Full Version: The Current Cinema
QUOTE(Wertz @ Sep 6 2005, 01:46 AM)
I just saw The Aristocrats this evening and almost hurt myself laughing. Speaking of films not being to everyone's taste, though, if you are offended by foul language, I wouldn't go within a mile radius of any cinema in which it is playing. Essentially, it's several dozen comedians (including Billy Connolly, George Carlin, Bill Maher, Drew Carey, Whoopi Goldberg, Jon Stewart, Phillis Diller, the South Park characters, etc., etc.) talking about and re-telling a single joke (whose punchline is "The Aristocrats") - and it's about the filthiest joke ever told - but the variations and related anecdotes are very funny. For whose with a sense of humor and without delicate sensibilities, it is highly recommended.
Oh. My. God. I also saw this on Saturday. 2 ladies seated near us walked out about 15 minutes into the picture. Haven't seen that since Pulp Fiction (bring out the gimp!).
This movie was provoking and disturbing and funny and informative all at the same time. I would also highly recommend this to anyone who follows stand-up comedy. Just keep in mind that it is a documentary, so it's not wall-to-wall jokes. If you want to prep, watch one of the Comedy Central roasts to get to know some of the key players.
An aside - The whole way to the movie I was threatening to tell my wife the joke and she wouldn't let me. Turns out that it was a good thing - my version was somewhere in the middle of the continuum if you've seen the movie - not quite Phyllis Diller, but no where near Bob Saget.
edited to add - on the DVD side, I just re-watched Run Lola Run the other day and really like this movie. It's playing on IFC this month, but worth renting / buying for the good sound. Non-stop action, but presented in a thought-provoking way. And in German to boot!
I'm hoping this is released around here. It looks like a movie to see.
Company 9 (Flash publicity website, in Russian)
Red Hawk Down: The futility of the Soviet war in Afghanistan gets a big-screen, big-budget treatment in Fyodor Bondarchuk's searing military drama "Company 9."
The flash index linked above has a number of versions of the movie trailer, in both avi and mov format, from 6mb and 240x102 resolution to 19mb and 720x304. For those who don't read RU, its the third from the left, and the first drop-down bullet to get the trailer icons to show up.
(Edited to conform to forum Rules for quoted copyright materials)
Company 9 (Flash publicity website, in Russian)
Red Hawk Down: The futility of the Soviet war in Afghanistan gets a big-screen, big-budget treatment in Fyodor Bondarchuk's searing military drama "Company 9."
QUOTE
Bondarchuk spares few punches; his film is often lacerating as it depicts the fate of its characters. But political overtones remain spare in the work, which emphasizes the human drama of those involved in its true-life story. Compared to other recent action-filled fare made in Russia, there are few overtly patriotic elements in "Company 9," which in itself is refreshing in today's climate. And with Afghanistan little covered in Russian cinema over the last 15 years, the resulting tone is all the more powerful.
Bondarchuk and his screenwriter Yury Korotkov set at least half of the film's action away from the conflict itself, concentrating on a group of conscripts, first seen in Krasnoyarsk in 1988, as they are inducted into military service. The film's early episodes establish the individual character of the recruits. There's the aggressive Lyutayev, nicknamed "Lyuty" -- literally, "cruel" -- who has chosen enlistment as the best way to escape the consequences of a one-night stand. Played by Artur Smolyaninov, he is the initial center of a wider crew, including the more human "Vorobei" (Alexei Chadov, who played a similar role three years ago in Alexei Balabanov's Chechnya-themed "War") and the distinctly different "Gioconda" (Konstantin Kryukov, in an impressive debut screen role), an artist from a different cultural background who has made a conscious choice to enlist. There's even a Chechen conscript (Soslan Fidarov), who ends up with the unlikely and somewhat comic nickname "Pinochet."
*snip*
Training is grueling and punctuated with moments of sheer brutality, with slight consolation in the form of "Snow White" (Irina Rakhmanova), the daughter of a medical orderly whose generosity with sexual favors extends to each new group of recruits. Group dynamics are well established, and occasional moments of humor break the action and provide a human context. Foreign viewers may be challenged by army slang, which is rich indeed.
Flying into the Bagram air base, the soldiers face more semi-psychotic commanders, from the one who greets them off the plane to another nicknamed "Khokhol" (played by Bondarchuk himself) who commands them through to the closing scenes. From their arrival in Afghanistan to the film's dramatic, tragic ending, the director proves he can handle the demands of action on a grand scale. In the first such action scene, which also proves emotionally affecting, a plane taking demobilized soldiers home is hit by an enemy surface-to-air missile; later scenes capture the spectacular destruction of an Afghan settlement and a final standoff in which all but one of Company 9 are killed.
*snip*
The real-life story behind Company 9, which held the heights called 3234 (named after their altitude) until the bitter end, only to learn subsequently that commanders had forgotten to inform them that the war was over, is bitter indeed. Bondarchuk departs from historical fact to intensify the drama, leaving only one of the company's soldiers alive at the end; his final cry, "We have won," rings out with despair around the mountains. For Bondarchuk, they have won in one way at least -- by remaining true to their oath to the end.
