelous. What a treat - as it's one of my top 3 absolute fave Xmas movies. zapppop liked it, and finally gets the reference to The Minister's Cat, a Christmas parlor game I like to play.


:snap: Hahahah, having just seen Sweeny Todd less than 24 hours prior, I can hardly conceive of two more radically different musical versions of 19th Century London I could experience in one day!!

I'm currently re-obsessing with Glam (my first rock music love). Thank you Todd Haynes.

Depending on how long this lasts, it could make for an interesting NYE....

...Spiders from Mars...

Quick! Where can I get some platforms?

Should I? ;)

Or....

With your balance skills platforms are risky ;-)

I loooove Velvet Goldmine.

And we're trying to get to Walk Hard before we fly out tonight.

YES!!! Especially the second ones! :snap:

We watched the 3rd Pirates film on Xmas Eve. What a bloody mess of a story that was! At least I was not bored, but don't ask me for a synopsis.

It was a beauteous film. Lovely special effects, cool art direction etc.
But... yuck!
Too many problems to list.
Part One will live on as the shining example of a good film, the other two are garbage. I have low hopes for the upcoming Pirates films...
:(

I produced the website and had only seen a few clips. Was really looking forward to it. Saw it with my brother on Sunday and thought it was even better than I was expecting. True, not a laugh-a-minute, but agreed: "plenty funny." The cast was great.

It helped wash the terrible memory of Sweeny Todd away, too.

I liked Sweeny Todd ... and I have so little desire to see Walk Hard, I doubt I will expend the effort to pop it into my DVD player.

* * * * *

Charlie Wilson's War was excellent. Great performances by Tom Hanks, Philip Seymour Hoffman (d'uh) and even Julia Roberts (surprise!). Fine and witty script. Interesting throughout. Amazing combination of entertaining and educational. Wow. I loved it.

Fast random responses to several of the above:

Ah yes, I just watched Scrooge on my new 16:9 video projector, and it looked incredible. I've loved this movie since I saw it as a lad (on its initial theatrical release, yikes!)

I remember singing the song Velvet Goldmine when I was way too young to understand it. I slooshied lots of glam rock in my pre-tween to early teen years. I didn't know anything about the fashions surrounding it, I just knew I liked the music.

I agree that there was only one good movie in the Pirates threesome - though even that one was significantly overrated. Now that it has been followed by two overblown, plotless and mind numbing sequels, I doubt I will ever want to revisit even the relatively decent first movie again.

I'm off to see Sweeney Todd tonight, so I'll toss my two coppers about it when I get back.

There were three scenes I liked very much, and I thought the young boy and SBC were very, very good. Mostly I thought it was very poorly directed and Johnny Depp's performance lamentable. Ah, well. It just seemed mostly bleh and boring, and I don't know how a musical about barbershop murder and baker shop cannibalism could be that. Heh.

I was disappointed with Depp, too. But LOVED HBC, and the fact that I could love both her and Lansbury without having to "choose sides" really made me happy.

I think the film looked great, was gruesome and comic, liked the songs and didn't at all notice what wasn't there by their abridgement, was coherently directed by Tim Burton for the first time in a long time, and was entertaining throughout.

My only complaint was that the third act seemed needlessly rushed.

I actually enjoyed HBC acting, but loathed (LOATHED) her singing. She hurt my ears. I had a headache for half of the film.

I can't wait to see Sweeny Todd for a second time. I may end up going with a work friend after the new year. I may like it less the second time, or perhaps more - but that will be the real test for me. It appealed to me on so many different levels (with the exceptions I wrote about in the "outing" thread). It probably made a big difference that I had very little familiarity with any previous production and, therefore, no expectations. I also have become less of a fan of the Broadway Musical as of late. While I still like a few for nostalgic reasons, I don't find most of them to be very compelling.

Oh! Off topic of current releases and onto ones way in the future...

A Pixar movie about a little robot! I had no idea!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/walle/hd/

My heart doth swell big right now.

I think of Batteries Not Included when I see the trailer for Wall E.

You've seen Batteries Not Included!!!! That makes me happy. I don't know too many people who know that movie (or perhaps I do and I just don't realize it).

I've seen it. That, Innerspace and Harry and the Hendersons... all around the same time...
:)

I remember projecting all of those movies back when I worked at a three screen theater in Los Alamos, New Mexico. *batteries not included (that was it's official spelling, as I recall) found me at the wrong time - I was impatient and cynical about the friendly aliens and/or robots subgenre. I enjoy such movies more these days, if I run into them, albeit, in a sort of Velveeta way.

Awww... batteries not included!!!!! That was cute! Like when the little guy is helping out in the diner and trying to make burgers!

I know Batteries Not Included! I've got Harry and the Hendersons on DVD. Love it!

Oh - I saw Sweeny Todd this weekend. I didn't hate it, and I didn't love it. Mr. Depp seemed to be singing in a rock opera, which annoyed me. Antony had a good voice. And, of course, there was Alan Rickman, which made me happy.

For the most part the filming/staging was okay with me. I though the opening CGI stuff was needlessly and obtrusively modern, and I was really quite annoyed by the CGI motion shot thingy at the beginning between the ship dock and Fleet Street. I didn't care for the contrast of overtly modern production elements and historically inspired set. And I thought the final tableau just looked silly. But, I did like the black/white/red coloring.

I was thinking, as I was watching this movie (specifically the part where they're searching for the kid in the sewers), that what bugs me most about the planned Burton re-do of Alice in Wonderland is that I'd really rather he tackle Through the Looking Glass - as its own work, not as a mashup with Wonderland, as everyone seems to do. Looking Glass is darker as is, and I started mentally casting the Red and White Queens. (I briefly contemplated French and Saunders...)

Regarding WallE - if you want to see an interesting site - checkout http://www.buynlarge.com/ - it's a website for the company that built the robots.

raises hand, I saw it, too.

*batteries not included made me cry. I saw that movie a hundred times as a kid.

Watched Ratatouille with the roomie last night. I loved it, again and she loved it. Also watched Lifted which I missed forst time around, hysterical.

Ratatouille makes me SO hungry when I watch it. Gotta love that!

I've got to send him my laugh a minute screenplay about my vasectomy. The natural third of a trilogy begun by "Forty Year Old Virgin" and "Knocked Up." When it's finished, of course. The screenplay, that is.

Is there anybody who was 8-15 years old when it was released that isn't familiar with *batteries not included?

Cacoon (1985), Short Circuit (1986), and *batteries not included (1987) were the sci-fi trilogy of my tween years.

Somehow I never saw *bni. I know I wanted to, but it never happened.

Films added to the Library of Congress today. Click here.

