Miscellaneous Movie Musings
 

Did you just watch a cool flick? Did you just jab your eyes out with an ice pick because of the stinkified movie you just viewed? Any Netflix queue recommendations?

Post 'em here.


-------------

I did an everyone email at work to ask people what their favorite movies were. One person who I consider to be ultra-cool said that 'The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys' was her favorite flick of all time. So I watched it. I loved it. I recommend it. Jodie Foster is wonderful in it. Not to mention, part of it is animated. Cool movie.
:)

'The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys' ~ :) :) :) 1/2 happy faces out of 5

Dead Alive - My favorite Peter Jackson film EVER! (I even like it more than Meet the Feebles)

So far I've only seen the edited for airline travel version, but Night Watch was pretty spiff for a vampire movie. I think I'll have to check out the "real" version.

Watched North by Northwest last night (finally). Realized that there's a whole genre of "hapless guy lands in a dangerous situation of misunderstandings" that I've never really seen before. Just like Strangers on a Train and Detour...

I've seen two Barbara Streisand movies in the last week. What's up with that?

No no no. What's Up Doc?

I've never seen a Barbra Streisand movie all the way through. Just a few minutes of Yentl while walking through my parent's living room. They always watched that one when it was on.
What's new pussycat, whoa-whoa-whoaaaaa

Tori and I snuggled up on the couch and watched 'Zathura' last night. I really liked it- the sci-fi stuff was so retro, and the Astronaut was, in Tori's words a 'hottie'. We also watched the extras, and it turns out little Peter Billingsley- aka Ralphie in 'A Christmas Story'- is a producer of this movie. He still looks a little bit like his old self, but with stubble.

That was one of them.

I watched the earthquake movie last night. I'd like those 2 hours of my life back please.

My condolences (shudder).

I watched The Count of Monte Christo (most recent version) with my daughter over the weekend. Liked the movie, but it always bugs me when a Hollywood ending replaces the original ending of a classic.

I also took the family to see "Over the Hedge" Friday. Much better than the other animated drivel that has been put out recently.

Philip Seymour Hoffman makes an excellent villain. I loved watching him kick Tom Cruise's ass. :D

Totally. GD and I couldn't resist doing Hoffman imitations afterwards.
"I'm gonna find her. I'm gonna find her, and I'm gonna hurt her."
:D

We watched King Kong Saturday night. Just when we were laughing at how bad it was it got WORSE!!!

The ice skating scene where King Kong scoots around the ice on his butt is hysterical.
:D

It would make a killer ad for Preparation H or Tuck's, though :D

Imagine the size of that Tuck's pad. It would be the size of round area rug.
:D

Sorry, I wish I could not say this, but I have to.


Is that the prequel to Snakes on a Plane?


Oh Damn Me!

We laughed at the absurdity of the entire movie. Even the kids thought it was stupid. Nickolas was the only one who watched more than 10 minutes of it.

Teehee, I'm gonna watch King Kong tonight.


Last night, tho, in prep for DaVinci Code tomorrow, I watched my favorite Tom Hanks movie. Quickly rising up the list to one of my favorites of all movies ever made. Cast Away. There is only one moment of the film that isn't where Tom Hanks' character is, and it's a very telling one. The movie has a deep spiritual subtext that I love. There's a whale at sea that's constantly doing Hanks big favors. There's Wilson the ball who is either a puka spirit or a saving-grace figment of Hanks' imagination - or both. There's the hangman's totem suspended from a broken tree-limb on a mountain top ... until a certain turning point.

There's an ultra-romantic text and subtext that I love. I dig watching this movie alone, because I cry like a madman during the scene when Hanks visits his now-married girlfriend after the rescue. Every line, every look, ever gesture in that scene is a tearjerker. From the subtlety of the pocket knife keychain to the over-topness of their empassioned kiss in the pouring rain, that scene is a gusher of good writing, fine acting, culmination of drama, and tears galore.

I love the structure of this film. A first third where there's near constant music ... none of it score. Elvis tunes, Christmas tunes, Russian songs, music fills the first third. The middle third has none. No score, no music. The constant sound of surf and nary a sound that's not natural. There are maybe 10 lines of dialogue in this hour's worth of film. The final third has musical score for the first time. A single coda, repeated four times at four dramatic moments, exactly the same each time - and each time stirring the soul.

I love the task it took to make this movie. They had to appease a mystic tribal culture to film upon their sacred island, boat a movie crew and all equipment out to the site each and every day, film the better part of a movie there without leaving so much as a footprint that might be caught on film, later dub in every sound of the waves to match what was caught on film, then break for the better part of year (keeping the crew together to make a far inferior film) while Tom Hanks turned paunchy fat to lean muscle and grew a RipVanWinkle beard.

I love Tom Hanks in this movie. He carries an entire film. Much of the time without speaking a word.


One of the best movies of all time, without a doubt in my mind.




Tomorrow ... the DaVinci Code. Hmmmmm.

We studied Cast Away in my psycology class last term. It was actually a really good movie to study for that class, so many good examples of stuff.

Good movie.

Boy, iSm and I have such differing tastes in movies. I don't have the energy to get into it tonight but I really, really hated 'Cast Away'. Now, I know iSm is going to give me a lashing for it, but the truth must be told.

Yep. It's called Film Noir! :D

Hooray for Snakes on a Plane!

GC, you'll get no lashing from me ... (well, not for your poor movie taste anyway) :D


A lot of people have trouble with Cast Away. It's too slow for some. It comes off crass and cumbersome to others. It's got a weird structure and an unusual tone that many people don't take to.

I am at a personal loss to see where anyone could not find at least the surface story compelling - - the classic tale of man on desert island told more truly and stylishly than any previous attempt. Yet many people don't even find it a good adventure film, much less chock full of psychological, spiritual and emotional resonance.


The film is sublime. I feel nothing but sadness for those who just don't get it.

Hazzah!

We interrupt this serious debate about the merits of a serious film to bring you mindless woo-hooing about what is surely a stupid movie with an even stupider name.

So, before I decided what I was going to watch tonight, I turned on the TV while I was eating dinner. I'm watching Big.

It's a Tom Hanks kind-of week.

However, my fav is Philadelphia.

It's motherfckin' snakes on a plane!

OMG Have you guys seen the website???

Wait a minute...you guys were serious all this time?? I thought this was a joke!

I hope this thing tanks really, really hard. Then I'll watch it on late-night cable and giggle.

It'll be terrible. But it's not out yet and it seems to already have a cult following.

I have never seen Castaway. I am not a big fan of movies that I know (ahead of time) are going to make me cry. I never used to cry during movies. I blame it on being forced to stay up till 1am watching Romeo & Juliet with my older sister who had to watch it for her English class. I was only in 8th or 9th grade, but ever since then I try to avoid tearjerker movies.

I did catch the end of Freaks. That movie just fascinates me.

It's the merging of two of the most phobia inducing things around- it's still gonna suck, but it will be a great cult movie.

Now, if they threw in some tarantulas on that plane.......

'Cast Away'
Where to begin...
First off, I must say that I like Tom Hanks. I was completely impressed by his weight gain and then almost complete weight loss for this film. The man was a skeleton for parts of this film. It's not easy to do this so I give him mucho kudos for doing that. People don't realize how thin you actually have to be to come off as thin on film. To come off as a skeleton on film... that must be torture...
However, the film was too slow for me and had one of the worst payoffs in a movie ever. He doesn't get back together with his girlfriend and never opens those boxes. C'mon, you're on an island with nothing to do. One of the first things you'd do would be to open those boxes to see if there was food in there.
I loved the idea of the 'character' of Wilson in the film. He is a major player in the film. It's a tough element to pull off and Zemeckis tried. But too often during that film did I think 'he's talking to a volleyball'. The audience should buy into it completely and I didn't. ie. The dummy in 'Magic' was a character. A freakin' creepy ass character. I bought it. A lot of it was the way that director portrayed him. I didn't buy Wilson...
Another huge thing that bothered me was not seeing much of a transition from skinny, dirty island Tom Hanks to back to the real world Tom Hanks. Suddenly, he's rescued and the next time we see him he's on a plane all perfectly groomed and somehow with all of his weight back. To see him transitioning back into 'normal' life would have been great.
As far as emotional themes in this film, I can see how one would tear up at the end of this film. IF one actually bought the characters and didn't resent Helen Hunt for seeming to quick to move on I could see crying at that part. (I know a lot of time passed, but to hook up with someone and then marry him while Hanks is on the island... It seems kind of fast to me.) What almost slammed me emotionally was the plane crash itself. (Too bad it was one big ad for Fed Ex...)
In order to love a film, I must buy into the credibility that the film is trying to sell us on. I didn't buy the Hanks/Hunt relationship, I didn't buy Wilson, I didn't buy the ending, I didn't see enough of a transition for Hanks coming back to life...
I felt cast off by this film.
My 2 cents.

The Olsen Twins?!? :eek:

I can't wait for Snakes on a Plane. OMG, re-writes done to cater to the burgeoning internet fan base! That's a first! Not necessarily a bad thing either.



As for Cast Away, I appreciate G.C.'s comments, and won't belabor the film's merits. I will just correct two innaccuracies:


Hanks' character does open all the FedEx packages on the island, save one. He finds such useful items as ice skates with blades, and a dress with netting. He leaves one package purposefully unopened - - to retain his hope that he will be someday able to deliver it. He's a FedEx man, and that's what he does. Saving your sanity, your sense of self, and keeping hope alive are very important aspects of survival.


The film was not a FedEx commercial. It was simply filmed in the real world, as the real world actually appears. It was phenomenal that FedEx agreed to be featured. It was vital to the story that the main character work for a major worldwide delivery organization. Someone's logo was going to be featured everywhere, and it was fortunate that it was FedEx's (though UPS would have worked).

What would not have worked was a fake delivery company like "TransGlobal Express." It was a valid choice of the filmmaker to make a fantastical, almost fairy tale story, against an absolutely real-world backdrop. Calling it a commercial for FedEx simply denies how our world really appears.


(BTW, when your plane is shown crashing into the ocean and killing many aboard, it's not a commercial.)



And now back to your regulary scheduled Movie Musings thread. My musings about King Kong will have to wait .... I'm off to see Madonna tonight. :p

I would have opened all packages. Angel wings or not...

They could have come up with a generic name for the company. But they didn't. Product placement lasting for more than seconds turns movie into commercial. This movie is pre-9/11. The plane crash wasn't the company's fault, it just happened. Therefore, FedEx had to pay Zemeckis huge amounts of money to feature their logo. Bleh.


As for Madonna, I love her. I hope they keep the crucifiction part in for tonight's show.
:)

That's a great film. Love it.
:)

I will have to rent this, I've not seen it and this sounds very good, thanks!
:iSm:

Um, no. The movie takes place on earth. Real earth. Today. Sorry you disagree with that choice, but don't assume that you get to make that choice for the filmmakers.

(Heheh, I used "TransGlobal" as my example above - because it was the fake airline used in the Airport movies, to illustrate how fake names stand out like a sore thumb. Real names just stick out like a thumb.)

Filmmakers do it all the time. Even though the film takes place in the real world, they don't necessarily have to have real world company names. If I were a filmmmaker I would use made up names. Nothing dates a movie like having someone in it singing a McDonald's jingle that isn't around anymore (ie. 'Ordinary People') or referencing a company that no longer exists...

C'mon, how much of a sore thumb was McDonald's in 'Fifth Element'? Huge sore thumb.

You can't say he was trying to be realistic. Pshaw, he had dollar signs in his eyes.

Zemeckis didn't have money in mind when he put Fed Ex in his movie? He most certainly did. ie. The California Raisin Company paid millions of dollars to feature a bus bench with their ad on it in 'Back to the Future' (another Zemeckis film).

FedEx stuck out like an sore advertisement.

I agree with iSm when it comes to real world products in film. BRAND X takes me out of the movie as much as "my phone number is 555-5555".

There was an Email cartoon that made the rounds back then.. It showed him delivering that last package only to find out it had a brand new satellite phone and solar charger.

The 555 thing is annoying, but I understand why they do it. Brand X doesn't bother me, though. In fact, I prefer it. Any mention of a real product or any visual ad in a film takes me out of the reality that the film is trying to sell us. It's like McDonald's in Disneyland. Annoying.
:D

Perhaps I don't see enough films, but nothing like product placement or brand-x vs. the real thing bugs me. People drink Coke, so who cares if there's a Coke on the table? Why should I care if it is FedEx or Transglobal Express?

Just doesn't make a difference to me.

Would it make a difference if you found out that they put that can of Coke in their film just so that they could score 8 million dollars from Coke for advertising it?

It's an interesting question - how much reality do you want in your storytelling? Should the president's name be correct or fictional? Which movie stars "exist" and which don't due to acting in the film itself? I love when movies play with that and have the actor exist anyway, so you have an actor saying that he hates himself or whatever. I can't think of an example off the top of my head.

More on realism:
On Family Guy, Stewie travels to the future.
Stewie: "Everything looks the same!"
Future Stewie: "What did you expect, it's only been thirty years."

Like most things in life, it depends on how it's done. The FedEx placement in Castaway made it a better movie. Looking for the travelocity roaming gnome in the amazing race is a distration.

Not in the least. Capitalism at its best. And if I am so weak minded that I go purchase a coke because I saw Harrison Ford drinking one then I deserve whatever the death-in-a-can soda does to me.

If I recall correctly.....I think it was the movie The Firm (Tom Cruise as a lawyer who ends up unwittingly going to work for a mob law firm). In the book, he gets a new Mercedes as a signing bonus. In the movie, it's a BMW. Why? Because BMW paid for it. Who the hell cares? He's got to drive something. Why not let him drive the car of the biggest bidder?

So no.....it doesn't bother me at all.