"They are human beings caught up in a military system that's more than undistinguished ... one that treats them effectively like animals," the director said in an interview after the film's press screening. The wider context of contemporary conflicts is keenly felt in the film, especially when the recruits are a briefed by a political officer who stresses the different nature of Islam and tells them that history has never seen Afghanistan conquered.
Bondarchuk and his screenwriter Yury Korotkov set at least half of the film's action away from the conflict itself, concentrating on a group of conscripts, first seen in Krasnoyarsk in 1988, as they are inducted into military service. The film's early episodes establish the individual character of the recruits. There's the aggressive Lyutayev, nicknamed "Lyuty" -- literally, "cruel" -- who has chosen enlistment as the best way to escape the consequences of a one-night stand. Played by Artur Smolyaninov, he is the initial center of a wider crew, including the more human "Vorobei" (Alexei Chadov, who played a similar role three years ago in Alexei Balabanov's Chechnya-themed "War") and the distinctly different "Gioconda" (Konstantin Kryukov, in an impressive debut screen role), an artist from a different cultural background who has made a conscious choice to enlist. There's even a Chechen conscript (Soslan Fidarov), who ends up with the unlikely and somewhat comic nickname "Pinochet."
*snip*
Training is grueling and punctuated with moments of sheer brutality, with slight consolation in the form of "Snow White" (Irina Rakhmanova), the daughter of a medical orderly whose generosity with sexual favors extends to each new group of recruits. Group dynamics are well established, and occasional moments of humor break the action and provide a human context. Foreign viewers may be challenged by army slang, which is rich indeed.
Flying into the Bagram air base, the soldiers face more semi-psychotic commanders, from the one who greets them off the plane to another nicknamed "Khokhol" (played by Bondarchuk himself) who commands them through to the closing scenes. From their arrival in Afghanistan to the film's dramatic, tragic ending, the director proves he can handle the demands of action on a grand scale. In the first such action scene, which also proves emotionally affecting, a plane taking demobilized soldiers home is hit by an enemy surface-to-air missile; later scenes capture the spectacular destruction of an Afghan settlement and a final standoff in which all but one of Company 9 are killed.
*snip*
The real-life story behind Company 9, which held the heights called 3234 (named after their altitude) until the bitter end, only to learn subsequently that commanders had forgotten to inform them that the war was over, is bitter indeed. Bondarchuk departs from historical fact to intensify the drama, leaving only one of the company's soldiers alive at the end; his final cry, "We have won," rings out with despair around the mountains. For Bondarchuk, they have won in one way at least -- by remaining true to their oath to the end.
"They are human beings caught up in a military system that's more than undistinguished ... one that treats them effectively like animals," the director said in an interview after the film's press screening. The wider context of contemporary conflicts is keenly felt in the film, especially when the recruits are a briefed by a political officer who stresses the different nature of Islam and tells them that history has never seen Afghanistan conquered.
The flash index linked above has a number of versions of the movie trailer, in both avi and mov format, from 6mb and 240x102 resolution to 19mb and 720x304. For those who don't read RU, its the third from the left, and the first drop-down bullet to get the trailer icons to show up.
(Edited to conform to forum Rules for quoted copyright materials)
Last week I saw Tim Burton's Corpse Bride. To say the least, it was excellent. The animation was fun, the characters were unique and very believable in his fairy tale land. The music was pretty good too, though I liked the music better in Nightmare Before Christmas (qualitatively and quantitatively). A lot of people ask how it was compared to Nightmare and I think it was almost as good. There are loads of good dialog, singing, and bad puns. The only problem me and my friend could think of was that it was too short (only 75 min?!). It feels like you've just gotten to know the characters and the story by the time the credits are rolling. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone.
They didn't come out on the big screen, but I'd like to nominate HBO as the best producer of adult drama in the last ten years. On Sundays anyway...
With Oz, the Sopranos, Deadwood, and now Rome, HBO has taken the notion of the weekly prime-time soap opera, and added brilliant storylines, amazingly perfect character performances, mesmorizing dialogue, and extraordinarily realistic production values. Any two episodes of any one of these shows could stand alone as a great "hollywood film".
Before the Sopranos came out, I would have told you that Oz was the best show on TV. Before Deadwood, I would have said the same about the Sopranos. Now that Rome is their signature series, I must confess a longing for Deadwood (but only because it's easier to relate back 125 years compared to an unimaginable 2000 years.) Regardless the lapse in time, human trevails remain seemingly unchanged as does human nature.
Anyway, am I the only Sunday night HBO junkie on the board?
With Oz, the Sopranos, Deadwood, and now Rome, HBO has taken the notion of the weekly prime-time soap opera, and added brilliant storylines, amazingly perfect character performances, mesmorizing dialogue, and extraordinarily realistic production values. Any two episodes of any one of these shows could stand alone as a great "hollywood film".
Before the Sopranos came out, I would have told you that Oz was the best show on TV. Before Deadwood, I would have said the same about the Sopranos. Now that Rome is their signature series, I must confess a longing for Deadwood (but only because it's easier to relate back 125 years compared to an unimaginable 2000 years.) Regardless the lapse in time, human trevails remain seemingly unchanged as does human nature.
Anyway, am I the only Sunday night HBO junkie on the board?
I don't normally post here, but I had to make a comment based on recent experiences. I went and saw 'Serenity' today, you may not know it, it is apparently a cinematic sequel to a short-lived TV series called Firefly which ran half a season before FOX cancelled it. The show is written by Joss Whedon, the man who created and wrote 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and 'Angel'.