The Women made the list. That makes me smile.
:)

-- "Now, Voyager" (1942)
-- "Three Little Pigs" (1933)
-- "Tol'able David" (1921)
and The Women!

I'm with GC, a good list!

NA, your favorite made the list too!

A few favorites of mine here!

Grand Hotel
12 Angry Men
Now, Voyager
Three Little Pigs
The Women
Wuthering Heights

I've heard lots of people talk about the first two, but the third rarely ever comes up in conversation, even if a lot of people remember it.

I haven't seen any of them.

Surprised?

Me neither - but how many of you have seen the Man who Fell to Earth?

HA! I think we should play it on NYE just to be evil.

I'm sure the alien sex scenes will at least draw some attention...

Full Frontal Bowie is always good.

Hey, we can have full-frontal night David and Ewan!

You know - I think a lot of that was cut from the version we saw in the theaters, as I had no recollection of full frontal Bowie

Psssh, my library has had many of those for years now ;)

I don't remember any full frontal Bowie either, but I haven't seen that movie in decades.


I never cared for *batteries not included, but it was generally cute, I guess. I like Cocoon, but not the sequel. And Short Circuit was completely dumb, but oddly charming.


Forget the movies, though. Please INVITE full frontal Ewan to the party!

I have seen that, *AND Batteries not included. :snap:

Raises hand, again.

Yo!

David Bowie, the best alien since Klatuu.

From the list, How about Bullitt? Have you seen it.

Ahh what a chase....

I'm sorry... The Sex Life Of The - POLYP???

It is a comedy short starring the mostly forgotten but once very famous Robert Benchley. A bigtime columnist for The New Yorker in the 30s and one of the early luminaries at Harvard Lampoon.

I saw it years ago in college so I don't remember it well but don't recall finding it very funny.

OK, time to step up to the plate movie goers...

How many of these have you seen?

The Most Controversial Films of All Times.

Note: The link has some very NSFW photos on it.

I'm betting on 80%+ for € and NA.... ;)

Since it is NSFW and I'm at W, if it is easy to do so could someone copy a list of titles if it is easy to do?

Sure. In alphabetical order they would be:

Aladdin (1992) # 25

Baby Doll (1956) # 10

Baise Moi (2000, Fr.) (translated "Screw or F--k Me")

Bandit Queen (1994, India)

Basic Instinct (1992) # 19

The Birth Of A Nation (1915) # 7

Blue Velvet (1986)

Bonnie And Clyde (1967) # 21

Boxing Helena (1993)

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Caligula (1980) # 24

Cannibal Holocaust (1985) # 20

Carnal Knowledge (1971)

Citizen Kane (1941)

A Clockwork Orange (1971, UK) # 2

The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989, UK)

Crash (1996)

The Crime of Father Amaro (2002, Mex.)

Cruising (1980)

The Da Vinci Code (2006) # 13

Deep Throat (1972) # 4

The Deer Hunter (1978) # 12

The Devils (1971, UK)

Dirty Harry (1971)

Do The Right Thing (1989) # 22

Dogma (1999)

Ecstasy (1933, Czech.) (aka Exstase)

The Evil Dead (1981)

The Exorcist (1973)

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) # 3

Freaks (1932) # 17

Hail, Mary (1985, Fr.) (aka Je vous salue, Marie)

Heaven's Gate (1980)

Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer (1986) (released in 1990)

I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967, Swe.) # 18

In the Realm of the Senses (1976, Jp.) (aka Ai No Corrida)

Irreversible (2002, Fr.)

I Spit On Your Grave (1978) (aka Day of the Woman)

JFK (1991) # 5

Kids (1995) # 23

Kinsey (2004)

The Kiss (1896) (aka The May Irwin Kiss, The Rice-Irwin Kiss and The Widow Jones)

The Last House on the Left (1972)

The Last Picture Show (1971)

Last Tango In Paris (1972, It./Fr.) # 9

The Last Temptation Of Christ (1988) # 6

Lolita (1962, UK)

Men Behind the Sun (1988) (aka Hei tai yang 731)

The Message (1976, 1977) (aka Mohammed, Messenger of God) # 11

Mondo Cane (1962, It.) (aka A Dog's World)

Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979, UK)

Natural Born Killers (1994) # 8

The Outlaw (1943)

The Passion Of The Christ (2004) # 1

Peeping Tom (1960, UK)

Pink Flamingos (1972)

Pretty Baby (1978)

A Real Young Girl (1975, Fr.) (aka Une Vraie Jeune Fille)

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Romance (1999, Fr.) (aka Romance X)

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Salo (1975, It.) (aka The 120 Days of Sodom)

September Dawn (2007)

Song of the South (1946)

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

Straw Dogs (1971)

Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

Titicut Follies (1967)

Triumph Of The Will (1935, Ger.) # 15

United 93 (2006) # 16

Viridiana (1961, Sp./Mex.)

The Warriors (1979) # 14

The Wild Bunch (1969)

Year of the Dragon (1985)

I come in at a paltry 23%

I'm surprised to say I've seen 10 of them.

edit:

Strike that, turns out I've also seen Bandit Queen, so that makes 11

I've seen

So 45 from the entire list. 17 numbered ones. I The Passion of the Christ really the most controversial film of all time? I'll have to read the web site and see the justifications (if they have them) but there are some really odd choices on there.

42.

Was Citizen Kane controversial with anybody other than Hearst (not that this wasn't more than enough controversy to financially tank the movie)?

26 out of 75...

Why was Aladdin controversial?

.

I had the original unedited soundtrack, but it got lost in college. :(

Oh, I've seen 19 of those films.

I hadn't heard that before. Thanks. People are too effing sensitive!

Plenty of nontraversy on that list

I've seen 31. And want to see more! Very glad to see The Devils and Baby Doll. The latter is incredibly, incredibly hot.

I've seen 27 of those and looking forward to placing more of em on my netflix list :)

I've seen these:

Aladdin (1992) # 25
Basic Instinct (1992) # 19
The Birth Of A Nation (1915) # 7
Blue Velvet (1986)
Bonnie And Clyde (1967) # 21
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Carnal Knowledge (1971)
Citizen Kane (1941)
A Clockwork Orange (1971, UK) # 2
The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989, UK)
Crash (1996)
The Deer Hunter (1978) # 12
Dirty Harry (1971)
Do The Right Thing (1989) # 22
Dogma (1999)
The Evil Dead (1981)
The Exorcist (1973)
Freaks (1932) # 17
In the Realm of the Senses (1976, Jp.) (aka Ai No Corrida)
Kinsey (2004)
The Last Picture Show (1971)
Last Tango In Paris (1972, It./Fr.) # 9
Lolita (1962, UK)
Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979, UK)
Natural Born Killers (1994) # 8
Pink Flamingos (1972)
Pretty Baby (1978)
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Song of the South (1946)
Triumph Of The Will (1935, Ger.) # 15

So that's 30 - these have been on my "want to see" list for quite awhile though:

Boxing Helena (1993)
Caligula (1980) # 24
Cruising (1980)
Deep Throat (1972) # 4
I Spit On Your Grave (1978) (aka Day of the Woman)
The Last Temptation Of Christ (1988) # 6

And thanks to some Swanker, I've got a copy of:
The Devils (1971, UK)

I'm surprised no Russ Meyers films made the list

I've seen these. Um, I don't think the people who made the list know what 'controversial" means.