I think it depends on the story. If it a brand name pertains to something specific in the story itself and is vital to tell the story, then it should exist. It is not vital to the story to have Hanks work at FedEx. The story would not lose anything if he worked for a company by another name.
I think it also depends on the story. Is it a movie that is impacted by the Watergate scandal? If so, Nixon should be president. If the president's identity or political party is irrelevant, then a generic president should be featured. If 'The Day After Tomorrow' featured George Bush 2, then the movie would be seen as a jab at Bush and Republicans. It makes a total statement to have the president be an actual president.
This was a funny thing I noticed in 'Beverly Hills Cop 2'. The villain in that was Bridget Nielsen. At one point, someone interacts with a poster for the film 'Cobra' (the Stallone vehicle). At the time the movie came out, Nielsen and Stallone were together. So, who was Stallone married to in the reality of 'BHC2'? It's a good question isn't it. Does the villain just look like her?
:shruggage:

How?
That is how we differ. I see it as selling out. And anyone who buys a Coke because Harrison Ford (which he wouldn't by the way, maybe in Japan but not here) told them to is a lemming.
:D

I completely agreee with you. I could care less if a person is drinking Coke, Pepsi, Shasta or Colamonger Cola. If a story is compelling enough, I don't even notice beyond having a mental placeholder for what the company means. However, if an incorrect concept was used, I would find it really disturbing.

To me, commercials have no place in films nor movie theatres. Bleh and double bleh.

I agree with scaeagles on paid advertisements - as long as they don't take me out of the movie. It's all about keeping me within the story.

I don't see how a multi-million dollar budget film can be accused of selling out any further than it already does.

If I wrote a screenplay and Coke wanted my characters to drink Coke in it, I'd happily take whatever they offered as long as the script and direction aren't affected by the transaction. I'd be especially inclined to take it if it meant I'd have just that much more budget for my film - better equipment, more time, etc. I don't see that as "selling out" my script or concept.

I certainly don't want a Truman Story thing going on (you know - with the wife telling Truman what she got at the store in tremendous detail).

Seeing a billboard for Coke or a McDonald's golden arches while someone is driving down the road in a movie only makes sense, because I pass those things all the time. Now if someone passes the golden arches 12 times while driving a mile.....that gets a bit silly.

Chris and I were just discussing this question the other day. I think what brought it up was his recent Inspiration story and the "meaning" or "possible meanings" for the Crow and Charlie. Maybe it's because some of my favorite authors are "magical realists" and blur the lines of reality, but I LIKE to have my lines blurred. I like to have more questions to ponder than difinitive answers. I like a good mix of both reality and un-reality.

This can easily carry over to my feelings - or lack thereof - on product placement. Murakami regularly mentions Disney-realted things as well as pop-culture icons in ways that are jarring, but meant to be so. His reality references seem to punch out the magical realism of the story for a moment which is wonderfully jolting for the reader.

I have a strong desire to re-warch I <3 Huckabees or Adaptation again. I'm in a mood to ponder some more and those two films do a great job of questioning "reality". ;)

But, is it a commercial or is it just something the character would do? If every product in a film was "fabricated" I would think the character and, possibly the film, would seem disingenious.

I can accuse it of selling out. If the message is important enough, despite how much money it has to tell the story, I can still be art. If they pimp the movie by putting blatant ads in it, then I can call it selling out.
It's as simple as that. (And it doesn't stop at ad placements. Placing a popular recording artist into a leading role in a movie, because they know people will watch the film just to see her, is selling out too.)

Shirley McLaine and Debra Winger are sitting on the bed talking about their love lives. Then suddenly, one says 'Let's go to KFC' or better yet Winger pulls out a bucket of KFC hotwings to go with her tea. Ugh, how horrible would that be?

An ad for General Electric in 'Capote'. Yeah, that's great.

I know I'm getting absurd about my examples, but I mean what I say. There is film that is art and then there are movies that are commercial infested nonsense.
Driving down a street and they pass by a McDonalds is fine. Dwelling on the McDonalds for 15 seconds showing someone eating a Big Mac isn't.

Kahuna Burger. There's an example, CP. Why talk about made up Kahuna Burger in 'Pulp Fiction' and then talk about McDonalds in France in another scene?

If a man has a burger in his fist, NA, that had a crumpled up wrapper that we don't see, that doesn't distract from anything. A wrapper that says 'Quarter Pounder' that is deliberately placed to be seen by the camera totally bugs. The blatant product placement makes things more disingenuous to me.
To me, that's exactly what it feels like.

Making movies is a business. To make money. Some may say they are making art, but if they are losing money on it, they aren't going to be making art for very long. If big studios find they can entertain me with big budget films, and to help recover some of the costs of making the films they have a coke can on the counter, it only helps them make more big budget films to entertain me.

Of course, the key is that they have to entertain me.

But one can make money without product placements. I will say that if it can be done in a subtle way, I have no huge problem with it. But my eye is completely trained to see it in any way, shape or form.

So not only are you an elitist pizza snob, you are an elitist movie snob.:)

But I can see what you are saying. Different people are bugged by different things related to what they know well. I have things that bug the hell out of me that I presume you wouldn't notice.

Snob is the word. When I went to see 'Da Vinci Code', the sound was bad during the previews. No one could hear a thing. Everyone was whining about it, but in this sold out theatre the only one to complain about it was me. Me me me. Then the theatre employees told me they couldn't do anything about it until they received 3 complaints first. So I went to three different ushers... They fixed the sound.
:)

I'm with GC on this. Pulp Fiction really is a great example. If the cultural significance of the specific brand name is important to the scene, then it's gotta be the brand name. So since the "Le BigMac" conversation specifically had to do with the ubiquitousness of McDonalds, then it certainly mattered that it was McDonalds. But when a guy was just eating a burger, it was just a burger. I'm cool with that.

I'm prehaps a bit more forgiving. I don't get annoyed at every single product placement. But when it becomes obvious that a shot is framed to draw your eye to the product, bleh.

Having never seen Castaway, I can't comment on what I think of the use of FedEx.

It only bothers me when it seems totally blatent. I was watching some tv show recently and there were Chili's take out bags everywhere with their logo on it, it became distracting to me. The scene really had nothing to do with food or where it came from.

Lately I have for some reason really been noticing cell phones in movies and tv. I dont' know if it's just because the current razr's and such look different so I notice them more or what.

I think the worst product placement I've seen in a TV show was on 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy'. They were talking about what they were going to do to their victim's apartment when all of a sudden Carson or someone says, 'Let's go get something to eat at Burger King.' They all cheered and ran across the street to Burger King. Then the next five minutes they were featured with different BK items in their hands. Ugh.
:D

I cannot even read the rest of the thread, or even this post, before commenting.

You, Sir, are a fraud. You have never seen Cast Away. :rolleyes:

Exactly the point.

Tom Hanks character in Cast Away is a high level manager with a world-wide delivery company who lives his life by the seconds of the clock. It is endemic to the story being told, both to his situation and his character. Working for FedEx is simply something his character would do. And a fictional company would just have taken everybody right out of the reality of the film.

At least, Robert Zemeckis thought so, and that's his perrogative. Since he has made quite a few of the best movies of all time, how 'bout we assume he just may have something there.


We'll have to just agree to disagree. But phone number 555-5555 bugs the crap out of me. It pulls me right out of the story being told. It's noticeable by its obvious artificiality.

And me? I couldn't even enjoy the DaVinci Code. Right away, there was the real Louvre! I mean, c'mon, couldn't they have made up some fictional museum??? Totally wrecked it for me. God knows how much The Louvre paid for that product placement. It was all over the film. Gak, the movie started there, ended there. Bleh.

Why did they have to use the actual Westminster Abbey? Totally took me out of the story.

And what's up with using "Catholicism?" A made-up religion would have been much better. How much do you suppose The Pope paid for that?!?!

Bwahahahaha :cheers: :iSm:

Again, I haven't seen the movie, so I can't be authoritative...but iSm, what is unique about FedEx that requires it to specifically be FedEx? What does it add to know that his characted is a manager at FedEx rather than another worldwide shipping company? What does "Manager at FedEx" connotate to a viewer that "manager at a worldwide shipping company" does not?

The Louvre, Westminster Abbey, Catholocism are unique entities. There is no generic for those. Saying "The Louvre" brings up specific information in a viewer's mind that "A museum" or even "A major museum" cannot. FedEx? vs. UPS vs. DHL? I'm not seeing it. A wordlwide shipping company is a worldwide shipping company is a worldwide shipping company.

I think his point was not that it could not be UPS or DHL instead of Fed Ex, but rather why use a made up company.

His point is that since it could be UPS or DHL or whatever, then using FedEx jumps out at him as "FedEx offered the most money", NOT "Using FedEx was a creative decission".

Steve says ( and I quote as he talks while I type )

" They paid Fed Ex. Fed Ex did not pay them. "

Actually, they were forbidden from filming at Westminster Abbey. Another location was substituted. Link.

Well, I just checked the running commentary for Cast Away, and no one paid anyone else in connection with FedEx being chosen as the real delivery company. The filmmakers wanted a real company, they asked FedEx, and FedEx said 'yes.'

(heheh, in discussing why he wanted a real company, Zemeckis also uses the laughably bad example of TransGlobal Airlines. Great minds think alike.)



And yes, the DaVinci Code used only the exterior of the real Westminster Abbey. Apparently, the Abbey didn't mean Ron Howard's price for featuring the inside. :D

Then I'm a sell out. I'd rather have more money to put quality workmanship on the screen by allowing coke cans to be seen as props. :confused:

The odd thing is that we basically agree. If the camera is FOCUSED on the product, blatantly showing it off, then yes, that is selling out, taking me out of the movie, and wrecking the story/art in order to make money.

What GD said about Pulp Fiction. Although I wouldn't have had a problem with Kahuna being McDonalds. Who cares? What if there was coincidentally a "Kahuna Burger" somewhere in the world (which there probably is), and they actually get amazing business due to that? So what? It's not about the name, it's about the acting/writing/directing/staging.

See, we do agree. You used the words "blatant" and "deliberately".

But if someone passes one Starbucks they better go past 4 or 5 more in that mile ;)

DC apparently has more Starbucks per capita than Washington State does. I blame the eastern half of the state. Wendybeth isn't drinking her share.

None of which has anything to do with movies.

um....

Oh! I'd better see the second X-Men movie (which BT took his siblings to and not me!) before number three comes out. Yay summer popcorn flicks!

Maybe they were filming in Paris.

;)

Which will probably have product placement for Baskin Robbins like the other 2 did.

Ho ho. They sure did. FedEx had to supply the production with a crew that insured that FedEx was portrayed accurately. They supplied the logos, uniforms, boxes... That's a form of payment.

And if it was soooo important for things to be realistic, the beginning of the movie was set in 1995. FedEx was known as FDX Corp in 1995. The name FedEx didn't come to be until 2000.

What GD said about your 'Da Vinci' comparison. You can't compare the two.

CP ~ I'm thinking we agree.
:)

DC also has more violent crime - those damned lattes and frappucinos are laced with PCP!

.

I know this sounds totally geeky of me, but, Space Mountain in Disneyland was sponsored by "Fed Ex" as of 1995. I think the name Fed Ex has been around longer than 6 years.

Where's Ubergeek42 ?

Um, as for supplying logos, they didn't. Fed Ex only gave permission to use the logo. None were supplied by them for the film. They did allow usage of a real Fed Ex airplane but that's it. Loaning someone a vehicle is hardly payment. By that same principle, €uroMeinke is paying me to post on LoT.

They shot the last scenes on FedEx property for free. There was huge support from FedEx during the film. Charging them nothing for filming on their site is in essence paying to have them use the logo.

They may not have given them the logos but someone was on set at all time insuring that the logo look right and was portrayed in a correct manner.

I say it again, they did not need to have FedEx all over this film. Nor the brand Wilson.

Putting it in a real company immediately creates a connection with the character and exactly what world he lives in (and that it is ours). If he worked at a fake name company is it of the monumental logistical proportions as FedEx? Is it something smaller and more fly-by-night? Is it whatever? Using FedEx creates an immediate shorthand and has a historic well-known slogan that emphasizes the importance of time and efficiency (which is the basis on which the character structures his life).

I think a lot is added by using the real FedEx that wouldn't even have been added by DHL or UPS or "Hanks Cash and Carry."

According to Wikipedia, while the term FedEx was a common usage (like KFC) it wasn't officially used by the company until, so apparently it was valid for the timeframe of the movie.

Do you find it equally obnoxious that many times when you see a movie that could be filmed in any city without affecting the story that the actual city selected is based on a bidding process by which city film offices offer discounts, tax refunds, and other services to attract the film?

I personally don't mind product placement as long as it isn't fetishistic. I don't care if the computer on a desk is an Apple or a Dell or a Sony. I care if for no apparent reason the camera lingers on the logo.

Out of curiosity, do you read Stephen King? He was famous for using real brand names in his novels to add realism to the books and keep them firmly planted in our real world. Quentin Tarantino is famous for his "hip" dialogue that was well known for referencing actual brands and other commercial products thus firmly grounding the story in the real world.

As I said, so long as it isn't fetishistic I don't really care if money changed hands. Just like I don't care that the only reason Harrison Ford agrees to present himself in a movie is if money changes hands.

I'd mojo you if I could :)

It seems the part we seem to disagree on is regarding CastAway - which I have not seen and can't comment on.

I do agree with Alex for the most part.

Oh I wish Alex would tolerate my mojo for that concise presentation of the freaking point.


GC, I hope you are getting a good night's sleep as I type this. Your crankiness about FedEx appearing on film and wanting their logo to appear correctly is just about the worst whining I've seen in a while.


(And I've seen some pretty damn fine whining in the mirror, quite often ... so I recognize it, pal.)

It isn't whining. It's fact.

I'd also like to hear you address the huge problems the movie had with its storytelling. We can stray from product placement for a moment.