That fact may turn off some people, who will assume this is some kind of teen-Vampire tale, set in space this time. They are mistaken.
I went and saw it with a friend who was a 'Firefly' fan, and I am very thankful I did, this is one of the best films I have seen in some time. It's brilliance comes not from 'star-wars' like super special effects or great battle scenes, but rathere from the brilliant scripting and writing, and a genuinely original plot twist in the course of the film. Everyoe has a character here, a developed, important character and even those who initally appear to be just steriotypes are not.
I cannot recommend this film strongly enough. Even if Science fiction is not your thing, the film sets a standards which I can only hope other films can follow. After clunking, dragging dialogue and weak scripts from such Blockbusters as Revenge of the Sith, this casts a breath of fresh air onto the Hollywood scene.
Great writing, strong characters, original plot, real tension and well timed humour to boot, I suggest everyone who reads this go and see 'Serenity'.
That fact may turn off some people, who will assume this is some kind of teen-Vampire tale, set in space this time. They are mistaken.
I went and saw it with a friend who was a 'Firefly' fan, and I am very thankful I did, this is one of the best films I have seen in some time. It's brilliance comes not from 'star-wars' like super special effects or great battle scenes, but rathere from the brilliant scripting and writing, and a genuinely original plot twist in the course of the film. Everyoe has a character here, a developed, important character and even those who initally appear to be just steriotypes are not.
I cannot recommend this film strongly enough. Even if Science fiction is not your thing, the film sets a standards which I can only hope other films can follow. After clunking, dragging dialogue and weak scripts from such Blockbusters as Revenge of the Sith, this casts a breath of fresh air onto the Hollywood scene.
Great writing, strong characters, original plot, real tension and well timed humour to boot, I suggest everyone who reads this go and see 'Serenity'.
Well, I've managed to see a few movies over the course of the past couple of months.
The Constant Gardener with Ralph Feinnes and Rachel Weisz was a very
good movie. It had a poignant theme that is apropos to current events. I'd give it
an A- (My only criticism would be that it was about 30 minutes too long.)
A History of Violence. This was so bad that I made a pact with my
girlfriend (who went to see this with me) that I would tell everyone it was
great so they would go and suffer through it like we did. Ugh.... I cannot
begin to tell you how errrrrr GRRRREAT
it was. D is a generous grade IMHO.
Most recently, I saw The 40 Year-Old Virgin. That was surprisingly
entertaining and downright hilarious! Go and see it if you want a good
laugh, and if you don't mind some crudeness.
A
The Constant Gardener with Ralph Feinnes and Rachel Weisz was a very
good movie. It had a poignant theme that is apropos to current events. I'd give it
an A- (My only criticism would be that it was about 30 minutes too long.)
A History of Violence. This was so bad that I made a pact with my
girlfriend (who went to see this with me) that I would tell everyone it was
great so they would go and suffer through it like we did. Ugh.... I cannot
begin to tell you how errrrrr GRRRREAT
it was. D is a generous grade IMHO.Most recently, I saw The 40 Year-Old Virgin. That was surprisingly
entertaining and downright hilarious! Go and see it if you want a good
laugh, and if you don't mind some crudeness.
A
Haven't been to the theater in a while. Went over the weekend to see David Cronenberg's new film A History of Violence. If you don't like Cronenberg, you definitely will not enjoy this film. It's filled with Cronenberg's odd-ball style, although much more toned down than it has been. His depiction of a picture-perfect suburban family is eerily disturbing, with characters who seem to be repressing their real selves. First and foremost is Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen), a calm, peaceful family man who enjoys spending time with his family, playing make-believe with his wife (Maria Bello), and working in his diner.
It is there that two thugs show up, looking for money and something more to quench their bloodlust. When these two threaten the lives of his staff, Tom lashes out in a fit of quick, gruesome violence. The incident turns Tom into a local hero, quickly gaining much more national exposure than he'd prefer. This attention brings to town Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), a do-no-good mobster from Philadelphia who is convinced Tom is not who he says he is. Tom and his family must come to terms with a simple question posited by Fogarty: "How come he's so good at killing people?"
From there, the film travels a unique road of self-discovery and familial turmoil. How do you get back to a normal life? Tom's son Jack (Ashton Holmes), a reserved kid who gets picked on in school for doing nothing more than performing well in gym class, looks to his dad's actions as inspiring--even going so far as to releasing pent-up rage on one school bully.
Viggo Mortensen turns in an excellent performance, giving the film an edge of suspense, even during the peaceful moments. It is during these quiet scenes of dialogue that the film builds a palpable tension. Is Tom simply discovering a natural predilection for violence or does he have a history? Maria Bello runs a gauntlet of emotions, from love to confusion to fright. Ed Harris is exceptionally creepy, always wearing a smirk of knowingness which hints at an unpleasant outcome for the Stall family. And a surprise appearance by William Hurt in the final act of the film is a treat. Hurt manages to balance the dark comedy of the script with the tense seriousness that adds to the film's emotional impact.