Aladdin (1992) # 25
Basic Instinct (1992) # 19
The Birth Of A Nation (1915) # 7
Blue Velvet (1986)
Bonnie And Clyde (1967) # 21
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Caligula (1980) # 24
Carnal Knowledge (1971)
Citizen Kane (1941)
A Clockwork Orange (1971, UK) # 2
The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989, UK)
Crash (1996)
The Da Vinci Code (2006) # 13
Deep Throat (1972) # 4
The Deer Hunter (1978) # 12
Dirty Harry (1971)
Do The Right Thing (1989) # 22
Dogma (1999)
The Evil Dead (1981)
The Exorcist (1973)
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) # 3
Freaks (1932) # 17
Heaven's Gate (1980)
Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer (1986) (released in 1990)
JFK (1991) # 5
Kids (1995) # 23
Kinsey (2004)
The Last House on the Left (1972)
The Last Picture Show (1971)
The Last Temptation Of Christ (1988) # 6
Lolita (1962, UK)
Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979, UK)
Natural Born Killers (1994) # 8
The Passion Of The Christ (2004) # 1
Pink Flamingos (1972)
Pretty Baby (1978)
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Song of the South (1946)
South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)
United 93 (2006) # 16
The Warriors (1979) # 14
The Wild Bunch (1969)


Also, they changed the voices of all the "Arabian" extras in Aladdin to speak with anglo accents when they released it with the emasculated lyrics.

So far it looks like I'm the only one who dozed through "I Am Curious Yellow."

I'm at 29

Last Temptation was such a Nontraversy.

Salo - wholly crap! Everyone's gotta see that one! It's pretty insaine

32 is the number I counted. I'm surprised Henry and June wasn't on the list. It was the first NC17-rated film. I also remember Billy Jack being a big controversy when I was a kid (but I don't know why).

Two things:

First I don't think you can deny that a film like Passion of the Christ caused a lot of controversy, whether you or I personally felt the controversy for that or any other movie on the list is immaterial.

Also it does make we wonder, what would you list as your top two or three selections for this list?

David Cronenberg is a fracking genius.




(Eastern Promises is awesome)




* * * * *

As for the list, and the films which I recall causing the most controversy (whether or not I considered then nontroversial) ... are The Last Temptation of Christ, Carnal Knowledge, and JFK.

Well, it took 2 days but we finished watching The Man Who Fell to Earth. It had been probably 30 years since I last saw it. Last night, I just couldn't finish it. It was waaaay to late for a film paced as this one is. Interesting film, not necessarily a very good film, but worth seeing once (every 30 years or so).

Presently, Aleister is chasing the bouncing screen saver on the TV.

49 for me
 

Aladdin (1992) # 25

Basic Instinct (1992) # 19

The Birth Of A Nation (1915) # 7

Blue Velvet (1986)

Bonnie And Clyde (1967) # 21

Boxing Helena (1993)

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Caligula (1980) # 24

Carnal Knowledge (1971)

Citizen Kane (1941)

A Clockwork Orange (1971, UK) # 2

The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989, UK)

Crash (1996)

Cruising (1980)

The Da Vinci Code (2006) # 13

Deep Throat (1972) # 4

The Deer Hunter (1978) # 12

The Devils (1971, UK)

Dirty Harry (1971)

Do The Right Thing (1989) # 22

Dogma (1999)

The Evil Dead (1981)

The Exorcist (1973)

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) # 3

Freaks (1932) # 17

Hail, Mary (1985, Fr.) (aka Je vous salue, Marie)

Heaven's Gate (1980)

Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer (1986) (released in 1990)

JFK (1991) # 5

Kids (1995) # 23

Kinsey (2004)

The Last Picture Show (1971)

Last Tango In Paris (1972, It./Fr.) # 9

The Last Temptation Of Christ (1988) # 6

Lolita (1962, UK)

Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979, UK)

Natural Born Killers (1994) # 8

The Passion Of The Christ (2004) # 1

Pink Flamingos (1972)

Pretty Baby (1978)

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

September Dawn (2007)

Song of the South (1946)

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

Straw Dogs (1971)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

United 93 (2006) # 16

The Warriors (1979) # 14

The Wild Bunch (1969)

I believe "Last Temptation" was the only movie I've ever seen where I had to walk by protesters.

"Billy Jack" was controversial because it was anti-war, pro-Indian, and a badly acted bore. It also featured the worst marksmanship by paid soldiers in the history of cinema.

Sorry, but I think Imperial Storm Troopers take that award.

The Storm Troopers did miss a lot. However, they were in combat. The guardsmen in "Billy Jack" were supposed to shoot unarmed peaceful protesters. I think they got just one.

Here in Central Florida, the furor over Last Temptation was so great, the only theater in town that would show it was an adult cinema. I caught it in a small theater in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and there were about three or four protesters outside, and security guards in the theater. I loved it then, and get a lot out of it now.

I own 23 titles on that list. Whee!

The most prominent title I haven't yet seen is Cannibal Holocaust. It sounds intriguing in many ways (not least, its pre-Blair Witch pseudo-documentary section) but I also know the film includes real, unsimulated animal slaughter, and I have a hard time getting behind that. (Yes, I'm a hypocrite - I gleefully eat bacon and other meaty treats.) The DVD provides an option for skipping those scenes, but part of me thinks I ought to see the film as it was intended. So, I haven't yet bothered.

I guess its a sign of the times, or my own jaded status, that when I finally saw Salo, I thought, heck that wasn't so bad.

I don't see that as hypocritical in the least. Slaughtering an animal just for entertainment, wrong. Slaughtering them for a yummy breakfast treat, no problem.