What is the moral of the story? Love doesn't last? Love doesn't wait for you? There are worse things than being stuck on an island, you could find out that the love of your life forgot you and got married to someone else?
What great messages!

I find it interesting that my comments are directed at the film. Yours turned into name calling somewhere along the line after I disagreed with you. That's nice...

I disagree. These questions you pose can be answered in the script. A truly good writer and director could pull of that. For example, some films feature made up countries for crying out loud. The whole movie is about a war with 'Country X'. The movie is still believable. It is possible to do. Although I do not hold much faith in filmmakers these days, I think it is something that has been done in the past and done effectively and creatively. To say that people must rely on real businesses is not giving the creative mind much credit.
The argument that was placed in this thread is that it was done to add credibility to the film. Credibility and accuracy go hand in hand.
If the city isn't vital to the story, then it doesn't bother me. If there's posters all over the film saying 'Come Visit Beautiful Tehachapi', then that would bother me.
I don't know if authors get paid for doing that. (One of my favorite books is the unabridged 'The Stand'.)
As was said before, Tarantino made up 'Kahuna Burger'. So it can be done and done well.
Yes, but there are a lot of great low budget films out there where very little money changes hands, which doesn't star major actors and where no ads pop up. I'd rather watch ten of those than Ford's last film once.

What about the films that have a character who smokes? I have more of an issue with that than with product placement.

Sure, but why waste the time when you have something that is so ingrained in our culture that we immediately know what it is and what it represents? I'd rather get more into the meat of the story than have several pages of contextualization of Company X.

I have issues with that, too. I don't agree with glamorizing smoking in films. I mean the films in the 30's, 40's and 50's... wow! That's a lot of smoking going on. Not to mention the numerous takes from shot to shot. Yikes. But at the same time, they aren't wearing Marlboro t-shirts while they do it.
There are worse things that they spend time on. You could explain a company that someone works for in a sentence or two. If you show someone working in their environment, based on how frantic they are working you could convey the message that this is a big, successful monster of a company. Think about sci-fi movies, they have to explain a planet, a culture, just about everything. But let's not waste time on that? Let them just work on Earth, in America, at Walmart but have them carry laser guns. (I'm being silly, I know, but I think you get my point?)

Yes, your point seems to be that showing the real world as it is, chock full of logos everywhere, is a bother to you. That's fine.

Many other people, me included, say it conveys a sense of reality, and can serve as a shorthand of visual communication which is appropriate for a visual art form. Round and round, and this is where I get off.

I'm not gonna top my post about The Louvre. I wish I could have kept the light touch, and I apologize for getting touchy. But The DaVinci Code could have used a lot less talk. I'm really glad they didn't bother to take even four lines to explain some made-up museum with the great art works of history and a painting that was somehow the most famous work of art on an entire planet.

I'm just gonna leave it at that, and hope the thread veers back to musing about other movies. I have no intentions of singing any more praises about freaking Cast Away. The tangent about product placement vs. filmic reality was very interesting. I've got nothing more to say about either subject.


Hopefully, some people will be curious enough about the FedEx controversy to screen Cast Away, and they'll either love it or hate it.

I liked Cast Away.

Reality in a movie is not necessary to me. If it were, I'd not watch any movies. However, the more a movie seems realistic or plausible to me, the more I typically like it. Batman Begins is my favorite superhero type movie because, as far as superhero movies go, it was plausible that someone could really be Batman. Superman, Spiderman....they all take some incredible premise to build their movies.

I think the 'Da Vinci Code' was a tad too talky myself. The pacing of the book was much faster than the pacing of the movie. (I'm not sure if that makes any sense, but that's what it felt like anyway.)

I'm bummed that I read 'DVC' after the trip we took to Scotland, London and Paris. It was a coincidence that the places were the same...

Man... I came into this thread waaaay too late. I was gonna talk about how I just watched the Hammer flick "Rasputin, the Mad Monk" starring Christopher Lee in the title role.

Anyway, now that we're talking about product placement, I'm surprised that nobody mentioned Zemeckis' mentor, Spielberg. Minority Report is quite possibly the most shameless example of product placement I've ever seen in a movie.

As far as Castaway is concerned, I would have chosen FedEx, too, if only for their super-cool logo. Once someone pointed out the subliminal arrow in the name, I can't look at the logo and not see it. Keen.

Totally. Although, despite that, I liked 'Minority Report'.

The worst was Taco Bell in 'Demolition Man'. And all those ads in 'Fantastic Four'.

The product placement was the least of my problems with Minority Report. Writing, acting, directing, and cinematography all trumped it.

For the record, the logo was designed in 1994.

http://www.thesneeze.com/mt-archives/000273.php

I really love Cast Away. I won't address product placement (though for me it was very necessary in this story), but I will address the above.

I don't think a story necessarily needs a moral, but for me Cast Away's moral is triumph of the human spirit. He clings to hope by not opening the angel wings package, he creates comradery with an ordinary object to help him survive the constant isolation, he takes his one chance at freedom from the island with bravery and adventure, then in the end even when all seems lost he delivers his package and journeys into the unknown. Life really sucks sometimes but it doesn't end. Even when the most crippling of blows are dealt the indefeatable human spirit survives. He takes his map and goes off to find out what else life has to offer. You don't get a better ending than that, IMO.

I will say though, that one thing really annoyed me about Cast Away. He's gone for four years, in that time she marries and has a two or three year old child. So basically, she would have married within the year he died and got pregnant right away. It seemed a bit rushed to me in that respect. One of my favorite movies ever though, for precisely the reasons iSm described in his original post.

You know.......if I was a moderator........I'd move all of the product placements discussions to a seperate thread and let this thread get back to the miscellaneous movie musings. ;)

I was thinking that product placement is as miscellaneous as it gets when it comes to movies...
:D

Hmm, is it a thread of miscellaneous musings about movies, or a thread of musings about miscellaneous movies?

Both. It can be whatever we want it to be. I just thought we should have a Soooo...-esque thread for movies.
:)

So while doing my usual aimless wandering about the internet yesterday, I discovered that in 2004, WETA (effects shop of Lord of the Rings fame) put together some concept art for a live action/cgi movie version of Neon Genesis: Evangelion.

NG:E is one of the most beautifully animated anime series ever, not to mention having a fabulous story.

Here's some series art.

Here's the WETA concept art.

Unfortunately, the project is currently on hold, but the site says they hope to resume production. I hope they do. In the meantime, I've added the series to our Netflix queue because it's been about 8 eyars since I've seen it.

Actually, I thought that was pretty funny. Taco Bell is so craptacular - I can't think of a chain lower down on the quality scale. I'm sure they paid for their mention, but I took it as more of a dig against them - the irony that the worst fast food chain ever would win the restaurant wars. It fit in with the idea that ad jingles rise to top 40 status. I don't think it's funny unless you know how awful the source material is.

Back to miscellaneousness...

I thought more people would turn out to see 'United 93'. Especially after it got solid reviews. Too soon?

Too lame. I think this county has, thankfully, had its fill of rah-rah patriotism for a while. Everything I've seen of that screams TV movie, not big screen material.

I see. I haven't seen it. I actually don't know anyone who has. I bought '9/11' a long time ago on DVD. Haven't watched it...

Interesting. I've seen it, and what I think makes the movie so good is that it does no politicizing whatsoever. It doesn't portray the Islamic terrorists as madmen, it doesn't portray the people on the flight as overly heroic....it is simply a film about what happened with no slant at all.

If simply telling the story in an extremely well done movie is rah-rah patriotism, then I guess we have a differing opinion on what rah-rah patriotism is.

As far as why people aren't seeing it....it hurts. It's emotional. It isn't for everyone. I never saw The Passion of the Christ. I am well aware of what happened in that story, and I don't object to the material. I just really didn't want to see it.

Having not seen it, I can only go by the advertising and general publicity. I've heard too much "You're not an American if you don't see this" to particularly want to see it. And the scenes I've seen make it look like it has the production values of a made for TV movie.

I've seen documentaries on the timeline of flight 93. I've heard the cell phone calls. I know the facts of the event. I'm not compelled to see a dramatization of it.

I'm sure it is a very good movie, but, while I appreciate that some people may want to see an excellent film about the horrors of this event, I really don't want or need to experience it. I guess I've had enough personal tragedy in my own life that I rarely will subject myself willingly to difficult situations. For me, it is a challenge to stay positive and happy (and sober) on my own. I don't need help being depressed or upset.

Sorry, I take care of myyself first and the world is a better - and safer - place for it.

Definitely agree with this - the joke was "Everyone knows Taco Bell sucks, how did they win the fast food wars?" That wouldn't have been communicated with Brand X.

I kinda wanted to see United 93 but I knew I'd never drag GD with me. Same goes for CastAway and King Kong, actually...

We added CastAway to our Netflix list and bumped it.

I can understand that. That's exactly why I posted a similarity between that and me not seeing the Passion of the Christ. I completely understand what NA has said as well. It isn't for everyone.

As far as "you're not an American if you don't see it", fortunately I have heard none of that. It isn't about being an American. As Ally pointed out, it's more like a documentary.

1) I left out a word. FedEx officially began using the FedEx name in 1994 (though the FDX Co. was the owner of it all until changing that name in 2000). So the name and logos were accurate for 1995.

2) On the Stephen King thing, if it only bothers you if the "author" was paid for the placement, when you see products in a movie do you have to wait until you get home to see if money changed hands before you decide whether it was annoying?

3) Even in low budget movies pretty much everything and everybody involved is only there because money is changing hands. Hardly any of it is not-for-profit, just-for-the-hell-of-it community theater.

4) But it is ok, we can disagree. I just don't understand how or where you draw the line. Does it bother you that pretty much all of the cars in movies are real-world cars and generally identifiable as such? I just watched Last American Hero (one of the only truly good redneck movies to come out of the '70s) and they actually mentioned Ford and Chevy by name. And NASCAR (as does the upcoming Cars). It would have been easy to create a fictional stock car racing circuit but the shorthand is certainly more convenient and effective, even if it was paid for in the case of Cars (and I'm sure permission was at least given for logo use in Last American Hero).

5) There isn't a bit of "rah-rah patriotism" in United 93. It is a barebones attempt at recreating the events of that morning. Causes, reasons, and results aren't mentioned. The movie literally begins with the hijackers leaving their hotel room, ends with the last plane hitting the ground and never wanders into any side discussion. It is one of the most impactful films I've seen in a long time and nothing about it sinks to the quality of a TV movie.

6) I think it didn't do well because most people aren't really interested in seeing the story recreated, no matter how well it is done. For most people older than 15 when 9/11 happened they'll probably never be quite ready but for younger people it will just be an incident in history or a dimly held memory from their childhood. I think the movie will go down as one of the great reportorial pieces of moviemaking ever but it will have to wait for that next generation to do so.

They're releasing one about the towers now. It is starring Nicolas Cage.

*shrug* I guess I've just caught the wrong end of the publicity about it.

Even so, a reenactment movie doesn't particularly interest me.

Alex, couldn't agree more with your numbers 5 and 6. Well said, as usual. Not that 1 through 4 aren't, but I haven't really involved myself in that whole conversation.

I'm glad that's something you've not had to deal with. Working within a government organization, my experience has been a bit different.

Around here, they still pester us every Friday to wear red to show our support for the war. I usually wear black.

Just pretend it's a weekly gay day.

Somehow, I can't see myself in an "I got rear-ended on the Jadwin" tshirt.

I was wondering how I could get ride of 300+ years of American heritage. I'll just not see this film. Poof, you're French!:p

While researching the Sámi for my 'Helmet' commercail, I thought back to the movie 'The Cuckoo'. It's an interesting Finnish film. If you want a quiet random film to rent, rent that one. It's all about the ways people communicate and don't communicate. It's a gem.

I just got 'Transamerica' in the mail today. We'll be watching it soon.

goddamnyouGC. You want me to ruin my new Mac?

What did I do now? :D

You know very well what you did Mr. Cricket.

United 93 was about as non-political, non-patriotic as you can get. It was a thrilling, true-life, uber-danger adventure told in real time ... amazingly without jingoism or cheerleading or condemnation.

I think the hijackers were shown to be confused, bad men. But there was no judgment on Islam. The military was shown to be hamstrung and incompetent, but they somehow resisted putting the blame on anyone militarily or politically. (Though I don't see how any reasonable person could not have pictured George Bush sitting in a classroom as the military guys in the movie scrambled in vain to get the presidential authority needed to shoot down civilian aircraft).

As for too soon .... well, this movie played almost like a docudrama. And it was unique for having just about every character who lived through the day played in the movie by the actual person who was that character. This lent a credence to this movie that could never have been achieved otherwise ... and is certainly a good reason for producing the film close in time to the actual events portrayed.



And now, to go back on my word, I will say one more thing about Cast Away...
Another very good moral of the story is personal responsibility. Early in the film, Hanks is shown shying away from any emotional connection to his best friend vis-a-vis the pal's wife's battle with cancer. Upon return from a major survival experience four years later, a changed man, Hanks apologizes to his friend for not being there for him when his wife died. Hanks then apologizes to his remarried girlfriend for being absent for four years. He does not play the victim, but rather accepts personal responsibility for the events of his life and their oft-tragic consequences. He has grown as a man, and his exceptional level of personal responsibility is an uplifting inspiration.



I'll stop gushing about this film now. But the fact that mousepod has bumped it up his Netflix queue makes it all worthwhile, tee hee. :blush:

Oh, and I think someone should check the temperature in Hell, because Gemini Cricket and I both like 'Minority Report.'


( And I think it's just the two of us who do.)

I didn't mind Minority Report. It was a Phillip K Dick novella first you know. That has to count for something.

Just because I called it "shameless" doesn't mean I didn't like it. Count me in, too.

^ OMG, the fan base for Minority Report just doubled!