Many films deal with murder and violence as a means to an end, and almost none actually try to handle the results. How does violence change a person? Why are we so immune to violent acts on screen that Cronenberg's violence, which is brief, punctuated, and brutal, is a punch to the gut? I haven't gasped at seeing the aftermath of movie gore in a while, so props to Cronenberg and his FX team. Also props to Bello and Mortensen, who put aside the soft lighting and makeup in exchange for authenticity, which becomes readily apparent in the couple's two explicit sex scenes. I don't think we've seen such messy, unkempt sex in a Hollywood film in years.
The audience I saw this one with had a similar reaction as doomed_planet. Once the credits rolled, most couldn't seem to leave the theater fast enough. But if you don't get Cronenberg, you probably will not enjoy his latest offering. Much like 2003's masterpiece Spider, this is a film which requires an off-kilter sensibility and an appreciation of the psychological warfare of repression. While not his best film, it is definitely Cronenberg full-throttle. And I couldn't be happier.
A History of Violence: ***1/2 out of ****
It is there that two thugs show up, looking for money and something more to quench their bloodlust. When these two threaten the lives of his staff, Tom lashes out in a fit of quick, gruesome violence. The incident turns Tom into a local hero, quickly gaining much more national exposure than he'd prefer. This attention brings to town Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), a do-no-good mobster from Philadelphia who is convinced Tom is not who he says he is. Tom and his family must come to terms with a simple question posited by Fogarty: "How come he's so good at killing people?"
From there, the film travels a unique road of self-discovery and familial turmoil. How do you get back to a normal life? Tom's son Jack (Ashton Holmes), a reserved kid who gets picked on in school for doing nothing more than performing well in gym class, looks to his dad's actions as inspiring--even going so far as to releasing pent-up rage on one school bully.
Viggo Mortensen turns in an excellent performance, giving the film an edge of suspense, even during the peaceful moments. It is during these quiet scenes of dialogue that the film builds a palpable tension. Is Tom simply discovering a natural predilection for violence or does he have a history? Maria Bello runs a gauntlet of emotions, from love to confusion to fright. Ed Harris is exceptionally creepy, always wearing a smirk of knowingness which hints at an unpleasant outcome for the Stall family. And a surprise appearance by William Hurt in the final act of the film is a treat. Hurt manages to balance the dark comedy of the script with the tense seriousness that adds to the film's emotional impact.
Many films deal with murder and violence as a means to an end, and almost none actually try to handle the results. How does violence change a person? Why are we so immune to violent acts on screen that Cronenberg's violence, which is brief, punctuated, and brutal, is a punch to the gut? I haven't gasped at seeing the aftermath of movie gore in a while, so props to Cronenberg and his FX team. Also props to Bello and Mortensen, who put aside the soft lighting and makeup in exchange for authenticity, which becomes readily apparent in the couple's two explicit sex scenes. I don't think we've seen such messy, unkempt sex in a Hollywood film in years.
The audience I saw this one with had a similar reaction as doomed_planet. Once the credits rolled, most couldn't seem to leave the theater fast enough. But if you don't get Cronenberg, you probably will not enjoy his latest offering. Much like 2003's masterpiece Spider, this is a film which requires an off-kilter sensibility and an appreciation of the psychological warfare of repression. While not his best film, it is definitely Cronenberg full-throttle. And I couldn't be happier.
A History of Violence: ***1/2 out of ****
QUOTE(FargoUT @ Jul 6 2005, 08:26 PM)
Yes, Crash is an excellent film. But unlike Magnolia or Short Cuts, the story seemed to be so focused on racism that it left nothing to read into. Both P.T. Anderson and Robert Altman know that themes should not be shoved in our face so forcefully that nothing else matters. That said, Paul Haggis's film is an excellent portrayal of racism in our modern days.
I rented Crash last night, and will post my honest opinion. I haven't had much luck with movies lately. Objectively I would probably give Crash 4 stars as well. The acting was phenomenal, and the cast excellent... but being beaten over the head repeatedly with the basic theme of 'white people are ignorant bigots' got extremely old. Every scene was some example of (almost always white) overt bigotry. Halfway through the DVD, we were beyond sick of it and decided to turn it off and watched the History channel.
I also watched Maria Full of Grace recently, which was a very good film. Warning, though....it is not your lighthearted style of movie. It is deep and depressing, and takes you on a dark emotional journey that stays with you after the movie ends.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 20 2005, 08:00 PM)
I rented Crash last night, and will post my honest opinion. I haven't had much luck with movies lately. Objectively I would probably give Crash 4 stars as well. The acting was phenomenal, and the cast excellent... but being beaten over the head repeatedly with the basic theme of 'white people are ignorant bigots' got extremely old. Every scene was some example of (almost always white) overt bigotry. Halfway through the DVD, we were beyond sick of it and decided to turn it off and watched the History channel.
I also watched Maria Full of Grace recently, which was a very good film. Warning, though....it is not your lighthearted style of movie. It is deep and depressing, and takes you on a dark emotional journey that stays with you after the movie ends.
Mrs. P. I got near fed up with crash for similar reasons, but I stuck with it. I think you should have too,
I thought the beginning was over the top and that overall it was a bit too much emotionalism over content, but that by the end the film had real power and substance.
Other films I have recently seen are Cinderella, which I really did not remember the original Disney version although I thought I had. I was amazed at how well Cinderella (which was the first movie my father got to go to without his parents) compares with modern animated films.