51 for me

Aladdin (1992) # 25
Baby Doll (1956) # 10
Basic Instinct (1992) # 19
The Birth Of A Nation (1915) # 7
Blue Velvet (1986)
Bonnie And Clyde (1967) # 21
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Caligula (1980) # 24
Carnal Knowledge (1971)
Citizen Kane (1941)
A Clockwork Orange (1971, UK) # 2
The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989, UK)
Crash (1996)
Cruising (1980)
The Da Vinci Code (2006) # 13
Deep Throat (1972) # 4
The Deer Hunter (1978) # 12
Dirty Harry (1971)
Do The Right Thing (1989) # 22
Ecstasy (1933, Czech.) (aka Exstase)
The Evil Dead (1981)
The Exorcist (1973)
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) # 3
Freaks (1932) # 17
Heaven's Gate (1980)
I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967, Swe.) # 18
In the Realm of the Senses (1976, Jp.) (aka Ai No Corrida)
I Spit On Your Grave (1978) (aka Day of the Woman)
JFK (1991) # 5
Kinsey (2004)
The Kiss (1896) (aka The May Irwin Kiss, The Rice-Irwin Kiss and The Widow Jones)
The Last House on the Left (1972)
The Last Picture Show (1971)
Last Tango In Paris (1972, It./Fr.) # 9
The Last Temptation Of Christ (1988) # 6
Lolita (1962, UK)
Mondo Cane (1962, It.) (aka A Dog's World)
Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979, UK)
The Outlaw (1943)
The Passion Of The Christ (2004) # 1
Peeping Tom (1960, UK)
Pretty Baby (1978)
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Song of the South (1946)
Straw Dogs (1971)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
Triumph Of The Will (1935, Ger.) # 15
The Wild Bunch (1969)
Year of the Dragon (1985)

Heh - growing up the controversial scene talked about on the school yard was the bra-strap cutting scene.

I saw Juno yesterday. While I can see why a lot of people are raving about it, somehow it just didn't connect for me. There's nothing I can really point to (other than being a bit over-written and too self aware) but in the end I was just left somewhat flat.

One of those cases where I can see the quality but apparently it just isn't for me.

Yes, it's another one of those 'Brad's late to the party again' things but, man, I just loved Superbad. On the advice of my little sister, I bought it. Not rented, bought. She said I would love it. And she was right, right, right.
And I was just thinking lately that there isn't enough slapstick comedy in movies nowdays.
I'm totally McLovin Superbad.
:)

"Just imagine if girls weren't weirded out by our boners and stuff, and just like wanted to see them. That's the world I one day want to live in. "

lol! :D
Yes! Totally quotable from top to bottom. I laughed pretty danged hard. I haven't laughed this hard since Borat.
The casting of this film was just perfect. Michael Cera was freakin' awesome.

Knocked Up is next on my list now.

Just watched it again and am thoroughly refreshed in my opinion that Once is my favorite movie that I saw this year.

Really, just move it straight to the top of your Netflix queue or just go buy it.

I have Once as well.
I was feeling depressed one day and bought that, Superbad, Knocked Up and Disturbia...

I count 55 that I've seen on the "controversial" list. Perhaps we could have a screening or two soon...

The Orphanage is a great, creepy film. OMG, Belen Rueda is fantastic in it. Seriously, she gives one the best screen performances I've seen all year (um, meaning 2007).

I don't what it is about ghost stories being a vehicle for serious female roles. I happen to think The Others is the best thing Nicole Kidman's ever done. And The Orphanage would be worth seeing if only for Rueda's performance alone. But it's also quite the atmospheric movie. And kinda scary in places.

Oh dear... this comparison doesn't sell me on the film AT ALL (I hated Borat, total snooze-fest all the way through).

In other news, my miscellaneous movie musing is that Johnny Depp is totally hot as Sweeny Todd. Yes, I have very strange taste in men :)

Warning: Loads of Spoilers in this Post ... I’m not tagging the entire post


Well, I have some more thoughts about Sweeney Todd, after having seen it again ... and then listening to the Broadway recording for the first time in decades.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, I like the movie less.

Quite surprisingly, though, I remain completely happy with Helena Bonham Carter's performance as Mrs. Lovett. Both her acting and her singing. Much as I love Angela Lansbury in the role, I think her singing style is - - much like Rex Harrison's - not quite real singing, but something uniquely her own. And so I rather enjoyed Carter's renditions of the songs in a more "normal" singing style. They are great songs, and I enjoy them both ways.

Johnny Depp, in the other hand ... well I like him less and less. As the film goes on, I think he becomes more and more ineffective. I think he handles the early songs and the early Todd pretty well ... but he's not up to the demands of "My Friends," for example, and his performance really goes downhill after Todd goes off the deep end on a serial murdering spree. I don't think completely catatonic is what's called for from that point on.

Burton's to blame as much as Depp for that. Most of Todd's songs from the second act are cut. And two of those are necessary to portray his dementia to the audience.

I don't think, we, as an audience, are really too upset that Todd slits throats indiscriminately or that Mrs. Lovett bakes people into pies. It's a black comedy, and these murderous rampages beget mostly amusement (though Burton was brilliant to add the gruesome, head-first body thuddings to the proceedings, as I don’t think the audience bats an eye at the buckets of spurting blood.).

No ... just as we really love Mrs. Lovett no matter what she does to strangers, but begin to have second thoughts about her once we learn she’s betrayed Todd .... in the show version, Todd only becomes despicable once we learn through song that he no longer even cares about being reunited with his daughter, Joanna, and is more enamored with grisly murder. Similarly, though - if we can read quickly enough - we learn he’s going to double-cross Anthony in the movie, the show has Todd sing about it, and it’s much more clear and chilling to the audience.

In other words, the characters can’t simply be murderers. We like that. They have to be nasty to each other to be unlikeable to us. I think Sweeney Todd should be somewhat unlikeable. And menacing. Which Deep is not. He may be angry, but he never seems menacing to me. Len Cariou comes off pretty menacing even on the cast recording ... I never even saw his actual performance, but it was reportedly quite effective.

Perhaps Burton didn’t want Deep’s Todd to be unlikeable, and so cut the songs where the audience might turn against him. I think that was a terrible mistake. It gives Depp really nothing to do in the second act ... and worse than dislike him, I think we simply lose interest in him.

Besides, the pathos at the end when Todd realizes he’s been lied to by Lovett and has murdered his beloved wife makes Sweeney very sympathetic in the end.

Lastly, and speaking of cutting songs ... I had forgotten how often "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd" is reprised throughout the show version. There are half a dozen times the tune is sung in one form or another. I understand the difficulties of adapting a "Greek chorus" to a film ... but for a piece which is essentially an operetta, leaving out the signature song which - though opening the show, closing the show, and constantly commenting on the action in the show - becomes the de-facto soul of the score .... well, leaving that out entirely is a calamity which renders the movie version something not quite a reasonable adaptation of this particular musical.

Too bad ... because Burton’s Sweeney Todd has much to recommend it.

And, fine, Tim Burton has a Q&A after tonight’s showing at The Dome, but it’s sold out. I have more than a few questions I’d like to ask him about what in the world he was thinking.