Yeah, I never heard any of that about this film either. Though there are many people who are still 9/11 overloaded. And it's certainly a gut-wrenching film that may be too sad or emotional for some people at some times.

Many of you here might know that zapppop has a phonographic memory. He remembers with uncanny precision everything he hears. What is less well known is that he has a photographic memory as well. I took him to see United 93, and that was a terrible mistake. He cannot shake disturbing imagery. It won't go away from his consciousness, and it will disturb his dreams tremendously.



I happen to like true life stories of fantastical happenings. Truth is almost always stranger, and better, than fiction. And since I can barely remember where I put my keys, any emotional damage is quickly forgotten. :)

I was moderately approving of Minority Report and Rotten Tomatoes shows a 92% rating for it so you can't be all that alone.

Yay, iSm and I agree on 'MR'. But there have been films we've agreed upon in the past. :)

Speaking of disturbing imagery, the 'eye scene' in 'Minority Report' is hard to shake. Eww. It reminded me of a clip from the 'Andalusian (sp?) Dog' that is also hard to shake. Very disturbing.

I noticed that Spielberg has some shocking imagery in his films. The eye scene in 'MR', the slaves being dragged off the boat in 'Amistad', the heart in 'Temple of Doom', 9/11 references in 'War of the Worlds' etc.

ISM, I am wondering what your thoughts are after seeing King Kong.

Well, it could have been ok with a little trimming of the horrific over-the-top stuff. Cut away before the brontosaurisi all tumble over each other in a rolling ball of dino feet and tails. Cut away before T-Rexes are swinging on vines. Leave giant bugs menacingly approaching, but cut stuff where they suck human heads or where the boy who's never held a rifle manages to shoot insects off people's bodies without hitting men. That would be a start.


I love every moment in New York City during the Great Depression. There's something about the way it was filmed ... the comedic style, the art direction, the color timing that I found simply perfect.

(Ok, maybe the ice dancing part could go.)


I like how Ann Darrow manages to "tame" Kong and eventually come to feel affection for him. I like that Carl Denham is a madman moviemaker on the lam. I actually didn't hate Jack Black in the role, and I even sorta bought Adrien Brody as the quirky romantic lead, Jack Driscoll. Certainly, the re-enactment aboard ship of the old King Kong scene between Darrow and Driscoll illustrated how stilted the characters and performances were in the original movie.


But somehow the performance of Kong seemed better in the old one. Though technically superb and very expressionfull, I didn't really warm to this Kong like I did the little puppet with the constantly shifting rabbit fur at the hands of Willis O'Brien. This Kong seemed too much like a merely giant gorilla instead of some kind of, i dunno, tortured, quasi-human soul. Oh, I felt some pathos for him, and the Empire State Building scene was magnificently realized. But the character of Kong, and ultimately this film of Kong, fell flat for me.

I just don't understand the why of it. Technically subperb, visually gorgeous, but ... other than to prohibit the Jeff Bridges / Jessica Lange / Dino DeLaurentis travesty from being the last word on the subject ... I don't really see any compelling reason for this film to have been remade.


But, a few cuts of the absurdly silly stuff, and it's a downright ok movie. Certainly a better remake than Poseidon. This one did try to expand on the story's characters ... and that's gotta count for something..

Wow. I was just looking at that top 10 moneymakers (domestic) at boxofficemojo.com:

1 Titanic Par. $600,788,188 --1997
2 Star Wars Fox $460,998,007 --1977
3 Shrek 2 DW $441,226,247 --2004
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $435,110,554 --1982
5 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fox $431,088,301 --1999
6 Spider-Man Sony $403,706,375 --2002
7 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Fox $380,270,577 --2005
8 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King NL $377,027,325 --2003
9 Spider-Man 2 Sony $373,585,825 --2004
10 The Passion of the Christ NM $370,782,930 --2004

Wow. Nothing's going to touch 'Titanic' for awhile, eh? I remember it being successful but not that successful. Amazing.

I thought Titanic sucked. Hated everything about it.

Hated The Phantom Menace. (I didn't hate Revenge of the Sith....wasn't great, but I didn't hate it.)

Everything else on there I enjoyed, with the exception of Passion, which I have never seen.

I can't believe Revenge of the Sith beat out Return of the King - and where are the other LotR films?

Soooooo, you wonder why Hollywood lives sequels? Half of thosse on the list are sequels.

I thought I was the only one who hated Titanic. I thought the whole thing was just horrible, and endless.

Another Titanic hater here. Dullsville.

Same here. Big yawner.

We watched Ghost World last night. Not a bad little movie. Kinda Daria meets Harold and Maude. Definitely aimed directly at teenages, it could have gone a little deeper than it did. But enjoyable none-the-less.

Two Towers is 12 and Fellowship is 17.

Here's the list if you adjust for inflation:

1. Gone with the Wind - $1,293,085,600
2. Star Wars - $1,139,965,400
3. The Sound of Music - $911,458,400
4. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial - $907,867,700
5. The Ten Commandments - $838,400,000
6. Titanic - $821,413,700
7. Jaws - $810,704,400
8. Doctor Zhivago - $794,466,900
9. The Exorcist - $707,639,500
10. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - $639,470,400


Saw The Da Vinci Code last night. It does a lot to mask the terrible writing of the novel but not nearly enough and is about 40 minutes too long. The movie (and the book) should have ended when a certain person is arrested as the rantings of that arrestee create seeds of doubt that would make for an interesting "Lady or the Tiger" debate if the movie ended there. The final revelations are just stupid so they can be easily cut.

I actually enjoyed the movie pretty much from the time they left the Louvre to that arrest. One big question though that I wonder about:

And the number is 7 if you could movies that are sequels or produced sequels.


I liked Titanic (though I have seen it since I saw it in the theater). My dislikes on the list are Episode 1 and Episode 3 which I despise. I'm all not a big fan of Return of the King and thought it a mess of the movie displaying the uncontrolled extravagance that Jackson would put on full display in King Kong.

On the inflation adjusted list the only movie I don't like are Gone with the Wind and Snow White. I find The Exorcist suspensfully made but since I never found it remotely scary it loses something for me.

I'm waiting for Titanic II

While waiting for Chris' plane to arrive so I could go to the airport, I watched a portion of "Guess Who's Comming to Dinner" on TCM. I forgot how much I LOVE that film. Lucky for me, I have a $50 Amazon credit so I bouth a copy of it today - along with a few other classecs, including the Film Noir box set that includes Detour.

You're in luck.

Why is it not so hard for me to imagine that movie could be made?

Hated 'Titanic'. Loved the sinking scene.

Love 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner', hated 'Guess Who?'. Bleh. (Watched it on a flight from MA to CA. Bleh.)

'Ghost World' is a cool movie. I liked it. I loved the song at the beginning 'Jaan Pechann Ho'. I have it on my iPod.

I loved 'Spiderman 2', 'SW:ANH" and 'Return of the King'. I can't watch 'ET' anymore - burnout. I loved Jennifer Saunders in 'Shrek 2'.
:)

We watched Shopgirl a few nights ago. I liked it. I'm a big Jason Schwartzman fan, but I've liked him better in other movies. Claire Danes was fine and I've always had a soft spot for Steve Martin. I enjoyed the sparcity of the film. Not spectacular, but good enough.

Yeah, that opening scene was great.

Except I can't do that head shaking dance thing she does. When I break into her dance moves, I get dizzy spells. :D


Oh, I love 'Rushmore'. That movie is so much fun. That was Jason Schwartzman, right?

I've never seen Titanic. I have seen Ghost World 'cause I dig Thora Birch.

Ghost World was mostly great. I had a particular interest in how they portrayed her, as I also didn't go to college after high school, didn't get a job right away, and felt rather disaffected for a while. Not to mention feeling completely seperated from the interests of the stupid sheep around me. Spot on.

The relationship was awesome. Buschemi is amazing. I can't imagine making money off of being creepy and not killing myself, but he pulls it off, and well. I love him but I'd never touch him ;)

It was a bit slow in parts but I'd totally recommend it as a great offbeat movie.

I love how the taste of the movie-going public gets so much better if we account for the fact that movies cost $12.50 now vs. $0.50 then. I don't love every movie on the adjusted-for-inflation list, but note how there's not a single sequel or remake in the top ten.


I'm not a hater of Titanic. The story is cornball melodrama, but I just take it as a story in the style of the era being portrayed. I'm too big a Titanic geek to not appreciate the faithful recreation of the ship and the astounding way in which the sinking was portrayed. I've come to love the film more since the recent DVD release, which has some deleted scenes (one big action scene in particular) which I think actually make the film better ... albeit a bit longer.


As bad as Phantom Menace was (and it stank like last year's fish), it was Citizen Kane compared to the horror of Revenge of the Sith.

And Return of the King was a freaking mess. That series let me down so much. If only Fellowship of the Ring would have been the travesty that I expected of it. But, no. It had to go and be the most frelling awesome adaptation of LotR I could conceive. And the films went downhill from there. By the time of the last one, which made the most money and won all the awards, the series had devolved into trash. This might have been expected if the films were lensed consecutively. But bits and pieces of all the films were shot concurrently, and it's a mystery why the first one was so great, the middle was pretty bad, and the third one sucked curdled beans.



My movie pick of the week: A History of Violence. Sheer brilliance.

Sitting in my entertainment center, unopened are:

The Usual Suspects
Office Space
The Virgin Suicides
Garden State

And did you know they are making yet another Fast and the Furious? None of the original. And notice how very little of the cast has names while much of the cast is credited as "cheerleaders" or something similar.

Nick Barcelona .... Raver on the Street
April Betts .... Cheerleader
Lucas Black .... Sean Boswell
Daniel Booko .... Clay's buddy
Brandon Brendel .... Clay's Buddy #1
Zachery Ty Bryan .... Clay
Stefanie Budiman .... Cowgirl
Max Charles .... Stilts
Greg D'Agostino
Caroline de Souza Correa .... Isabella
Drew Michael Gallagher .... Student
Ashika Gogna .... Cheerleader
Nikki Griffin .... Cindy
Henry Jaderlund .... Jacob
Sung Kang
Masa Kanome .... Tea-Hair Gang
Nathalie Kelley
Keiko Kitagawa .... Reiko
Jamie D. Knee .... Cheerleader
Branden Weslee Kong .... Skateboarder
Masami Kosaka .... Announcer
Collin Leonard .... Blackie
Tara Louise .... Cheerleader
Joan May .... Blonde Ghetto Girl
Sandra McCurdy .... Model
Danny Ray McDonald II .... Bully #3
Leonardo Nam
Tyler Nelson .... Mascot
Eriq F. Prince .... Navy Working Class Officer
Trey Sanford .... Bully
Lindzi Scharf .... Cheerleader
Amber Stevens
Don Tai .... Basher
Brian Tee .... D.K.
David V. Thomas .... Clay's Buddy D
Dennis P. Thomas .... Egghead
Jason J. Tobin
Satoshi Tsumabuki
Bow Wow .... Twinkie
Jade Wu .... Tea-Hair Gang
Stuart W. Yee
Leila Zia .... Cheerleader

Oooooh, The Usual Suspects was my movie pick-of-the-week three weeks ago. Love it.

A History of Violence was pretty good but only because of Maria Bello. Take out her character and I don't know that I would have been much interested. A couple months later and I'm still working it out in my head what was going on with her.

The upcoming film on my "want to see" list is the Al Gore doc. Freaking tree hugger I am.

I'm thinking of easing over to Phoenix and taking Leo. You should come. :D

Now THAT would be a good time!

Hey - we could even invite Al Gore! I'm sure he'd hop right on a fuel guzzling carbon buring plane to get here and then take a multi car entourage from the airport to the theatre, and then do the same thing going back to where he started.

Moan moan moan and you shouldn't be so mean to Al Gore.

If it weren't for him, we wouldn't be able to talk like this.

Al Gore reminds me of George Orwell's Animal Farm.

This guy was being interviewed today on some NPR show (don't ask me whih one) and he kept using the word "Authentic" over and over to describe Al Gore. I was trying to WILL him to shut up. If you have to call someone authentic over and over they are not very authentic. Authenticity should be self evident, don't you think?

What am I, chopped liver? I live in Phoenix (ok, Phoenix metro). :p

If you do watch it, be aware that apparently he presents a completely out-of-leftfield figure for how much the sea level is calculated to rise by 2100 (20 feet when the consensus worst-case estimate is 35 inches).

Otherwise the skeptical environment scientist (in the "global warming is happening, but he's skeptical as to how much it is a result of human activity" camp) I know felt the numbers presented were reasonably accurate even if he differed in the final conclusions.

I just have this picture of "The Day After Tomorrow" in my head when thinking about the Gore flick.

Oooooo This is turning into a real party. Should we swing by with the motorcade or do you just wanna meet us?;)

I'll be waiting for my motoercade Mr. McSam.

I'm most certainly going to see the Gore flick this weekend. I won't shoot the messenger, so he can motorcade all he wants. I drive around alone in my SUV ... it doesn't mean I have no authority to say the sky is falling.

Being a campmate of Alex, I want to see what the film has to say about what level of global warming is the result of human activity, and what is simply a natural cycle. Either way, I'm also curious to find out - - especially if (as I suspect) it's mostly nature ... what the frell we can do about it.


Besides I need a little gravitas after seeing X-3 last night. The social commentary was played in a lower key than in the other films in this comic book series. It was a fun movie, but likely my least favorite X film. That said, I enjoyed it more than other big summer fare so far, such as Poseidon or The DaVinci Code (neither of which I hated).

I still haven't seen Titanic. :D

Apparently a lot of people will need gravitas. I read today that X-3 is now the second highest opening day ever with about $45 million on Friday, behind only Revenge of the Sith.

I saw X3 tonight. I thought it was fun. Not super great cinema, and considerably less finesse than the other two, but there were some cool moments.