I also saw the Lords of Dogtown(?) about the early years in the skateboarding pre x games era. Heath Ledger is in it. It, too was difficult to get through. I was impressed by the authenticity of the film. By this I mean I thought that the film technology was that of the seventies and gave a very unique feel to the movie. Other than that it seemed to be a regular teen flick with a documentary feel.
Tonight I watched Fever Pitch, which I thought was a very good romantic comedy. No real surprises, but an old storyline done with the joy of the Red Sox winning the pennant despite my gender's natural ability to nearly obliterate any good relationship.
QUOTE(Artemise @ Sep 6 2005, 04:17 AM)
'Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring" (Korean on Netflix) Beautifully photographed with little dialogue and incredible visuals, it deals with the life cycle of a boy to man and his monk mentor by the seasons on a floating monastery. I think its worthwhile for children because some life lessons about respect and consequences of ones actions are subtely adressed. Both my boys watched attentively throughout despite subtitles. Good rainy afternoon or mellow night flik, sure to cuddle you to a peaceful sleep.
Artemise, at your recommendation, I saw this movie, and it was lovely. The scenery is stunning, and the lessons are profound. I particularly appreciated the first stage of the boy's life. Thank you.
The last couple of films that I watched.
Kingdom of Heaven 4/10 stars.
THIS IS NOT GLADIATOR and is proof that Orlando Bloom cannot carry a movie. I am not some angry history nut that is enraged because they made Balian a 25 year old or any of that I am simply saying that this movie is not very good. Almost as bad as King Arthur. Do not get tricked because Ridley Scott made it. Edward Norton is okay as King Baldwin IV and Liam Neeson is great as usual but needed a great deal more screen time as did Jeremy Irons. It does not progress well at all. I do not want to give any of it away but Bloom's journey is both irrational and unbelievable. He finds virtue from basically nothing and somehow becomes Lancelot in swordmanship and Hannibal in generalship with one brief 15 minute training session. Just not very good. Not even all that pretty to look at.
Demonlover. 6/10. Great performances and will evolve into one of those cult classics. Most of it is in French and to be honest the plot and conclusions are murky and hard to follow but something about it makes it compulsively watchable. It's like 8MM, Fear Dot Com. Mission Impossible and Entrapment rolled into a better single movie. Connie Nielson, Chloe Sevigny and Gina Gershon are the main actors.
Shattered Glass. 6/10. Hayden Christianson is also not a very good actor but Stellen Sargaard certainly is. Its based upon the true story of New Republic journalist Stephen Glass. If you know his story beforehand it kind of ruins the plot. If you have never heard of Stephen Glass or what happened to him then I suggest you rent this movie. If you know beforehand though do not watch. This isnt All the President's Men but its okay.
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind 8/10. I really, really liked it. I thought it was a nicely shot quirky and interesting movie. Sam Rockwell and George Clooney are great in it. Very interesting movie.
Batman Begins 7/10. Pretty solid. I am not a comic books junkie but I have seen all of the Batman movies and this one is about as good as the first (keaton versions) two and better then the Kilmer and Clooney junkers. It is a more realistic approach to Batman. It seems like the real world and explains how batman came to be (even though it still doesnt explain everything). Some really fine actors are wasted in the process though. Ken Watanabe and Morgan Freeman being the two biggest wastes. Still pretty solid though. I mean it has Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Ken Watanabe, Rutger Hauer, Tom Wilkinson and Cillian Murphy in supporting roles. You cannot beat that star power.
Code 46. 8/10. I liked it alot. However be cautioned that I like virtually any sci-fi movie. The love story between Samantha Morton and Tim Robbins is hard to believe but it is a very good movie. The fact that they at times seemingly out of nowhere speak spanish is distracting though. I mean I could handle Spanglish but this wasnt a mixed language film. Its like 99.7% of all words are English but they say like the most commonly known spanish phrases like ...Si, Chica, Chico, Papelas, Los Siento etc etc. When I realized that they are not doing it on purpose but do it because it is the common vernacular it ticked me off a little. It isnt Blade Runner/Fifth Element sci-fi its more realistic sci-fi. I think the point of it is for the viewer to decide if it's a dystopian or utopian society or to question if authority and tradition outweigh love. It's like a weaker Gattaca type of movie with a greater emphasis on love.
Those are the movies I have watched for the first time recently.
Kingdom of Heaven 4/10 stars.
THIS IS NOT GLADIATOR and is proof that Orlando Bloom cannot carry a movie. I am not some angry history nut that is enraged because they made Balian a 25 year old or any of that I am simply saying that this movie is not very good. Almost as bad as King Arthur. Do not get tricked because Ridley Scott made it. Edward Norton is okay as King Baldwin IV and Liam Neeson is great as usual but needed a great deal more screen time as did Jeremy Irons. It does not progress well at all. I do not want to give any of it away but Bloom's journey is both irrational and unbelievable. He finds virtue from basically nothing and somehow becomes Lancelot in swordmanship and Hannibal in generalship with one brief 15 minute training session. Just not very good. Not even all that pretty to look at.