Bah.



.

Two duds in a row. Saw Walk Hard last Sunday. It was ok at best, swinging between being decent enough satire to being simply stupid Scary Movie style spoof. Admittedly it had better actors than the Scary Movie movies but still; I half expected Leslie Nielson to walk on screen at some point. I liked the music though.

And nobody warned me that Tim Meadows in the movie. That guy just sucks the funny out of a room. Some day, our deep space astronauts will stumble across a galaxy mysteriously lacking in funny. And then they'll find Tim Meadows in the middle of that galaxy where the black whole should be and all will be explained.

Tonight I saw Sweeney Todd with Lani. I've never seen a stage version of it and didn't really know anything about it. For the first time in years I was a hairs breadth away from leaning over and asking Lani if she wanted to leave. It was simply so horribly boring. Then it picked up a bit and I wanted to see if I had predicted the ending correctly (mostly yes).

Snoozefest. I don't remember the last time I was in a theater with an audience that was so restless. Constant fidgeting, coughing, scratching, watch checking, throat clearing. But maybe that was just me projecting onto everybody else (I had forgotten to put my watch back on before leaving home so I couldn't check my own watch).

Lani was equally bored and now she has points on me since I pretty much dragged her there.

We just got back from seeing Juno. What a wonderful movie. I remember last year when everyone was raving about Little Miss Sunshine, and when we finally saw it it just didn't match up to our overcharged expectations. Not so with this one. A great script, wonderful soundtrack, and good acting all around. I think what struck Heather and I most is that none of the characters became caricatures - even when their behavior moved the plot into uncomfortable territory, we still liked them. I'll be rooting for this one at the Golden Globes and (hopefully) the Oscars.

Well, maybe then, I'll see it in the theatres. The clips I've seen suggest that this is a movie that's too in love with its own quirkiness. Same problem that's keeping me from rushing to "The Savages."

Saw "Charlie Wilson's War" last night. Really good. I tend to think that a litttle of Aaron Sorkin's writing goes a long way, and this movie is another universe of quirky and damaged characters who are all really good at their job. Nonetheless, it mostly works. I would have gotten rid of the awards ceremony that framed the movie and ended it with Gust's speech on the balcony with the chilling sound effect. Alternatively, I would have added a scene, if justified by real events, of Julia Roberts's character not caring about the endgame.

I did enjoy Ratatouille, but I have to say that it's no longer my pick for best animated film of 2007. Persepolis is.

Beautiful black-and-white traditional animation. Incredibly interesting, informative and (chiefly) moving story about a woman (Marijan, the director of the film and the author of the graphic novels upon which it is based) through youth in Tehran, her teenaged years during which she was sent to safety in Vienna, and her return as an adult to her parents and her home. It's fiesty, it's funny, and more than a little enlightening about the history of Iran and the experience of a single person's struggle to come to terms with a culture that attempts to stifle her very vibrant personality (and her interest in pop music. There's a hell of a montage set to Marijan herself singing "Eye of the Tiger" that will remain very close to my heart for a long time.) I really recommend this film about family, culture, identity, and the feeling of being a stranger, in a foreign land or in your own. I think it may actually be my favorite film of 2007 (of those which I've seen so far; at this point we're only missing a handful from the For Your Consideration-type ads.)

Aww, no Tim Meadows love? Not even for the "You don't want any part of this sh!t!" scenes (especially the first)? I like Tim, loved Ladies Man, went in expecting to despise it.

Nope, no love. The first drug scene was amusing but just barely and continuous repetition through the movie beat the humor out of it. The Ladies Man would probably make my Top 25 All Time Worst Movies I Actually Sat All the Way Through list.

When he does one of his appearances on Craig Ferguson's show that it my signal that it is time to turn off the TV and get some sleep.

I've never been a regular watcher of SNL so maybe he used up all his brilliance there. I do wonder what he does with all the funny he sucks out of rooms since he doesn't radiate it back out. Maybe he has it compressed down into bricks and is building a home.

I just loved Knocked Up. What a great flick. I will watch anything Apatow and Rogen do from now on.

The dialog was terrific. People talk like this. I hate it when movies have dialog that doesn't sound realistic.

I must say this though, this movie was one big giant trick to get straight men to see a chick-flick. Just like Jerry Maguire. Make it look like you're in to see a bunch of straight guys bonding and *wham* you're in a chick-flick, straight boy.

:D

If this movie is about the damn smoke monster from LOST! I am going to be pissed! Unless it gives answers about said smoke monster. But then it'll open up a bunch of new questions.

We watched a cool old movie last night. Romance on the High Seas with Doris Day in her first movie role! It also stars a very young Don DeFore. The plot is simple and enjoyable. The songs are just so-so. But the sets and costumes are absolutly STUNNING!

I saw I am Legend last night. It was ok. I didn't feel there was any substance to the whole thing other than special effects, which were good. I need to read the book to see what it's really about I think because there was something missing in the film.

5 bornieo's out of 10

^ something MAJOR missing, according to Chernabog at NYE (I haven't read the book myself)

Out of curiosity, since at this point it doesn't look like I'll be seeing it, what did he say was missing (I have read the book)?

Jesus Christ on a Crutch! They neutered the entire point of the book and the thing that makes it brilliant.

Now I'll definitely have to see it on DVD to judge if they replaced with something that still plays well (and only sounds stupid in comparison to the source). I've always said I don't see how a good faithful adaptation can be made since so much of the book is purely internal to the protagonist, but still, if you aren't going to keep that part, why adapt the book?

Since this is the third film adaptation to leave that out, that seemingly logical question seems nevertheless to be moot.

I haven't seen the other two but I understand that they so mucked with the story that they were only barely faithful to the book. I'd been lead to expect that other than broadly cosmetic changes this one was much more faithful.

Guess I was wrong.

It was a good movie till that final bit. Maybe when I rent it, I'll watch the first two-thirds, and then read the last third of the book.:p

Wait...



Then it really broke from the screenplay we pitched on...

I just saw Legin tonight, I have to say the ending was rather abrupt. I wonder if we will one day see an extended DVD with an alternate, more faithful to the book, ending.

Oh, my. iSm's already recommended it, but I heartily agree. The Orphanage was a wonderful, wonderfully creepy film. Both Tom and I were tied up in tension, almost the whole time. I thought that the narrative structure, the echoing elements throughout, the whole screenplay in general, was really top-notch. I'll have to see how it weathers with me, but some of the imagery is definitely still with me today. It definitely is toe-to-toe with, for instance, The Others, but for atmospheric quality and tension, I would even compare it with Rosemary's Baby.

I'd pre-emptively made a personal top ten list of films of 2007 yesterday morning, but I'm having to reconsider it after seeing that last night.