I have lived a pretty sheltered life. I just saw Treasures of the Sierra Madre, Godfather 2, and 3. Also I'm working on seeing many others. I sometimes wonder if my parents should have introduced them to me. I don't want to blame them because they always worked long hours. I saw Over the Hedge on Tuesday with my wife and loved it.

We saw Over the Hedge last night. It was cute. I did realize why I prefer matinees, between the ticket prices and the crowded theater...

There were 4 people "holding" 2 entire rows of prime seating. It was a very full theater. I found this incredibly rude. It is one thing to hold a seat while someone hits the concession stand, but don't hold 2 rows of seats on a Saturday night. The majority of the group didn't even show up!!

Saw X-3 over the weekend. I enjoyed it as a fun action flick that just happened to feature comic characters, but as an overall film not so much. There was just something missing, and I can't fully put my finger on what that something was. Most conversations I've seen about the film have been dominated by the uber comic book geeks whining about all the inconsistencies between the film and the comics, but that wasn't what was wrong for me. In general I felt like they were trying a little bit too hard to "end" the franchise. Of course now that the film has made so much money, they'll be coming up with same lame ways to undo some of what they did in this one.

I was sitting at home bored last night with the kids in bed and the wife reading a book, so I decided to split and see X-Men 3.

Enjoyed it, and it is my favorite of the three installments.

Out of curiosity, did everybody who saw X3 stick around after the credits for the big reveal at the end of them?

What was missing for me is that most of the participants of the last battle were characters that had absolutely no back story or involvement. I've never read the comic books so I don't really know anything about Collosus, Kitty, or Beast. And yet these were half of the good-guy team saving our asses. Same on the bad side, were names even provided for half of the lead bad guys?

I did stick around, but only because I heard someone next to me before it started talking about how they had to stick around.

As far as ending the franchise, I think prior to the movie premiering they had alluded to this being the last X-Men movie with those lead characters.

Here's my miscellaneous movie musing: I hate how the battalion of teenagers with brooms invades the theater before the credits are over. Some of us want to sit there and watch the credits! And no, you are not excused for sweeping behind my feet.

I do like DVDs.

I loved X-3. It is my favorite of the three. I was a huge fan of the comic books and was delighted by a lot of things they got right.

This isn't a spoiler, but did anyone else think that the guy with the sharp things coming out of his face has the worse mutant power ever?

I kept getting reminded of that Family Guy episode where Meg had the power to make her fingernails grow.

As opposed to the giant mob of mutants whose only mutant powers seemed to be the ability to run really fast into Wolverines blades?

But I was thinking that was probably the primary motivation for those mutants willing to be cured. "Hey, might as well be normal so that they'll stop making fun of the suckiness of my power.

For me the award goes to Storm who seems to do the least with a very strong power.

Wolverine isn't even a mutant, is he? He was a military experiment, right? Or is his healing power the mutant thing?

His healing power makes him the mutant, which is why they did the experiments

This was the weakest of the three to me (of three not particularly strong, but enjoyable films). I, too, cannot quite put my finger on what I felt was "missing," but it just seemed lacking a certain something. They did the requisite mutant-to-homosexuality comparisions, they killed off or power-neutered most of the characters, and yet it just seemed to lack a certain indefinable thing.

I found it enjoyable though. I really like the bookend elements with the first film, such as Magneto's plot involving the Statue of Liberty, iconic guardian of the east coast, in the first film ... and his plot this time involving the Golden Gate bridge, yada yada yada of the west coast. Also both films ending with Magneto playing chess ... this time, all meloncholy without Charles and sapped of power to move the metalic pieces (heheh, they were plastic pieces in the first film that he likewise lacked the power to move).

The Usual Suspects is slowing rising to the top of my favorite movies list.

Having been reminded of the point of the day by G.C.'s memoriam thread, I have switched tonight's DVD menu to feature Saving Private Ryan, one of the few war movies I admire.

My movie companion dragged me out the second the credits started. Can someone fill me in on the post-credit X3 scene?

I have never much cared for Saving Private Ryan. There are a lot of reasons but way up on the list is the fact that the whole movie is a flashback by a person who wasn't there.

I loved the storming the beach sequence in 'Saving Private Ryan'. It is superbly done.

A couple of my favorite WWII dramas are 'The Longest Day' and 'Band of Brothers'. I consider 'BoB' to be one long awesomely made film. (Although certain parts are better than others.)

X-3: I think a big thing that was missing from this film was one main story. It seemed like several stories all patched together. The other two films main focus was Wolverine, this one centered in on several issues throughout. There's the Jean Grey 'Dark Phoenix' storyline, the Magneto 'fight the cure' storyline, the Storm 'takes over the school' storyline, the Rogue/Iceman/Kitty Pride love triangle, the Angel and jerky father storyline, the Leech 'I want to be free' thing... But being such a huge fan of the X-men since I was a kid, I liked what they did. It played like a comic book. And that's fine, I guess.

I don't know if it's just me, but I cringe when they off characters in the X-Men movies. Even the bad guys...

Yeah, X-3 was a proverbial blood-bath, wasn't it? But I appreciate that it goes very far towards a guarantee that this will be the last X-Men film, despite the great box office and the tag at the end ... which I will put in spoiler tags for no particular reason:




As for Private Ryan, I'm sorry Alex did not appreciate the twist of a seeming flash-back not being a flash-back. I think it was a brilliant device to fool the audience into believing that the main character lives through his harrowing war experiences. In such a literally blood-bath movie, I believe the audience would have otherwise been more than half expecting Tom Hanks' to buy the farm. Since he is such an appealing character, I think his death as a surprise and shock was a worthy goal, completely justifying a bit of cinematic trickery with hokey film conventions of "the flashback."

It is noteworthy that the film did not cut from the Matt Damon's character's present-day close up to a shot of Tom Hanks. There were six or seven shots before Hanks was revealed. And since 'old man Damon' was shown staring at a tombstone when the cut to the past happened, a "flashback" of the person who died is, I believe, quite legitimate.



In light of a certain film currently out in theaters, it was bittersweet to watch yet another movie where Tom Hanks really enlivens an entire picture with his considerable presence.

My eyes are crossed. Following link to link across internetdom, I found a wikipedia summary of everything having to do with the X-Men. It's quite a tome. A lot has happened since I stopped reading the comic around the Secret Wars era... I was delighted to find out that Colossus is no longer dead. But maybe we should leave that for the Miscellaneous Comic Book Musings thread.
:D

By the way, did anyone catch the CG facelifts that Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart got? 20 years younger. Wow. Pretty amazing, almost flawless. I bet Warren Beatty will want that sort of treatment in his next film. :D

They ended up looking like Odo from Deep Space Nine (particularly Stewart).

lol! :D
They didn't look thaaat bad. But, yeah, something wasn't quite right. Too shiny? I don't know...

We saw An Inconvenient Truth this weekend, and it was the most upsetting film and well-composed argument I've witnessed in a long time.

Put it this way: the impending future made the snot- and tear-stains on my sleeve more voluminous than "The Notebook," and I took the bus to work this morning.

It needs to be played in every single school from coast to coast-- really, from latitude to latitude. If the older generation of Americans refuse to listen and change, it is completely up to us to change this Earth before we destroy it.

The most important message within the film is that the concept is not an exaggeration of doomsday. It's plain scientific fact. We are already seeing the consequences of our mistakes (especially the rising drought and flooding, and more like Katrina is coming.) But we can change it for the future! We can reduce our CO2 like we reduced chlorofluorocarbins. We are completely capable-- and have the technology in place-- to reverse this problem. The government and the car companies MUST address it or we're screwed. And not long-term screwed, people... within our lifetime.

Please. Los Angelenos, go see this film. Everybody, when it comes to your area, go out of your way to listen. Gore may not be your favorite free-wheelin' public speaker, but he has a very sincere message and I was wholly moved by it. I think you will be, too.

By the way, they present a fair amount of scientific evidence that the cyclical weather fluctuation is much, much smaller than the pollution-caused weather fluctuation. Yes, ice ages and thaws happen naturally, but the C02 causes it to be much, much worse.

Mystique, aka Raven Darkholme

Oh....forgot to mention that I saw the Snakes on a Plane trailer when I went to X-3. Feaky Tiki's avatar reminded me. Looks perfect for all the aerophidiophobics out there.:)

I also saw a trailer for a kind of funny looking movie called "My Super Ex Girlfriend".

I swear, I'm almost more excited for Snakes on a Plane, than I am for Dead Man's Chest.

Its going to be wicked awesome

I hear from an unnamed source that it is, in fact, not very good at all.

I'm not surprised.

Have you ever noticed how a movie trailer is an artform all by itself? Movie trailers can make any movie look like it's going to be great. Often a highlight for me at the movies is seeing some great trailers. Love it.

Not surprising. It just looked like a pretty funny premise, and almost any movie can look good in a trailer.

Conversely, any movie can look bad in a trailer.

I don't think any of the Pixar trailers have been too inviting, but the films have been great. The Cars trailers actually repluse me, but the buzz on the film is excellent.

We watched the BBC masterpiece theater production of David Copperfield last night, the one with Daniel Radcliffe and the woman that plays Prof. McGonagal. It was pretty darn good. I haven't watched the ending yet, so don't tell me what happens.

Dame Maggie Smith

And David Copperfield ends this way

NO!!!!! Why did I open the spoiler?! Now I know he ends up with Agnes. Or she dies. That's what I get for not reading the book. :p

And is Dame a title? How does one get that title?

Well, you gotta be British, for starters, so that let's me out. In America, you can be a dame, There is nothing like a dame, nothing in the world, there is nothing you can name that is anything like a dame.....yada yada yada

Ha! I was hoping you'd resist the spoiler and you MUST read the book, it's wonderful! ;)

I was totally in that musical....

As far as I'm concerned, there are only 2 dames in the world. Dame Judi Dench and Dame Maggie Smith. So there.
:D

I love it when it turns out I had absolutely no idea what a movie was about. I just watched American Gigolo. The only thing I knew about it was that scene of Gere picking out his clothes while singing with the radio. Somehow I formed a childhood preconceived notion of it from just that and never any interest.

It's not exactly a good movie but it was more interesting than I expected. I'm still confused as to why Lauren Hutton is considered attractive, though.

As in Deuce Bigolow: American Gigolo? :confused:

Just don't bring up European Gigolo, I think Disney should get the rights to that, just to lock it into the Disney Vault forever.

You guys are all captains on the team of talking about the subject of a question and not answering it. What the heck is a Dame? Is it the female version of a sir?

I believe that is correct.

from wikipedia, because you know how accurate it is.

Oh yes, that's the one. European Gigolo.

I've been meaning to add my review of the move Elizabethtown. I was lured in by Orlando Bloom's hotness, but alas, he did not deliver as far as acting goes. Or perhaps he did, and the movie just sucked. I felt tricked. Bad boy, Orlando.

Dame Diana Rigg, Dame Joan Sutherland and Dame Elizabeth Taylor, dameit!;)

Just in case that was a serious question, no.

Alright, add them to the list.

Don't forget Dame Elton John.

Love her.

OMG, I did! Love Reggie Dwight

Thanks for the validation GC ;)

GC is the final authority on Knighthoods.

The Queen of England herself considers GC to be a top advisor, and "too good" to be a knight himself.

I'm going to find myself with some time tomorrow. Do I see The DaVinci Code or Thank you for smoking.

And can anyone talk me out of getting Netflix again?

See Thank You for Smoking.

Neither one is a particularly strong movie but Thank You For Smoking is by far the better of the two.

Alas, that seems to have been the problem with the Director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven, which I had been soooo looking forward to. The theatrical version seemed choppy, and was infamous for its Director (Ridley Scott) being very unhappy with the studio version that was released.

The expanded cut just released on DVD is indeed a lot better, but the movie just fails to gel ... and it's all because of Orlando Bloom. Or rather, his character, Balian, and the fact that he is both written and played so wanly, so understated, and so low key that Barry White cannot hit that note ... the movie just never sparks.

It's a fascinating look at a pivot point in The Crusades, expertly mounted. But it revolves around a character who never generates much interest or momentum. Too bad.

Hottie is not enough.

As much as I love Mel Brooks and Nathan Lane, I barely got through 'The Producers: The Musical' movie. It was horrible. The play was good (one of my faves), but the director of this film didn't know how to translate this story to film. She even had the original to work from, but it didn't work. Nathan Lane is hysterical in places, but not enough to save the film. If you do see it, watch the bit at end of the credits. In fact, the couple of songs during the credits are pretty good. The outtakes on the DVD made me laugh harder than the film itself did.

See An Inconvenient Truth.

I'd see a whole movie revolving around the Leper King. Edward Norton is effective even if you never see his face.

I'd go see it if I wasn't in such a blah mood lately. I've been looking for escapist type movies to distract me. I may have to wait for this one until DVD. I hear it's awesome, though.

I watched "Guess Who's Comming to Dinner" last night. I saw the middle portioon while I was waiting for Chris' plane to land and just had to see the entire thing again. I love Kate!

I had to look up Katherine Houghton who played the daughter in the film. She was Katherine Hepburn's niece in reality. She hasn't had much of a film presence through the years but she was "Mrs. Spaulding" in Kinsey. If only I could remember who Mrs. Spaulding was.

Curses! I narrowed it down to two and you have to go throw a kink in the mix. :p

I'll check the playing times and whatever one starts first I'll go see.

:) I watched that the other night too. I just love Spencer's monologue at the end. I hadn't seen that film in years.

Spencer Tracy was a pro. I love a lot of his movies. I just saw 'Judgement of Nuremberg' the other day. Wow, he was great in that.
:)

I ordered a film that GC recommended today and added the Tracy/Hepburn collection to the order. Gotta get that Super Saver Shipping!

Well it was the same direc tor from the stage version making her film debut. I haven't seem it yet myself, but it's on my Netflix list.