Demonlover. 6/10. Great performances and will evolve into one of those cult classics. Most of it is in French and to be honest the plot and conclusions are murky and hard to follow but something about it makes it compulsively watchable. It's like 8MM, Fear Dot Com. Mission Impossible and Entrapment rolled into a better single movie. Connie Nielson, Chloe Sevigny and Gina Gershon are the main actors.
Shattered Glass. 6/10. Hayden Christianson is also not a very good actor but Stellen Sargaard certainly is. Its based upon the true story of New Republic journalist Stephen Glass. If you know his story beforehand it kind of ruins the plot. If you have never heard of Stephen Glass or what happened to him then I suggest you rent this movie. If you know beforehand though do not watch. This isnt All the President's Men but its okay.
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind 8/10. I really, really liked it. I thought it was a nicely shot quirky and interesting movie. Sam Rockwell and George Clooney are great in it. Very interesting movie.
Batman Begins 7/10. Pretty solid. I am not a comic books junkie but I have seen all of the Batman movies and this one is about as good as the first (keaton versions) two and better then the Kilmer and Clooney junkers. It is a more realistic approach to Batman. It seems like the real world and explains how batman came to be (even though it still doesnt explain everything). Some really fine actors are wasted in the process though. Ken Watanabe and Morgan Freeman being the two biggest wastes. Still pretty solid though. I mean it has Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Ken Watanabe, Rutger Hauer, Tom Wilkinson and Cillian Murphy in supporting roles. You cannot beat that star power.
Code 46. 8/10. I liked it alot. However be cautioned that I like virtually any sci-fi movie. The love story between Samantha Morton and Tim Robbins is hard to believe but it is a very good movie. The fact that they at times seemingly out of nowhere speak spanish is distracting though. I mean I could handle Spanglish but this wasnt a mixed language film. Its like 99.7% of all words are English but they say like the most commonly known spanish phrases like ...Si, Chica, Chico, Papelas, Los Siento etc etc. When I realized that they are not doing it on purpose but do it because it is the common vernacular it ticked me off a little. It isnt Blade Runner/Fifth Element sci-fi its more realistic sci-fi. I think the point of it is for the viewer to decide if it's a dystopian or utopian society or to question if authority and tradition outweigh love. It's like a weaker Gattaca type of movie with a greater emphasis on love.
Those are the movies I have watched for the first time recently.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Oct 20 2005, 07:13 PM)
Mrs. P. I got near fed up with crash for similar reasons, but I stuck with it. I think you should have too,
I thought the beginning was over the top and that overall it was a bit too much emotionalism over content, but that by the end the film had real power and substance.
Eeyore, thanks so much for your recommendation here. I still have the movie, and decided to watch the rest of it after reading your post. You were right, it turned out to be very good, with several interesting plot twists...even more surprising, although the underlying theme was rather dark and depressing, the ending was light. It was a strangely feel-good movie in spite of the sobering undertone, with exceptional character development. I give this movie 4.5 out of 5 stars.
Has anyone seen the new Wallace and Gromit film, The Curse of the Were-Rabbit yet?
I've heard good things, but haven't had chance to go.
I've heard good things, but haven't had chance to go.
Crash was the best movie I've ever seen...Ever.
For those who don't know, the movie is essentially about 9 people. Eight of them are racial bigots in some fashion. The movie shows how they all intermingle with each other and cross in and out of each others' lives, it was amazingly done and parts of it left my mouth agape. Hollywood is one for one making movies with titles ripped from Dave Matthews Band Cds.
3.14 out of pi stars
CP
For those who don't know, the movie is essentially about 9 people. Eight of them are racial bigots in some fashion. The movie shows how they all intermingle with each other and cross in and out of each others' lives, it was amazingly done and parts of it left my mouth agape. Hollywood is one for one making movies with titles ripped from Dave Matthews Band Cds.
3.14 out of pi stars
CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Oct 21 2005, 08:33 PM)
Crash was the best movie I've ever seen...Ever.
For those who don't know, the movie is essentially about 9 people. Eight of them are racial bigots in some fashion. The movie shows how they all intermingle with each other and cross in and out of each others' lives, it was amazingly done and parts of it left my mouth agape. Hollywood is one for one making movies with titles ripped from Dave Matthews Band Cds.
3.14 out of pi stars
CP
For those who don't know, the movie is essentially about 9 people. Eight of them are racial bigots in some fashion. The movie shows how they all intermingle with each other and cross in and out of each others' lives, it was amazingly done and parts of it left my mouth agape. Hollywood is one for one making movies with titles ripped from Dave Matthews Band Cds.
3.14 out of pi stars
CP
ok I've got to see the movie Crash based on your post.
On another note I love Dave Matthews band! Not sure if you do but I have listened to them ever since I was in college.
Quick question.....I'm a little late in trying to talk/debate Matrix (in general). Any pages on this forum (or person) that might give good insight?
--------------------------------------------------
love what these guys stand for (music in the schools)
link to goingTODAY
QUOTE(Julian @ Oct 21 2005, 05:14 AM)
Has anyone seen the new Wallace and Gromit film, The Curse of the Were-Rabbit yet?
I've heard good things, but haven't had chance to go.
I've heard good things, but haven't had chance to go.