Juno.
I have to agree with a couple of critics and say it's one of the best films of the year.
I completely enjoyed it.
Wonderful soundtrack.
Ellen Page should be nominated for a Best Actress Oscar.
If you haven't seen it, you bloody should!
:)

PS - There is a particular song from the film that is tattooed on my mind.

I admired The Orphanage quite a bit, particularly the lead performance. And it did have terrific atmosphere. However, the movie sadly contained one of the most odious of current horror movie cliches. I refer to

I'd be curious if you mentioned some of the others that have that. I'm not a big horror fan but I can't think of any off the top of my head (Meet Joe Black was the first thing that came to mind but obviously not horror).

And yet The Orphanage was just snubbed by the Academy, and is not in the final running for best foreign language film nominations. Um, neither is Persepolis. WTF??? Heads up their collective arses, I believe

Final Destination comes to mind as the first time I saw the gag. If I recall correctly, it's also in Bride of Chucky Other examples may come to me. (I know I've rolled my eyes at several instances, staged nearly identically, elsewhere.)

Neither if 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days from Romania. I haven't seen any of these three but this one is the one that seems to be causing the most shock.

Maybe the foreign language committee is going the way of the documentary one.

I saw JUNO last night and I really didn't want to like this film. On the good side you have really good acting all around - Jennifer Garner surpised me the most. The wity dialogue was a surprise but almost got to the point of unrealisticly annoying and I think that's why I think it wasn't a GREAT film. It was good and prob. in my top 10 for the year but it seemed that the story jumped from realizm to fantasy and you kind of have to use a "suspension of disbelief" just to get thru the film.

I think one of the reasons for going into the film not wanting to like it is that its fallen into the Nepolian Dynamite rut where its snappy dialogue, quirky characters and odd songs. In the end I think that just becomes the new chiche'.

I give it good marks for being funny and well acted. 8 bornieos out of 10.

:)

Mean Girls is another example.

It was used in an episode of LOST too.

Saw Cloverfield today. For some reason, I'm inclined to give it more props than it probably deserves, maybe because I really dig kaiju eiga as a genre. However, I hope this is the movie that buries the Blair Witch handycam style forever. Blair Witch Project made me feel queasy, and so did Cloverfield. I sat in the back of the theater for both, and still had to look away from the screen on occasion. What an unpleasant sensation. I guess I'm more sensitive than others in that regard.

Anyhow, I thought the movie had some clever ideas and impressive sequences. Characters were paper thin (by necessity) and the story was a foregone conclusion, but I was surprised when the audience began to boo at the closing credits. Wuh-oh!

That seals it for me, I will never be able to watch this movie. When I saw Blair Witch I took Dramamine in anticipation, and that still wasn't enough. I barely made it through the movie without losing my lunch. Never again will I put myself through that.

I lost my lunch watching Waking Life. Yak!!!

Just saw Cloverfield. The shakycam didn't bother me (but then it didn't in Blair Witch either).

It wasn't great but it was good. A few very suspenseful moments and for the most part it remains true to its conceit of being from the point of view of a small group of people involved in a terrible event but in no way centrally involved.

A lot of grumbling when the movie was over, though. If you really want a traditional narrative structure all the way to the end you're going to be disappointed and I suspect the second week for this one isn't going to be great.

Teaser for the next Star Trek before the next movie. Still not excited. Plus it looked like they were building the Enterprise on the planet surface in atmosphere which makes absolutely no sense.

Also watched Helvetica tonight as a test of Netflix's newly expanded on-demand download system.

It is a documentary about the font but not so much about the font as about designers who have strong feelings about the font. Some interesting stuff (as is bound to happen when you have people on screen who say things like "I was morally opposed to Helvetica" with a straight face) but pretty much nothing of any substance other than reinforcing that people who dedicate their life to a small niche feel that niche is interesting and important.

Wow! A documentary about fonts? That hurts my brain. Guess I should go ahead with my ambitious plan to make a trilogy of three-hour films about college-rule notebook paper versus legal pads.

I unexpectedly loved Cloverfield ... but posted more in detail about that it the, er, Cloverfield thread.


As for the Star Trek trailer ...I got the impresison it was not footage from the film, but simply a teaser for teaser purposes only (because, yeah, building the Enterprise on a planet's surface would be insanely stupid and would not "fly" - heheh - with Star Trek fans.) Um, the teaser got a tepid reaction from the mega-excited, J.J. Abrams-loving, fanboy audience at the Chinese. Not good.


But I appreciated that it didn't seem like "real" movie footage, though maybe I am wrong. Although the Cloverfield teaser really hooked me, it was real footage of one of the highlights of the movie ... which was then less exciting than it could have been when I finally saw it in the context of the film. Oh well. Still loved it.

It did remind me of this much shorter and more energetic short film: Behind the Typeface: Cooper Black.

It is in the style of VH-1s Behind the Music documentaries.

We watched Baghdad Cafe again tonight. I forgot how good it is.

I love that film!
:)

I finally saw Juno yesterday. A shining example of why I should see films before the hype gets to high. I was mildly disappointed. Even though I was completely entertained, found it funny and charming, and

Also, I did not find anything unusual or requiring of belief-suspension about her teenage lingo. Not in the least. And I liked all the performances. I just didn't think the movie was that big a deal.




Similarly, I don't think There Will Be Blood (which I also saw yesterday) particularly lives up to its hype. Still, it's a fantastic movie with a stunning peformance by Daniel Day Lewis. Perhaps not at the Citizen Kane level it's being hoisted to by critics, but a great American film about a meglomaniacal oil tycoon at the turn of the century.



Not that it's a competition or anything, but I would recommend seeing There Will Be Blood in theaters right now ... while Juno is, imo, a fine Netflix film at home.

I found more that required suspension of disbelief in There Will Be Blood than in Juno. Particularly had problems with the last scene. Sure, Day Lewis had a great performance (as did the actor who played his son) but they were definitely flirting with the line of melodrama, a line I prefer to keep my distance from unless it's handled with a fair bit of comedy. Any attempt at comedy in TWBB fell flat for me. There were things to like about the film, sure, but on the whole it disappointed me. And fanboys are trying to bring "I drink your milkshake" into the realm of the mega-quotes (idrinkyourmilkshake.com) - while I would prefer to create a website called ithinkyourmilkshakeisoverrated.

Interestingly, perhaps, the milkshake straw analogy to oil field drainage was made, in reality, by New Mexico Republican Senator Albert Fall during Congressional hearings on the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920's. Truth is often stranger than fiction .... and while this bit perhaps stands out in the film as over the top, it's actually a true quote dating from the period being portrayed.


I think the humor in There Will Be Blood worked wonderfully in the interplay between Plainfield and Sunday. The audience I saw it with thought so too.