Going back a page or so the the X-men talk... If the chatter I've been reading so far this week holds true, they seem to be going the spin-off route rather than following it up with an X-Men 4. They already had Wolverine and Magneto films in development and seem to be pushing to make them happen a bit faster now. Today I read of two more potential films. One about Emma Frost, a mutant who never even appeared in the first 3 films and the other film would be more about the lives of Xavier's young students with less of the save the world stuff.

I don't know why, but we saw Date Movie the other night. if I had a vomit smiley I would totally use it to describe that film. Most of it was so dumb that it wasn't even funny. Worse than that, Many scenes were just so disgusting that I couldn't bare to watch them. I literally turned away and didn't look a couple of times.

Too bad Mel didn't take the helm on this one. I think it would have been funnier.

Well, I'm not planning on seeing An Inconvenient Truth, but I oft read reviews of movies I am not planning on seeing.....here's a scorcher on that movie and Gore.

NY Post review

If what is in this review is accurate, there are two specific things that are laughable. First, he compares himself to Churchill. Second, he claims that China is on the cutting edge of environmentalism. I don't know which is funnier, frankly. I'd have to say the second.

As a follow up, since it is too late to edit, I will point out that most reviews are very positive about it. Rotten Tomatoes has an 87% rating last I checked.

Still won't be seeing it.

We just finished watching 'Transamerica'. I really liked it. Felicity Huffman was great and the actor playing her son was great, too. It's a simple story and moves too slow in places, but it's well done. There's one huge problem in this film that ruined the last 1/4 for me. There's an actress playing her mother that is so over the top that she made me want to puke. Ugh. Almost ruined the whole thing for me. But luckily, she wasn't in the bulk of the film.

So, I really liked it. :)

With that being said, I wished a man had played the character of Bree in the film. I loved what Huffman did with the role, but to see a male in the part would have brought us right into Bree's world completely. There were moments in this film where I thought, 'Look it's Felicity Huffman with no make-up and a low voice.' That kind of thing takes away from a film rather than adds to it. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself right, but to see a man (Bree was born a man going through the process of becoming a woman) making the transition is much more compelling than seeing a female pretending to be a man who wants to be a woman.

I recommend it. And I will go to my deathbed saying that 'Travellin' Thru' is a much better song than 'It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp'. :rolleyes:

I bought the book (Gore's IC), but haven't given it a look yet. It'll be a while before it plays here.

How odd ... I just finished watching TransAmerica, too.

Right this minute, in fact. And with 'Travelin' Thru' still playing over the end credits as I type this, I also vow to gravetravel knowing it's better than that lame Pimp song.


I didn't have the baggage of knowing Felicity Huffman from anything else, so I had no problem with her in the role. I know it might have been more "authentic" for a man to be playing the main character ... but only if the man had gone thru the whole sex change thing (short of the oh-so-final dicksideout part). The character was 79.6% woman, so I think Huffman fit the role to a T.


I really liked the movie. And I didn't even have a problem with over-the-top mom, since that was clearly the high-farce portion of the film that was meant to be a break from more serious, more slow-paced fare that characterized the bulk of the movie.

Not that the remainder of the film was humorless. The pic was laced with some pretty funny stuff. Haha, my favorite line was when Toby (Felicity's son in the movie), unexpectedly attending a trannie party, is amazed at the geniuneness of a female-to-male transexual, and the 'guy' says back to him, "We walk among you."



[plot points revealed:]



The movie was very entertaining. It didn't hurt that, due to some people who've come into my life of late, I've had transexualism on my mind a bit.

It didn't hurt that the kid who plays Toby (Kevin Zegers) is an unbelievable HoTTie. (nor that he plays a gay hustler in the film .... hubba hubba)


I can totally see why Huffman was nominated for, and won, so many awards for this performance. And wow, I can even see why a Dolly Parton song was nominated for an Oscar ... and was robbed.




.

Just finished watching the ADigitalMan versions of the Star Wars saga (all 7 movies, including 'Episode II.V: The Clone Wars') and it occurred to me that I have seen this series more times than I should have. I have a friend on the opposite end of the spectrum who is proud to have never seen a single SW movie. While I find the whole "defining oneself by something you didn't do" a little stupid, I also worry that I notice where all the changes are in this fan-edit series.

Watching the series in Lucas' order (I-VII), I find myself wondering why the worst two movies are the first and last...

I just finished watching one of my all time favorite movies on TCM: 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'. Call me a sucker but I love Frank Capra. If you haven't seen this film, rent it. It's so awesome. And surprisingly timely.

Makes me tear up every single freakin' time I watch it.

:)

We watched another Frank Capra film last night - in honor of you, my dear GC. We watched "You Can't Take It WIth You". What character did you play again? Somehow, I decided it was the Russian. I'll have to go look.

Mr. DePinna (the guy in the toga). He was actually split into 2 characters for the movie: Mr. DePinna and Mr. Poppins. For the sake of exposition, they introduced the Poppins character for the movie...
Did you like the movie? I love Capra...
:)

I loved the film! Capra knows how to tell a story.

I introduced my 12 year old daughter to Simon Birch tonight. Hadn't watched it in a long, long time.

Finally saw 'The Family Stone'. I loved it.:D

Out of curiosity, have you read the book? It is one of my favorites and as a result I couldn't really stand the movie (I know, I should view them as separate things but it has just enough of the book in it that I couldn't do it).

It was a great movie. Not what I expected. Did you think it was a comedy going into it?

I had an idea- the casting was a bit of a tipoff, and I read a few things here and there about some of the characters in the film. I loved the Deaf son and his partner, and I appreciated how they used casual pigeon-sign, which is what so many families with Deaf/HOH kids do. They were completely believable, especially in the way they just habitually signed and spoke, even when they weren't addressing him specifically. We have so many of the persons represented in this film within our own family, so it really hit home. The scene at the dinner table, when they were discussing adopting, and Meridith blunders when addressing 'normal' people and such- that was a double whammy, because Deaf people aren't considered 'normal' by so many in society, and the same attitude is directed at gay people as well. Diane Keaton's response was awesome- she was in total mama-bear mode.

Have not. Perhaps I should.

Here's the thing about juding a film by its reviews instead of seeing it: things are taken out of context.

The context was: compared to the United States, China is on the cutting edge of environmentalism.

Which is true. As it is currently scheduled, by 2011 California emissions standards will have reached what China's emissions standards currently are today. And that's just California. Not the other 49 states. Most or all of them don't even HAVE an emissions policy.

I'm not saying the man is Churchill, but someday when the ignorance-is-bliss crowd is forced to acknowledge the problem, Al Gore will have been on record since the 1970s trying to address it.

Is China on the cutting edge of environmental cleanliness or just on the cutting edge of environmental regulation? They aren't necessarily the same thing and currently 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world (by air quality) are in China.

I haven't seen the movie yet (though I will) so I am not trying to rebut any claim. But China is an incredibly dirty country (particularly on water quality) so I'm just wondering on what basis "cutting edge" is designed. They can have all the laws they want but they're meaninless if, like most signatories to Kyoto, they'll never be enforced or observed.

We watched "Laura: last night. Gene Tierney was fantastic as the title character in this wonderful film. I've been in such a Noir mood lately and this film fit the mood perfectly.

Seeing Vincent Price in the "stud" role was fun and different from the Price I was used to. Dana Andrews was great as the brooding detective (even though I couldn't help singing the RHPS tune) and Judith Anderson (who will always be Mrs. Danvers to me) was supurb as Laura's Aunt.

I may be going on an Otto Preminger kick.

Yeah, Laura definately stands the test of time. this was the first time I saw it and was captivated from the beginning - love the Noir elements as well as all the swanky set decorations.

Ditto to what Alex said. China can say what they want. China can make whatever claims they want. But that does not make it so. It simply is not the case that they have a "cleaner" country than we do, or that they are anywhere close to that.

AND he invented the Internet!

I just watched 'Gosford Park' on DVD. Love it. It's chock full of Clive Owen goodness. The film's not for everyone but the cast is stellar.
:)

I went to a drive in double feature last night and saw X3 and The Sentinel.

X3 I had seen before, but stayed for the whole credits this time. Damn those directors and their teasing.

By the time The Sentinel started I was pretty tired, I liked it, but only thought it was ok.

Assuming that is Kyle Minogue in the video I hav eto say she doesn't do much for me. Her face kind of looks like someone punch Nicole Kidman in the face a few times. Or Conan did an "if they did it" segment with Sheryl Crow and Nicole Kidman.

I still enjoy watching this video on a loop.

Alex, was the above post in response to the video link posted in the 'If I was straight' thread? Just wondering.......

Whoops, yes.

Heh heh....I do that all the time.

Btw, no way Eric gets to see your video- we'll end up with all sorts of power tools that he has no clue how to use.:eek:

I was surprised that the Aniston/Vaughn movie did better than 'X-3' this weekend. I was thinking X would have done about $40 mil this weekend. Interesting.

I watched The Thin Man last night. It's as good as I remembered it being.

Saw An American Haunting a couple of weeks ago. Yawn

But Donald Sutherland is still freakin awesome!

"Waiter, will you serve the nuts? I mean, would you serve the guests the nuts?"
Love that movie.
:)

I love Asta.

How many Martinis have you had?
Seven.
Waiter, I'll take 7 Martinis. Just line them up right here.

Or something like that.

That film is one of my favorites. I tried to show it at a New Years Eve party a few years ago, but it just didn't work with a crowd. One would think that a drunk crowd could relate! ;)

Nick Charles: Oh, it's alright, Joe. It's alright. It's my dog. And, uh, my wife.
Nora Charles: Well you might have mentioned me first on the billing.

Busy week in the movie viewing department for us. While in Alaska, we saw 4.

First, finally saw 40 Year Old Virgin. As promised, it's a funny movie. Many many laughs, good characters. Steve Carrel always cracks me up.

Also caught Ray. Very well put togethe movie. Jamie Fox definitely did a fine job in the role.

Hero, the Jet Li movie that Quentin Tarantino had a hand in bringing to the US, was absolutely beautiful. A truly entertaining film.

And we did see one actual new movie, X-Men 3. Eh. Pretty bad, if you ask me.

Speaking of Tarantino, I very recently saw Kill Bill Vol. 1. What a completely stupid and ridiculous movie.

Loved 'Hero'. I liked it about as much as I liked 'Crouching Tiger'. 'House of Seven Daggers'... meh....

It's 6, and she asks for 5 more.

I can't believe I let my Thin Man boxed set sit on my end table in shrink wrap for so long (I bought it not too long after it came out). But the good thing is that there are 6 more, none of which I've ever seen.

The next 2 are good. The rest... well, you'll see.

The next one has Jimmy Stewart in it! :)

I saw that on the box!

I also loved the trailer for The Thin Man: "why are you impersonating a book cover?"

Um, Kill Bill Vol. 1 is one of the finest pieces of cinema ever made.


(Sigh, I have fond memories of when, once, SCAeeegles and I weren't on polar opposites of something or other.)

Have a Thin Man Party, I had two and they were fabulous, I will continue the trend when I return west. Nothing like watching a good deco movie with vintage era cocktails (or in my case, Italian Sodas) and good foodstuffs. Then watch the first movie with a crowd, it's a crowd pleaser!

Back in my imbibing days, "Drink along with Nick & Nora" was always a fun way to turn a social gathering into a nice swanky drunken mess.... It's the easiest drinking game, just drink when they do...

Tonight I'll be watching the Phantom of the Paradise... just got the special edition DVD from France.

At the risk of agreeing with iSm too much ;), yes it totally freaking rocks. I enjoyed Vol. 2, but it just wasn't the masterpiece that Vol. 1 was.

We saw the first part of Walk the Line last night, and so far it seems pretty good. Joaquin and the chick whose name I can't think of both do a really good job.

Well, I'm not a drinker, but perhaps I could declare The Thin Man to be "in" and serve aqueous martinis in the dark?

Kill Bill Vol 1 is a great film.

X3 was fun to watch in the theaters and I enjoyed the stupid moments.

I've decided - I'm going to see Superman. I read an article about it in Wired that pushed me. I'm not forcing GD to come with me but it looks like he doesn't want to get left out. I may have to wear earplugs for the argument after we leave the theater ;)

Blink....blink....blink....to each their own, I suppose. Since you and tracilicious (edited to add - and now apparently CP) enjoyed it so (masterpiece? finest ever made?), I won't go harping on it.

Can I ask what made it so great?

It certainly wasn't Uma Thurman's feet.

It was a stylish homage to so many B-movie genres. It transcended everything it saluted.


I've been waiting for freakingever for a DVD box set that might have the international version (some of the violence was watered down for the U.S. release). I'm not bothering to buy Vol. 2 until then. It took a totally different turn, and was also a really good movie ... but not in the same league as Volume 1 (imo). Odd, though, that they were filmed and intented to be released as a single movie. The tone is so completely different between the two.

Volume One is kick-ass, rambunctious, hysterical, sly, lowbrow, highbrow fun galore. Uma Thurman (despite her feet) is a goddess, and Tarantino completely redeemed himself.



(Uma's new movie, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, makes for a funny trailer, but looks to be a stupid film. I hope to get my superhero kicks with Superman Returns on opening night at Grauman's Chinese. Warner Brothers is being very civilized in playing it at ten p.m. instead of making the fans wait until way-past-bedtime midnight.)

Kill Bill Volume 1 was an incredible movie. What made it for me was the Tarantino faithfully created a live action anime. From the cinematography right down to the over-the-top cartoon gore, it was completely faithful to the style, a perfect reproduction. Absolute genius.

And the actual anime segment was really coolsville, too!

I thought both Volume 1 and Volume 2 were diminished by the separation from the other and that it was a huge mistake to break it into two parts. I'll wait to own it until I can watch both versions in one seamless go (I may already be able to do that, I haven't actually looked at what is available on DVD).