I saw it last weekend. It was funny and clever. I haven't seen any of the previous W&G stuff (I did have a really cute W&G calendar about 7 yrs ago though
), so I've nothing to compare it to. DD was terrified of the were-rabbit and sat in my lap the entire seond half of the movie. My best friend took us to see the movie with the intention of seeing Chicken Little (which the kids had been asking about like crazy). See, the theatre brilliantly gives showtimes for movies they haven't yet released for the benefit of advanced purchases but they don't really say that anywhere on their website or phone message. So my friend thought Chicken Little was out. We saw W&G instead and though I hadn't planned on seeing it, enjoyed it well enough.
I just saw Saw 2 and thought it was pretty darn good. If you saw the first one then you probably wern't impressed with very much, except maybe with the sadistic torture devices. On the whole I thought Saw 2 was a quality film. It keeps a lot of the same ideas (as it is a sequel) with people being kidnapped and told to prove they value live ect. but the big difference is that in this one the acting is MUCH better, not even comparable really, the characters are better developed, the plot lines run deeper, there are some better twists, the tension building is great, and there's lots of blood. The only weak part is the end, but I'll let you see it. The main difference between last year and this years saw's is that last year I wanted my money back, this year I was content.
I just saw the movie 'Jarhead' and thought it was pretty good. I'm not sure what a Marine would think of the film...I know whenever Mr P sees an Airforce movie about pilots he gags, but we both liked this one, and I would hazard a guess that it realistic (it was written by a former Marine).
It is probably not a good recruitment tool though. The whole time I watched it I was grateful that my husband hadn't enlisted in the Marines when he was 18. That had been his goal, and he surreptitiously spoke with a Marine recruiter on the phone, while hiding in the bathroom when he was in his senior year of highschool. Fortunately his mom overheard the conversation and talked him into going to college. After watching that film I think I'll start bugging the bathrooms in about 10 years to make sure my sons don't get any of the same bright ideas.
It is probably not a good recruitment tool though. The whole time I watched it I was grateful that my husband hadn't enlisted in the Marines when he was 18. That had been his goal, and he surreptitiously spoke with a Marine recruiter on the phone, while hiding in the bathroom when he was in his senior year of highschool. Fortunately his mom overheard the conversation and talked him into going to college. After watching that film I think I'll start bugging the bathrooms in about 10 years to make sure my sons don't get any of the same bright ideas.
Thanks for the input on Jarhead Mrs. P. I don't think I'm an "authority" on authenticity issues with war movies, but it's a plus it was written by a former Marine... now the directing? On first impressions it looks like another glitzy war movie. 
With a few exceptions everything outta Hollywood seems to fit this mold. The last movie I saw was The Constant Gardener. You may need a tinfoil hat but it's very good acting without special effects.
With a few exceptions everything outta Hollywood seems to fit this mold. The last movie I saw was The Constant Gardener. You may need a tinfoil hat but it's very good acting without special effects.
Two recommendations:
I
Huckabees
This movie is not for everyone, but I loved it. Some great performances from Dustin Hoffman, Lilly Tomlin, Mark Wahlberg, and Jason Schwartzman (the guy from Rushmore). Oh and Jude Law as well. It's a very funny look at existential crises. Albert is a poet leading an environmentalist group to save a wetlands. As his cause gets taken over by Huckabees, a huge Target like company, he gets edged out of the spotlight. Depressed, and disturbed by crtain coincidences he can't explain, he goes to Hoffman and Tomlin, a pair of "existential detectives." I can't even begin to explain this movie here, but it is worth watching. Funny, yet quite insightful.
Devil's Playground
This documentary will wake you up about the crisis in the modern Amish community. Eveyone should see this film. It will totally turn upside-down all your notions of life in Amish society. My parents grew up in heavily Amish country, and I was aware of a lot of this stuff from visiting their home, but this is... almost unbelievable.
I
HuckabeesThis movie is not for everyone, but I loved it. Some great performances from Dustin Hoffman, Lilly Tomlin, Mark Wahlberg, and Jason Schwartzman (the guy from Rushmore). Oh and Jude Law as well. It's a very funny look at existential crises. Albert is a poet leading an environmentalist group to save a wetlands. As his cause gets taken over by Huckabees, a huge Target like company, he gets edged out of the spotlight. Depressed, and disturbed by crtain coincidences he can't explain, he goes to Hoffman and Tomlin, a pair of "existential detectives." I can't even begin to explain this movie here, but it is worth watching. Funny, yet quite insightful.
Devil's Playground
This documentary will wake you up about the crisis in the modern Amish community. Eveyone should see this film. It will totally turn upside-down all your notions of life in Amish society. My parents grew up in heavily Amish country, and I was aware of a lot of this stuff from visiting their home, but this is... almost unbelievable.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Nov 7 2005, 04:27 PM)
Thanks for the input on Jarhead Mrs. P. I don't think I'm an "authority" on authenticity issues with war movies, but it's a plus it was written by a former Marine... now the directing? On first impressions it looks like another glitzy war movie. With a few exceptions everything outta Hollywood seems to fit this mold.
With a few exceptions everything outta Hollywood seems to fit this mold. Jarhead is definitely not glitzy. I'd say anyone who wants to see an action-packed, Rambo-style movie should stay far away from this one. It shows the side of warfare that civilians never see. Complete with the human interaction, the ambivalence, ambiguity, and boredom of the participants. Very little actual action or "heroics"...definitely not your average Hollywood war movie. But it's very real (at least I'm guessing).