To each his own ... or, for fun, should we have Juno Fan vs. Blood Fan WAR?!

We made it a day out in The City yesterday, ending with seeing There Will Be Blood way out at the Bridge Theater.

It wasn't the best conclusion to a great day we could have had but it certainly sparked conversation. Daniel Day-Lewis is fantastic. The movie was obviously made by an amazing filmmaker. The first hour was pretty great. The final 15 minutes pretty much forces you to consider it in relation to Citizen Kane, a sure sign of an extremely confident writer/director but in the end it isn't a comparison made well.

I was never bored but did eye my watch several times through the movie and when they moved to 1927 from 1911 I was definitely dreading another long segment. Fortunately it was only 15 minutes or so.

We had about 5 walkouts during our showing. I don't think anybody was disgusted by the movie (the usual cause of walkouts in my experience) but rather simply worn down, bored, and not sure how much more they were in for.

Glad I saw it, but my vote for No Country for Old Men as the best 2007 movie I've seen is safe. There Will Be Blood wouldn't make my top five.

Heheh, I compared it with No Country, too. I guess since they are the bigger "serious" movies of the season. I liked and admired them both.

The final act of No Country didn't sit too well with me ... and yet I consider it a fine film because I couldn't stop thinking about it for days.

I don't find myself ruminating too much on There'll Be Blood ... but I thoroughly enjoyed it's brief 3rd act that played off Citizen Kane so cannily (but yeah, if that's what prompted all the comparisons to the Welles classic, the filmmaker didn't do himself any favors with a choice that I happen to have enjoyed.)

I know this may sound ridiculous, but the Diving Bell and the Butterfly hit me in such an odd way, I nearly sobbed through sections of it.

It was like a visual representation of the odd dreamlike state I sometimes have after a particularly bad seizure, where I know I'm awake, but can't convey that to anybody.

As much as I love No Country, I'd take Diving Bell over it as my favorite film of 2007.

I also quite like Diving Bell - but not as much as Persepolis. Unfortunately, neither is on the shortlist for best foreign language film because France's proposed entry - Persepolis - didn't make the cut. Not that I care particularly if they win (though Oscar prognostication is a big hobby of mine) but I'd love for them both to have extra publicity. The Orphanage, too.

Watched 3 documentaries this weekend:

Helvetica - I think I mentioned this already but can't remember if it was here or in LJ and I'm too lazy to look upthread. Vaguely interesting.

Breasts: A Documentary - An hour-long Cinemax doc from back in the late '90s. Some interesting insights. 22 women talking about all aspects of their boobs and their relationships with said protuberances. The part about breast implants was particularly interesting since it was made right near the silicone hysteria and accepts it as fact but the last ten years has not been kind to the broad claims being made back then without much scientific evidence.

Maxed Out - A documentary about the perils and insanity of easy credit and predatory lending. Filmed just a few months too soon so misses the beginning of the real estate meltdown. Nothing in the movie is necessarily wrong but it really glosses over the role of personal responsibility as if somehow massive credit card debt is a random disease that strikes without warning.

There's a movie coming out called How She Move. I can't tell you how much that irks me. How She Moves, yes. How She Move... is lame.

Fixed it for ya.

Please tell me he did not just alter someone's quote for comic effect?!? :cool:

I saw U23D in IMAX yesterday. It is amazing. Truly an awesome experience. The 3D is impressive without being gimmicky and the sound was phenomenal. Go see it.

I heard a review on NPR and my first thought was - I wonder if Steph will see that today? : )

'

LOL! I heard the same review and CALLED Steph to see if she wanted to meet on a coast to see it. Little did I know, she was already in a theater in NYC.

U23D sounds like fun. I think it's playing somewhere out here. I know the Hannah Montana live 3D concert film is playing nearby, though, and I'm sure I'd enjoy that just as much. :rolleyes:

Yeah, people shouldn't do that.



:D

At one point, I looked at the rottentomatoes rating for Rambo. It said -1%. That's what I was expecting it to be...
:D

That much? I'm surprised.

It looks like it is an unfulfilled hope but I did leave the door open for there to be some quality to Rambo. I was really surprised by how good Rocky Balboa was.

Just a head's up for anybody in the Bay Area. The Stanford Theater is working their way through Hitchcock's career with new double features every weekend through the end of March.

If it turns out they're showing a 3-D print of Dial "M" for Murder I'll definitely be there that weekend.

Just saw Juno last night (small theater almost sold out, the nod got it some attention). I really enjoyed it, lots of fun. They figured out the only way to get me to watch a movie about teen/unwanted pregnancy, and that's have the mother in question react in a hilariously blase fashion about it. Everyone was great, the writing was wonderfully witty...though I have to agree with some of you above, it's a pretty unrealistic portrayal. Again, to me, that's what makes it enjoyable. A real 16 year old's reaction to getting pregnant is not a fun thing to watch.

There were some great, wonderfully quotable lines, some amazing writing, and that much, I loved.

I was not thrilled with the music. Quirky and fun at first, but every song had the same feel to it, no matter what scene was unrolling in front of it, which just seemed lazy. Also, she kept mentioning her favorite punk bands, and they never play any of it, just these upbeat silly songs that I'm not so sure she would like. It didn't jive at all. I did love Mark's character of aging 90's rocker, but again, one 20 second clip of Sonic Youth covering the Carpenters? Where was the music that played such a large part of the interplay between them??

That said - Best Picture? I don't think so. Not that I've seen any other heavyweights this year, but still, I can't solidly root for this one.

^ They played Astrid Gilberto, which is what young 16-year-olds who are into punk enjoy once they reach their parents age. (ahem, yours truly a case-in-point). It was a musical comment on parenting, yeah, uh-huh.

I've been seeing these Rambo posters around town, and I thought they were advertising an anniversary re-release or something. I had no idea it was a new movie. Oy.

Such odd franchise numbering - First Blood, then Rambo: First Blood Part Two, then Rambo 3, followed, naturally, by Rambo - it's perfectly logical.

I'm always disapointed with the ending to "Kissing Jessica Stein", I've watched it a few times, hoping that I'll like the ending, I just can't seem to like it, she should end up with Helen
-----
Also, saw "Very Bad Things" under somewhat of a recommendation from Sub La Goon, wow what a piece of sh*t. The part with the prostitute dying and Cameron Diaz trying to get him to kill the dog are about the only funny parts. Other than that it seems to be just a bad dark comedy with Christian Slater playing a grown up version of his character from "Heathers" and the use of the word fuc abot a million times

Netflix Newsflash: Wow, I did not absolutely hate Pirates 3. It was (until the final battle) far less slapstick stupid silly than the middle one. It was far too long and drawn out and boring at too many times, but overall ... wow I was surprised I didn't hate it, and ultra surprised there was so much I liked about it.