Together they are a kick-ass movie, separately I was underwhelmed by both.

I liked it a lot, but I don't think it was 'one of the finest pieces of cinema ever made'.

I enjoyed the comic book type action in the first film and was completely bored by the second film. My favorite section of the first film was the carnage at Lucy Liu's headquarters. Love it. There's a scene where she walks in with her gang that totally rocks. The music, the editing is phenominal.

I'm not part of the 'Tarantino is God' bandwagon that so many film fans are part of. I think he's an okay director. His films are often too wordy and slow. I think play adaptations for a couple of his films are in order.

I loved 'Resevoir Dogs' and was underwhelmed by 'Pulp Fiction'.

Well, I guess I am once again (big shock) in the minority here.

How about 'Reservoir Dogs - On Ice'? :cool:

I'd go see that. The Resevoir Dogs vs The Ice Capades Skaters! :D

A kickline of skaters in black and white suits getting picked off during the robbery scene...

Imagine the fun they could have with the officer mutilation scene?

I find tha I am introducing my 12 year old to lots of movies lately. We watched "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" last night.

Based on the reaction to my "Kill Bill Vol.1" post, I am certain I am the only one here who loves that movie. I have always loved that movie.

Underwhelmed by Pulp Fiction? Underwhelmed by Pulp Fiction?! But...but...it's Pulp Fiction! Question, did you see it when it first came out, or later?

Bill & Ted's is totally non non non non non non NON heinous.

Bill and Ted's is most awesome, dude!

(ooooh, and new sig inspiration. Dude, I haven't had a sig in months!)


(And Alex, just so's ya know, it was not Tarantino who decided to split Kill Bill in two ... the studio insisted upon it. 4-hour movie and all. Quentin did not put up a big fight about it, but it was meant to be watched all at once ... and now with the magic of DVD, you can do just that.)

Saw it opening night. In Arizona... of all places! :D

I'm a huge fan of 'Resevoir Dogs' loved all of it. Even the ear scene. The cast was superb.

Now 'Pulp Fiction'...
There are parts I adore in this film. The movie begins with a bang. Love it. It sets up everything well. You know that this isn't going to be a family film. Truly brilliant beginning. The dance scene with Uma and Travolta is hysterical. Loved the cutting up the linear flow of the movie and rearranging the scenes, it was a nice touch. (A fun thing to do is think of the movie in its linear shape. If I remember it correctly, the movie actually ends with Bruce Willis riding off with his motorcycle. I forget where it actually starts, the meeting with Band Aid neck, I think...)
But that's where it ends for me.

I'm not big on films that portray violence in a realistic fashion for a laugh. 'Kill Bill 1' is hysterical. The violence is 'South Park' violence meets bloody Kung Fu movie from the 70's. That's funny. Watching someone with blood spurting out from their shoulder which is obviously coming from a hose is funny. Seeing a kid getting shot in the face in the back seat of a car with John Travolta laughing, isn't. And I do not need to see brains in Sam Jackson's Jeri Curl. Yuk.
The movie makes offing someone look kind of fun.
I found the Pawn Shop scene to be offensive. It hones in on the fears of someone being sodomized by a gay man. Like that happens every day. It portrayed someone gay as being weird with S&M partners in trunks. I thought it was a cheap attempt at freaking out the audience. The end of the scene has you rooting for a despicable mob boss. I don't agree with that. One has to look at the social implications of what they're putting on film and Tarantino didn't. (It's my same beef with Gibson's flaming prince and murder of his partner in 'Braveheart'. It was done for a laugh as was 'getting primeval on your ass', I found it unfunny.)
Not to mention that 2/3 of this film is boring boring boring. Let's talk about pancakes and Burger King and the cost of milkshakes for no apparent reason. The banter at the coffee house with the Resevoir Dogs set up each character as being somewhat likeable. You have no idea what they are capable of until later. It served a purpose. The banter in 'Pulp' often didn't serve a purpose. It was supposed to have come of as cool and, to me, it came off as dull.
The music in 'Pulp' was wonderful. My hat's off to Tarantino for using Dusty Springfield's 'Son of a Preacher Man' in his flick. Nice.
However, Tarantino's uberviolent films strike me as being as unimportant and banal as 'The Simpsons' comic book guy's delusions of grandeur.

Don't forget Dick Dale

That beginning was so awesome. Just seeing them frozen with their guns out and then they cut to the Dick Dale song. Nice touch totally.

I got my DVD of "The Mn Who Came to Donner" last night along with 4 Hepburn/Tracy films. I may never leave the house.

This is the Bette Davis movie, right? Not a movie about people eating each other... :D


I can't wait for you to see it. Make sure you put a mini-review somewhere...
:)

This is the movie about Hannibal Lecter's ancestors?

Yeah, I know it came from the studio. But it was still a mistake that greatly diminished both halves (the first lacked the soul provided by the second and the second lacked the spirit provided by the first). I don't know if Tarantino recut the film to better suit the split but if shown as one film I think the two halves could have been better blended.

And I know four hours is too long but then each half is a little bloated and I think it would have been better to cut it down to 3:15 or so than to break it into two unsatisfying halves. People will go to long movies if they are worth it. The average length of the top ten inflation-adjusted movies is 2 hours, 47 minutes.

Combined the two halves only did $136 million, I think it would have still done that as one long movie and potentially a lot more if people got caught up in the span of it all that was disrupted by waiting for the second half.

As Chris just said, "My keyboard is posessed by the Devil".

Good day for it.
:evil:

Totally, totally disagree with GC on Pulp Fiction. Everything he hated, I loved. :)

Bill and Ted's is one of the greatest pieces of cinema ever to grace the screen. Ok, maybe not, but still, it kicks some serious ass and is just as funny today. Still quote it constantly, too.

I enjoyed Pulp Fiction and Resavoir Dogs, but I still haven't seen Kill Bill - either one.

Bill and Ted's doesn't inerest me at all. I watched all of 10 minutes before rolling my eyes and turning it off. Add it to the list of popular films that just don't make it with me.

I liked 'Bill and Ted's'. It was funny. The sequel was stink-o. To be honest, I think I've only seen each once.

I can quote most of Bill and Ted's. The first one. The second one was just really bad and unfunny.

My 12 year old daughter, though, has decided it is now necessary when she sees me to say "How's it goin' royal ugly dude?".

The whole movie just slays me and is timeless.

No, the Monte Wooley character, Sheridan Whiteside, devours people. Some seriously funny lines in this film and watch for Mary Wickes making one of her early film appearences (I can't recall if this or Now Voyager was first).

Lisa and I seem to have similar ideas on what is not funny. We're both right about Monty Python and we're both right about Bill and Ted.

And your opinion on Bill and Ted?

We agree on many things, Alex.

I would assume it's the same as NA's above.

Yes, and they are in fact the two people on earth who are correct about Monty Python. Decidedly not funny. The other 5 billion 333 million 241 thousand 6 hundred 12 are dead wrong.

Glad you agree. Eventually the world came to understand that Benny Hill was not funny and eventually the world will come to understand that Monty Python was not funny. Yes there were isolated funny bits but as a general rule, they weren't.

Not Afraid and I are the Eratosthenes of the idea that Monty Python is not funny. Hopefully it will take less than 2,000 years to be shown correct. But I'm willing to wait that long for the vindication that I know is inevitable.

And, with Benny Hill, we are three for three. Me, you and Eratosthenes. We should form a secret society. Maybe old E will join us in spirit.

Just out of curiosity, Alex- who do you think is funny?

There's a lot I find funny and humorous. But whatever it seems to be in British sketch comedy that Americans seem to love doesn't work for me. Actually I'm not a big fan of sketch comedy in general. It is a format that rarely works for me (SNL, Mad TV, Almost Live, Second City, etc., are all shows I can pass on with no regrets).

Another element to what is funny is that for me it would seem that I have never found something that is funny on re-experience. A joke is only funny the first time, and each retelling just makes it less and less so. So while there may have been things in Monty Python I found funny initially (and now I've forgotten), that has been wiped clean by endless repetition, particularly by people who aren't nearly so talented - such as the geeks in high school you were kind of ashamed to find yourself among. The Knights Who Say Ni may originally have been funny in context (though I would say it wasn't; the movie has other funny parts) but it has been deprived of any oxygen by the people who think simply saying "ni" at an odd moment is reason to have adult diapers on hand.

I'm a big fan of stand-up since I think that it is an environment that removes the need for continuity and context that ruins sketch comedy. I prefer restrained exaggeration and biting sarcasm over pratfalls and poop jokes. P.J. O'Rourke over David Sedaris. Douglas Adams was only funny when he was writing non-fiction.

On television I seem to tend more towards the smart low-brow to the sophisticated highbrow. Everybody Loves Raymond was really very funny. Sports Night wasn't. Arrested Devleopment and Scrubs are both brilliant in different ways. The jokes in Playboy are better than the jokes in The New Yorker but they're all mostly lame. "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog" was never funny. It may have been telling of a deeper truth but not funny.

However, other than High Anxiety and the "Puttin' on the Ritz" bit in Young Frankenstein, Mel Brooks (low brow) has never been funny but Albert Brooks (high brow) always is, even when the movie itself is crap.

On the AFI list of the top 100 comedies, the funniest, in descending order are, are #93, #55, #44, #82, and #34. Half of the movies on that list are not, to me, funny at all. His Girl Friday is a great movie but I don't find it funny, just fun. Same with Harvey, one of my all time favorites.



To wrap it up, I wonder if I pushed the solidarity too far with Not Afraid with my semi-diss of David Sedaris.

Well, other than the dis of David Sedaris, I am completely in agreement with you on type of comedy I respond to. For me, Sedaris has such strange powers of observing the absurd, which is one of the things I find funny. There are times when Woody Allen fits into this broad generalization and I greatly enjoy him at those times as well.

As far as AFI's list, there are films on the list I absolutely LOVE but I don't think of them as "comedies" in the strict sense. My list would include:

The Philadelphia Story
Arsenic and Old Lace
Sullivan's Travels
The Lady Eve (Love Sturges)
The Thin Man
Fargo and
Groundhog Day

When pressed to find other films that make me laugh, Whit Stillman comes to mind (Barcelona has scenes which kill me every time), but I also like Gilliam's Brazil but, again, it is absurdist.

Now, the common argument is that, if I like the absurd, why don't I like Python? I don't know. I find it annoying. I prefer the comedy to sneak into a scene in a subtle way rather than be hit over the head with it.

The comment I always get is that, it is odd that someone who laughes so often is not a fan of comedy.

Odd is somebody who laughs at anything shoved their way just because somebody else said it's funny.

I don't find anything even remotely funny about Rodney Dangerfeild.

I never found any of his scripted appearances funny (though the Triple Lindy has a certain genius). But my step father had a couple of his (very) old LPs when I was growing up and there was some very funny stuff on them.

I find David Sedaris to be very funny. But some of his material isn't meant to be. Love him.

I don't necessarily classify what's funny and what isn't and then analyze the crud out of it. If I did that, nothing would be funny.

I'm not a big Eddie Murphy fan, but I loved the two table scenes in 'The Nutty Professor'. Completely "low brow" but I loved it all the same.

'Bringing Up Baby' is hysterical. It's all silly and slapstick and I love that. Is it a perfect film, no. Is it repeatable? Yes. Is it fun to watch stuffy Cary Grant slide down a hill on his ass and then fall into a river with Kate Hepburn, totally.

A movie I love is 'Defending Your Life'. Albert Brooks is often funny. I guess it's "high-brow" but who cares. Funny is funny. Shirley McLaine's appearance in that film is classic. Not to mention Meryl Streep, she throws away half of her lines and they're still brilliant.

I find 'Young Frankenstein' to be a great film. It's a homage to old b/w horror films and it's funny in many, many places. Madeline Kahn is extremely funny in that.

I watched "Jersey Girl" last night. It's not funny.

I hope you didn't actually pay to see it. Affleck blows!

Not surprised. That explains that winning smile of Matt Damon's...
:D :evil:

I find David Sedaris funny when he is talking but, for me, all that seems to go away once he has written it down. And his sister is many times more funny than he is.

I also don't tend to analyze what is funny and what is not. It isn't like you can control what you find funny. But I was asked.

Sedaris has a great voice. And, of course, when he's impersonating his brother, that's hysterical. I find his writings funny, though.

Amy Sedaris is hysterical. They should cast her in more films.

Keeping with the introduction of movies to my 12 year old, she watched Jurassic Park last night. Being the evil dad I am, while the two kids are being stalked by raptors in the kitchen, I snuck up behind her and grabbed her. She screamed and then proceded to slap the snot out of me.

Ha ha. She spanked you.
:D

I enjoyed "40 year old virgin" FAR more than I thought I would. Great characters, great writing, great ensemble cast. I think that movie proves that there's a way to do a sexual humor/visual gag-fest and do it well.

We watched A History of Violence last night. Most of the acting sucked, with the exception of Viggo Mortensen (sweet sweet Viggo...mmmmm) and Maria Bello. I really liked the themes of the movie though. The good and bad in all of us. Can a person really change? How much can we forgive of our loved ones? etc. It could have been phenomenal if it were done better.

There has been sooo much talk about this film that I need to put it in my queue. I'm curious.

I'm halfway through 'Paradise Now'. Can I just say I love this film already? It's shot very well and written just as well too.

We didn't watch anything last night. Chris got me the desired chocolate mal but he got this super-sized one that I felt compelled to drink almost all of it. Then, I didn't feel so good.

But the important question is this: Was he scruffy Viggo or clean shaven Viggo?

Did you watch the extras? I found them very interesting.

Watched My Dinner with Andre over several sessions yesterday. Several sessions because I kept falling asleep and having to go back.

