Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[RStar]

Originally Posted by Prudence

Ooh! And there's a movie with Dick Van Dyke about museums coming to life. I probably saw all his footage in the preview, but I'll go see the movie anyhow because he's in it. Even if does probably suck.

That one does sound good.

I saw Dead Man with Johnny Depp last night. A real strange movie. It's a long string of clips with fades in between, and a lot of clips have no dialog. But it was well acted, I thought. The music was annoing at times, but had a strange blend of contimporary and western sound. I didn't expect it to be a western in black and white, though.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

FINALLY saw Kinsey. Really good. Rather balanced portrayal, I thought.

Next time a movie like this comes out I'm seeing it in the theaters with everyone else. It's much like Good Night and Good Luck - important and of the moment.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I saw:

MIami Vice - I really wanted to like this one, but just didn't do it for me. The film was shot in all "close ups" and was just strange. It seemed like it didn't know what kind of movie it wanted to be. It went from high-end style to gritty bloody scenes and was just a real mess.

You, Me & Dupree - The film was funny and well done. Not a great film at all, the story is VERY familiar if you've seen just about ANY comedy made, but it's kinda charming and has some funny moments. One film you can leave your brain off when watching.

World Trade Center - A real good film. Nothing spectacular, given the subject matter, but I was pleased it wasn't overly glorified. It didn't feel like an Oliver Stone film really. The effects of the tower was chilling and really gave a different perspective of what happened beyond the usual images we now associate with 911.

[innerSpaceman]

I think I'd like more fiction than fact in any future World Trade Center stories.

This may sound cold, but the great stories of the day generally involve people who died. Most of those stories would have to be at least somewhat imagined.

Even in United 93, which featured such realism that a great many roles were self-played, events aboard the flight with no survivors had to - of necessity - make some educated guesses and fictionalize away.

In World Trade Center, we followed characters who survived precisely because they had not yet gotten in on the action. It's only because those Port Authority cops were still in the concourse between the towers and not at even the starting point of their planned rescue foray that they survived.

I think the stories of rescuers who really ventured up into the towers would be more compelling.

Perhaps it would be too garish or ToweringInfernolike, but there are also some pretty dramatic stories to be told of people trapped higher than the airplane crashes, of the people who managed to escape down the few passable stairways, and the horrible irony of people making it all the way down to the lobby only to be crushed by the crumbling buildings. And, yes, I'll even go so far as to claim storyworthy drama of situations like having to choose between burning to death or plumetting a hundred stories ... or being on a flight that's commandeered into a skyscraper.



Yes, I have no shame. These things should be portrayed in movies about September 11 ... with characters we somewhat get to know who are put in these most surrealistically deadly situations that actually happened. And more of the terrorists should be characters. And fictionalize some of the planning.

It doesn't all have to be true and based on actual accounts and all that. No one lived to tell the truth of the best 9/11 stories - - - someeone's gonna have to make them up

* * * * *

And frankly, if a happy Hollywood ending is necessary and actual survivor's tales must be told .... there's two that would make for better films than the two told in Stone's movie.

How about the amazing survival story of Pasquale Buzzelli? An engineer for the Port Authority, he had reached either the 22nd or 13th floor of the North Tower when the building started coming down. He free-fell with the building and then lost consciousness. When he awoke 3 hours later, he was laying on top of the rubble of the tower looking up at the sky. He only suffered a concussion, a broken foot, and minor cuts.

Also on the less dull scale is the story of Stanley Praimnaith, whose office was on the 81st floor of the South Tower. When the North Tower was hit, he was at his desk. He didn't know that the other tower was hit when he was told to evacuate the building, which he did with his co-workers. At the front desk, they were told by the security guard that it is safe and they can return to their offices. Almost as soon as he was back in his office, a friend called from Chicago to see if he was watching the news. She told him that he had to get out of the building.

"Everything's fine," he recalled telling her, just before he looked up to see the huge gray form of the American Airlines plane heading directly toward the building — less than 100 yards away!

He dove under his desk just as the wing of the plane crashed through his window and exploded. He was able to crawl out of the hell on the 81st floor and down the one available stairwell to safety without any serious injuries.


* * * * *

Perhaps it's not fair to compare World Trade Center with other 9/11 movies or with other Oliver Stone films or with other World Trade Center tales. But I think such comparisons are natural ... I am making them ... and I think Stone's movie comes up stort on all counts.

[Gemini Cricket]

My apologies to anyone who likes this film but I find 'Bladerunner' to be almost unwatchable. Ralphie wanted to watch this one on Saturday and no matter how hard I try to sit through this one, it's truly boring. I've seen it about four times now (each version twice) and have dozed off several times trying to sit through it. I indeed have seen it all the way through and find the premise interesting, but combine Ford, Young and a Vangelis synthesizer score and it's a one way ticket to dullsville. Bleh!
I'm a huge fan of sci-fi, I love the story it's based on but man oh man is this one slow moving flick.

[Freaky Tiki]

I contradict myself with Bladerunner. I love it but at the same time find it boring as hell. Very interesting premise, but just very slow moving.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I've seen it about four times now (each version twice) and have dozed off several times trying to sit through it.

Given the movies I have seen lately (superman, PoTC II) I'd be happy to settle for a movie during which I could at least get a good nap. I like naps.

[Gemini Cricket]

Naps are good.

[innerSpaceman]

Bladerunner blows.


No idea why in the world it's such a cult hit. It is practically unwatchable.

[€uroMeinke]

Bladerunner is a tough film, definately loved it when it came out, but the DVD I have is the directors cut and not the Theatrical release, which I too found slow moving. I think the movie suffers the problem of practicly defining the 80s - The "look" of the film was comletely new and different, but today, the scenes of the near future look already past. So I guess you just had to see it at it's time to really appreciate it.