2nd feature: Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Great songs. Stupid Movie. (I think I felt the same way about Once.)

I'm watching Stop Making Sense today- one of my all time favorite concert films.

I'll go you one better ... it's my ALL-TIME-FAVORITE concert movie. Love It!

I agree, iSm- I loved that group, and that film is awesome!:snap:


(Another, more recent, good one is Green Day's 'Bullet in a Bible').

The film is awsome, but the live show was SPECTACULAR!

Ugh, i hate you. It's the one concert i almost went to, and most regret missing. Bah.


(Actually, i love that you went. If i can't do something cool, it's nice consolation that people i love did it.)

I have little interest in seeing Rambo, but I am TOTALLY in for seeing Son of Rambow, which seems to be in the vein of Be Kind, Rewind except British and with kids. And stunts. And Rambo.

Fool's Gold = 9% on rottentomatoes.com.
How sad.
:)

Saw In Bruges the new Brendan Gleeson, Colin Farrell, and Ralph Fiennes gangster movie.

One of the reviews I read said something like "this is the movie that Guy Ritchie has been trying to make." Talk about screwing up my expectations. Accents and gangsters is about all it has in common with a Guy Ritchie movie.

Once I got out of the groove I was primed for and into the groove the movie actually wanted it is pretty good but I can't quite recommend going out of your way to see it theatrically. DVD will be fine. The last 30 minutes does an unusually fine job of tying up the various elements that preceded it and seemed like random foolishness at the time and yet still feels very organic.

It was also my first time at the Kabuki in San Francisco as a paying customer since they completed their conversion into a Sundance theater. I don't give a damn about upscale chocolates and Mexican Coke at the snack bar but the seats were nice, I do love me reserved seating, and we'll definitely have to try the balcony bar on a future visit.

Just saw 27 Dresses. I disliked it IMMENSELY. I didn't find it funny, cute or even remotely heart warming. I didn't care about any of the characters and as it slowly dragged its way to an obvious ending I was more angry and annoyed at the main character than engaged.

I admit, I'm a cynic of the worst caliber but I've like many a comedy romance movie. This one just made me want to roll my eyes and hope for a great spoof movie!

Can I just say that I adore the film Gosford Park. I can watch it over and over.

But...

Can I also say that I completely loathe Ryan Phillipe? God! Every time I see him, I just want to punch him in the nose. Ugh. Good-looking, talentless piece of scrod. It's like Keanu in Much Ado about Nothing. Bleck.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age is not the train wreck the critics made it out to be.

It wasn't quite up to the standards of the first film, but I found it an admirable companion piece. For once, I found it appropriate to have a sequel made a decade later, because the characters can be noticeably older ... as appropriate to this particular story.


I liked the different lighting scheme (Golden Age indeed) and loved the costumes and thought Cate was great as Liz, and Clive Owen is hubba hubba as always.

I think we forget how schmaltzy and melodramatic the original was. This one's just a tad more cheesy.


Curious though. In the Cate Blanchette films, Elizabeth has two love affairs, and in the Helen Mirren miniseries, she has two different love affairs.

Were they all true?

First was Robert Dudley. The Earl of Leicester. Her favorite. He was played by Jeremy Irons and Joseph Finnes. He apparently was a lover of Elizabeth's although everyone concerned considered her to be a virgin for the record. He died of cancer. Stomach, I think. She was destroyed after he died.

Second was another Robert, Robert Devereaux. The 2nd Earl of Essex. The treasonous rogue. His father was Walter Devereaux. He was the first Earl of Essex. Therefore, I think the father/son thang in the Mirren version is incorrect. He was beheaded by Elizabeth and apparently she became devastated by her own decision (as with a number of them) to have him killed. There are speculations that he slept with her as well. He was played by the yummy Hugh Dancy in the Mirren version.

Edit to add: Dudley was Essex's stepfather. That makes more sense...

As for Walter Raleigh, it's not for certain whether he was a lover of Elizabeth's but he was a favorite as well. There is skepticism on whether he banged her or not.

I never saw the first one but I just watched Elizabeth: The Golden Age this weekend and it was thoroughly atrocious in my opinion. Definitely not a good weekend of movie watching:

La Vie en Rose: Wonderful singing but the movie itself was dreadfully boring. Standard musical biopic arc of tough childhood, sudden stardom, descent into bad behavior. But the singing was amazing. They should have just cut the rest and released it as a soundtrack.

Oscar Nominated Animated Shorts: All were unimpressive, most felt like art school finals where the goal was not overall coherence but display of animation techniques.

Oscar Nominated Live Action Shorts: Not horrible but not amazing either. The best of the bunch wasn't really a short and the best short was amusing but nothing I'll remember in a year.

Rambo: Was convinced to finally see this because of some friends saying it was good butt kicking action. It wasn't. It was just gory gunfights. However, when I'm 60-something I want Stallone's forearms (the only muscles put on display) even if it means years of chemical inducement.

Untraceable: For a suspense thriller involving a lot of computers it wasn't horrible. They goofed badly in not taking into account the way the internet likely would have really reacted to such a scheme but if they had there wouldn't have been a movie.

Jumper: An interesting idea ruined horribly by two decisions: casting Hayden Christensen and the horrible hair on Samuel L. Jackson. The woodenness of Christensen almost makes me think his acting in the prequels wasn't Lucas's fault (except for the fact that everybody else in the prequels was horrible too). Played more like a high-end TV pilot/movie than a standalone big screen affair. The eye was definitely too much on the next movies that will surely come. After a very impressive go at the first Bourne movie, this is a second major face plant for director Doug Liman (the other being the truly reprehensible Mr. and Mrs. Smith).

Essex was a definite lover and her companion for quite a whiel, but it's been ages since I went through my Elizabeth reading phase so I don't remember if Leicester was really a lover or not.

Um, Alex ... you do realize that the singing in La Vie en Rose was all Edith Piaf, and that the actress was lip-synching??


For a standard arc biopic, I loved it. Can't help it if Piaf's life followed a standard artist arc. Maybe there's a reason there's a standard artist arc.

Yes, that, perhaps with too much subtlety, was my point. The movie had nothing much to recommend it so just get a Piaf CD and listen to that.

Though all of the singing wasn't Edith Piaf, not everything existed in recorded form that could be used in the movie. One of the NPR shows had an interview with Jil Aigrot the French woman who four songs in the movie. She has a successful career in France doing Piaf tribute shows (here's some of it on YouTube).

And it certainly isn't her fault that it is a timeworn story. But that doesn't make it any more interesting to see it for the fourth or fifth time in a couple years.