Can't really say that I enjoyed it. The only film of this type (essentially just characters talking philosophy) that I have enjoyed is Mindwalk. And yet I keep sitting through them. I think it is because I want to be part of the conversation not a spectator to the conversation. Also, Andre is a hippie wacko.

I didn't, but I will now. Thanks for the tip. :)

I think one of the reasons I enjoyed Waking Life so much is that the three of us watching it actually paused it in the middle and had a half hour long conversation of our own before continuing. So even though I didn't agree with everything the movie said, I appreciated it for touching off a great conversation.

I really liked "Andre" when I first saw it years ago. I was enthralled by the conversation and wished that my own friends would converse in this manner. Since that time, I've gotten a little bored with the "watching people talk" flms. I find that I DO have more interesting conversations with my friends than what's going on in these films. Both Mind Walk and Waking Life both left me rather unfulfilled and I wonder if Andre would be the same for me if I saw it again now.

That was one problem I had, it really isn't a conversation until the last 30 minutes or so. Until then it is just Andre talking while Wally Shawn says "really" and "what happened then" and nervously chuckles. Until then it was a monologue of a hippie's wet dream of adventure travel.

Once Wallace Shawn worked up the gumption to participate I had no problem staying awake but that first 1:15 to 1:30 was where I kept zonking out.

I haven't seen Mindwalk in a decade and the first time I saw it was in a social setting and Fritjof Capra was there to talk about it afterwards (even at the ripe age of 17 I recognized him as a pseudo-intellectual twerp, but the discussion was interesting).

I liked Andy Kaufman's "My Breakfast With Blassie". I was never a pro-wrestling fan, but I enjoyed it anyway. And it was funnier than "Andre".

The big problem I had with 'Waking Life' was the animation. It made me nauseous. I left halfway through it to puke. (No joke.) I thought the movie itself was just okay. I found it to be pretentious.

Back to Kill Bill for a second:

Well good. I'll pay to go see that. Sadly, innerSpaceman will have to pass since he only sees the original theatrical versions of movies and anything else is an abomination (if I'm recalling correctly which I may not be).

Is this why the DVD of Kill Bill 1 was so inexpensive?

(I presume #2 was the same price, but I never watched more than 10 minutes of the first, so never bought #2.)

It's movie related and 06-06-06 related.

Baby Damien

I don't see what about Kill Bill combined is an abomination. It sounds as if it's the two movies run back-to-back, with an intermission in between.

This 'Whole-Bloody-Affair" DVD, on the other hand, sounds like changes afoot. I'm still more excited about that than the cinema re-release of movies I could watch right now if I were so inclined. As I've said above, I'm dying to get my hands on the international verion of KB I, and the expanded DVD may have that as one of the options.

We'll just have to wait and see, but I'm hopeful and optimistic and excited.

Thanks for the news, mousepod.

When Tarantino said he wants to "cut the whole thing together like one big movie" I took that to mean re-editing it. But maybe he did just mean essentially showing one right after the other. But if so that wouldn't take any worth beyond pulling the end credits off of one and the front credits off of the other and picking some music to play during intermission.

I already saw the two films back to back at the kung fu film festival they held at CityWalk last year

Hmmm, I suppose it could mean that, though I don't see it in the plain English interpretation.

The film is currently presented out of chronological order ... so any number of re-arrangements is possible. But the current scheme of presentation is hardly random, and I daresay one of the brilliant aspects of Kill Bill is the order of events as presented, not to mention the ways and whens of which the audience discovers the true chronology.

Messing with this structure would do considerable harm to the project, and I would imagine any other structure would be one that Tarantino had already considered ... and rejected.

I agree that Wally Shawn makes My Dinner with Andre work - you need his exasperation to really bring out the story. I've loved this film through repeated viewings, but that's usually once every 5-years or so, don't think I could see it any more than that.

Mindwalk, I don't think I made it through and all I remember about it, is the setting was cool and I wanted to wear black turtlenecks.

But I do love dialogue, especially fast-paced witty dialogue and the movies that sport it.

I don't know if that is true. When I first saw Kill Bill Vol 2 and saw how it tied in with Vol. 1 I said to Lani that I thought Tarantino had to damage the overall flow to provide standalone parts. So I think recutting them to blend it could be an improvement.

But you're probably right, though I don't know why just reeling them up one after the other would be such an emotional strain that he needed to get away from it all for a while before doing it.

^ hehe, I think the 'strain' was working on the 'Whole-Bloody-Affair' DVD, which may turn out to have a very differently edited version of the two films.

Bah, I just want the international version of KB V.1 ... and maybe if I wish hard enough and believe strongly enough ...:)

I keep reading my own thread as 'Miscellaneous Movie Mushings'. :D

I'd like to reiterate my utter devotion to the film 'The Philadelphia Story'. It is superb. Watched it again last night. Faboo, baby!

Does anyone have a favorite period for movies?

I do. I love the movies of the 30's and 40's. I guess that period was heavy with films based on popular plays, maybe that's the attraction. Something glamorous and ideal about those pics.

1920's to 1940's with some great 1950's tossed in. The glamour certainly has appeal, oh those Adrian gowns!

The silent era for me is very special. Not merely the Valentino connection, although that was a major attraction. Some very good films in this period, very effective and very absorbing.

I have to confess, of the studios in this era, my favorite, by leaps and bounds would be Warner Brothers. As much as I love MGM films, there is a level of sheer superficilality and also self-importance to an MGM film that is not found in a WB flick. Let me qualify, MGM post Thalberg was pretty sticky.

Warners had much more snappy dialogue (always a plus to me), sillier plots in the b-pics, but the gritty more realisic world of Warners is more satisfying. Not to mention the Busby Berkely musicals, pre-code and delicious.

Fox runs a real distant third for me, surprising since Zanuck came to fame at WB, but Fox was all fluff. As pretty as Tyrone Power was, very little substance in a Fox flick, unless it was made by John Ford.

Paramount was a giant in the 20s, though they made more than their share of crap. Bigger stars than anyone in the 20s, lost focus in the sound era and relied too heavily on DeMille (a very successful hack). Dietrich and Von Sternberg were just too weird, however marvelous the films look today, he Scarlett Empress and The Devil is a Woman are still total messes of film, but eye candywise, they're great.

RKO was good, too. How can you not love a studio that brings King Kong and Fred & Ginger?

Now, if you ask about favorite directors..... Billy Wilder, George Stevens, John Huston immediately come to mind. Favorite genre, hmm, that is tougher, but I lean toward noir. It's the snappy dialogue that is the hook for me.

Gah! What got me on my soapbox?

To put this back on track, I'm behind the times and all that, so I just saw Transamerica and Brokeback last night. Quite a double feature!

I don't know if I could pick one period. I love classic musicals. Sappy, silly, sweet, romantic musicals. (Special bonus for tapping.) Whether Fred and Ginger in the 30s or Gene Kelly in the 50s or gosh, Sound of Music, Music Man, and Mary Poppins were all in the 60s I think....

Now I'm in a quandry - should I watch Brigadoon or the Music Man tonight?

And your reviews, m'dear...? :)

Music Man, hands down for me! I've never been able to get through Brigadoon. Not the best Minelli pic, to me anyway! :-)

American in Paris, The Bandwagon (my all time fav of the MGM Freed unit musicals).....I'm nothing if not opinionated :rolleyes:

I was in a high school production of Brigadoon, so each viewing comes with fun memories. (Even though the film version doesn't include the song I sung.)

I was Harry Beaton.

"And I'm leavin' Brigadoon! And 'tis the end of all of ye! The Miracle's over!!!!!!!"

Best last-line-before-intermission ever in a musical.

I much prefered being the bad guy to being the good guy when I was in musicals. More fun. But I don't like the movie adaptation of Brigadoon at all.

I very much enjoyed both films.

Brokeback was as lyrical as expected from Ang Lee. Visually langourous, gorgeous exteriors and a very quiet film. While I did not find the film too terribly deep, I think that's because I'm the only person on the planet who has not yet read the original short story.

I enjoyed both performances by Gyllenhall and Ledger, but explain to me why Ledger was nominated for an Academy Award? I missed something extraordinary in his performance, at least nothing struck me. But, that's me and I'm pretty sure the fault is with me and not him. I was annoyed with myself for not turning on the subtitles until late in the film. I laugh thinking people found Tatou unintelliglble in Da Vinco Code, Ledger was very hard to understand (at least to me). Maybe I would have felt more had I the smarts to turn on the subtitles.

It was a very good film and I thought the wigs for (I cannot for the life of me remember her name) were silly. I don't care what you put on her head, she still looked to be 24 yesars old even though the story took you through 20 years. Same thing for the guys, neither one looked any older, mustachio made no difference for Gyllenhall (nice doe eyes on him, though).

I give it a 3 out of 4.

Transamerica was fun and touching. A typical road trip picture in a lot of respects, including the obvious plot holes. I found the whole premiss of the shrink witholding final signature for the operation until Bree went to NY to deal with her newly discovered son a bit of a stretch. I thought Huffman was very good as well. But part of me thinks how much more effective this would have been with a guy playing the part. It's not Victor/Victoria for me, a girl impersonating a man impersonating a woman, know what I mean?

The development of the relationship between Bree & Toby just moved along too fast. Unless they had something really cathartic to bind them, aside from the car being stolen, it seemed pretty superficial. But how much can you explore and how deep can you go in 90 minutes?

In any case, I thought it was enjoyable, not a great film, but a worthy one.

I give it 2 out of 4.

Musical? Cabaret. By FAR my favorite.

That's a good one. Love it.

Musical....West Side Story or Sound of Music. Hmm, gotta give it to West Side I think, the dancing puts it over the top. Love everything about that movie.

gah - could I choose my favorite musical?! I'd have to separate filmed versions of stage musicals from film-only musicals. And I don't think there's a movie version of my favorite stage musical...hmmm.....

Probably Music Man for movie version of stage musical.

I don't even think I could decide on a movie-only musical favorite. Top Hat? Swing Time? On the Town?

I'm not a big fan of musicals! I worked a summer theater as spotlight for "Little Shop of Horrors" years ago and I'm still tramatized. Probably my only favorite musical would be "Hair". I love the music!

Ooooohhh!!! Does that mean you were Meg?? You've got the attitude for it.
I wanted that role... Got that damn soprano Fiona. :P
Yeah I can see that... Now that I've seen a pic. You must have been an impressive Harry.

Sort of. At the time I was boob-less and the director thought it vital that Meg have huge tracts of land. So, someone else was Meg, and I got to sing "My Mother's Wedding Day" because it makes total sense to have some random (and uncredited, by the way) chorus member spontaneously burst into song. My I got my moments in the spotlight, and I think I was pretty damn good.

Boobless Pru.

Inconceivable!

'Tis true. I "developed" suddenly when a freshman in college, when I seriously started asking people "do these look bigger to you?" The boob fairy apparently got lost on the way to my place and thought she'd give me a complimentary upgrade.

Meanwhile, in movieland, one local paper gave Cars an "A". However, I frequently disagree with his assessment, so I'll have to wait until tomorrow to see what the Seattle Times reviewer says.

Cabaret is definately my favorite - especially after a night of heavy drinking and the butchering of the French Language - More so, if an Octopus happend to devour my sister.

I tend to like filmed Broadway musicals less than original movie musicals.

Singin' in the Rain is tops of the tops in this category. Most people don't think of The Wizard of Oz as a musical, but it is ... and obviously one of the most beloved movies of all time. Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is also one of the top three movie musicals, in my book.

Most other movie musicals, alas, have great song and dance ... but are otherwise crappy films. This applies to most from the classic age of movie musicals.

In the last few decades, however, there have been some better ones ... among them, Victor/Victoria and (though it features only one original song) - Moulin Rouge.


Of the Broadway adaptations, my faves are West Side Story, Chicago, and - odd as it may seem - 1776. (ooooh, and July 4th is coming up soon, and with it my annual screening of this underappreciated gem!)

Singin In the Rain only features one original song, too.

Wow, mousepod ... you are correct. I hadn't thought of that, and it never occurred to me when I first fell in love with Singin' in the Rain as a child. But it would have been obvious to anyone seeing it in 1952 that the songs were all real tunes from the period portrayed in the film (i.e., the late 1920's.)


Not all of those songs were big hits of their day (though two or three were certainly well-known). Moulin Rouge went for very popular songs, not selected for the vanity of its producer (Arthur Freed used a bunch of his own songs from the '20s when he produced 'Singin' in the Rain' in the 50's).


But what a cool pedigree these two movies share. Just shy of fifty years apart, and two of the Best Movie Musicals of All Time!

I have fond memories of this film, for when I was a mere 10 yr. old, we actually took a school field trip to the theater to see it. Seems nobody had screened it first for potential bad language and we were all delighted to have a school trip in which we got to see a movie where people cussed.

Good times, that was. :)

Saw Cars last Monday. Liked it a lot so once again the advertising was, for me, misleadingly blah.

I forgot about The Wizard of Oz. I used to really really love it, and I suppose I do a bit, but I seriously overdid it some years ago and don't feel the need to see it again for another, oh 20 years or so.

Although I would love to read the books again. I wonder if they're still in my parents' attic?

Allegedly the hotel we'll be at tomorrow night has movies to rent. Perhaps I will have new thoughts after.

I really should watch that movie sometime when I'm not asleep.

The same goes for "O Brother Where Art Thou."

We watched The Crossing last night. While it was good, I felt unfulfilled by a movie only about crossing the Delaware to battle at Trenton. I would have liked a George Washington movie that was longer and broader historically. I love history movies, I'm going to have to seek out some others.

Going to take the kids to see Cars tomorrow. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 74% at present.

I read through some of the clips of reviews, and one reviewer who hated it was talking about how it failed to even improve upon the horrible Incredibles. WHAT????? I loved The Incredibles.

We're seeing Cars today. It will be the first movie that Indi will (hopefully) sit through. I hope it's good.