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Nov 8 2005, 12:39 PM)
I Huckabees
This movie is not for everyone, but I loved it. Some great performances from Dustin Hoffman, Lilly Tomlin, Mark Wahlberg, and Jason Schwartzman (the guy from Rushmore). Oh and Jude Law as well. It's a very funny look at existential crises. Albert is a poet leading an environmentalist group to save a wetlands. As his cause gets taken over by Huckabees, a huge Target like company, he gets edged out of the spotlight. Depressed, and disturbed by crtain coincidences he can't explain, he goes to Hoffman and Tomlin, a pair of "existential detectives." I can't even begin to explain this movie here, but it is worth watching. Funny, yet quite insightful.
HuckabeesThis movie is not for everyone, but I loved it. Some great performances from Dustin Hoffman, Lilly Tomlin, Mark Wahlberg, and Jason Schwartzman (the guy from Rushmore). Oh and Jude Law as well. It's a very funny look at existential crises. Albert is a poet leading an environmentalist group to save a wetlands. As his cause gets taken over by Huckabees, a huge Target like company, he gets edged out of the spotlight. Depressed, and disturbed by crtain coincidences he can't explain, he goes to Hoffman and Tomlin, a pair of "existential detectives." I can't even begin to explain this movie here, but it is worth watching. Funny, yet quite insightful.
I second this one. This was one of the best films of 2004, and one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time. Definitely not for everyone--it's quite oddball stuff. David O. Russell, who also directed Three Kings and Flirting with Disaster, seems to be an acquired taste. You either find his humor funny or you don't. I had to watch this one twice before I was fully able to appreciate it. There's so much slapstick humor that it's hard to understand on the initial viewing. Subsequent viewings have helped me understand (sort of) the film's meandering plot and the concepts of "fluff" existentialism.
This ain't no Joseph Conrad story, so don't think this to be a serious exploration of existentialism. It's a lightweight romantic comedy with a pseudo-philosophical foundation. Very funny stuff. Everyone in the cast is phenomenal, but special kudos to Lily Tomlin and Mark Wahlberg for providing most of the big laughs.
The documetary Shanghai Ghetto is well worth seeing, especially if you
are a history buff like I am. The time is 1939 (World War II). The last
hope for thousands of Jews lay in the last place on earth the nazis would
look.
It's out on DVD.
are a history buff like I am. The time is 1939 (World War II). The last
hope for thousands of Jews lay in the last place on earth the nazis would
look.
It's out on DVD.
I took the family to see the new Harry Potter movie.
I think it will meet your expectations whatever they may be.
I was bothered in part because of my own lack of planning. We did not know the movie was out and saw it with a time about to start and decided it was a great idea.
Spontaneity and three young children don't go together very well. The theater did not take my brand of debit card ( you know those symbols on the back, not the Visa, MC, Discover issue) and that left us with no extra money to spend to divert our children with popcorn and the like.
We were well-timed for this movie which was nearly sold out. But getting in the theater 15 minutes early with 20 minutes of commercials and movie trailers had the children getting restless before the movie started.
The movie was not great for children six and under. it was darker and scarier than the other Harry Potter movies. And to me it felt infinitely longer.
I enjoy the stories so I liked the movie but thought it was the weakest of the three so far. Our 7 month old did not stir much at all, but my four year old was ready to go fairly early on.
I think it will meet your expectations whatever they may be.
I was bothered in part because of my own lack of planning. We did not know the movie was out and saw it with a time about to start and decided it was a great idea.
Spontaneity and three young children don't go together very well. The theater did not take my brand of debit card ( you know those symbols on the back, not the Visa, MC, Discover issue) and that left us with no extra money to spend to divert our children with popcorn and the like.
We were well-timed for this movie which was nearly sold out. But getting in the theater 15 minutes early with 20 minutes of commercials and movie trailers had the children getting restless before the movie started.
The movie was not great for children six and under. it was darker and scarier than the other Harry Potter movies. And to me it felt infinitely longer.
I enjoy the stories so I liked the movie but thought it was the weakest of the three so far. Our 7 month old did not stir much at all, but my four year old was ready to go fairly early on.
My daughter and I just saw the Harry Potter film too. We really enjoyed it. I think it was probably my second favorite after the first one. If you read the book and were expecting that it be exactly like the book-- you might have been disappointed (my sitter was). But my daughter did not care in the least and has seen it twice already. Ralph Fiennes was a great Voldemort-- but he could have pulled it off on the strength of his acting alone-- and did not need the Star trek-esque make-up. I wish the books were not getting so dark (with characters dying and all). All in all a big 
and well worth the price of admission.
and well worth the price of admission.
Im big on "Walk the line". The new one about Johnny Cash. It was a work of art. The director really scores home early on about the homesickness one feels in the military, and came back later with a well done ending. If you wanna see all of his life you'll be sad. This is mainly about how he got started and the darker side of his life. 8 outta 10.
I saw Pride and Prejudice the other night and loved it. One of my favorite books and loved the BBC mini series.
Thought Keira Knightly was much much better than I had expected... although I thought she wasn't buxom enough for the role.
Theatre was packed full with mostly females but at the end of the film one of the few men in the theatre behind me boasted loudly that was the best movie he'd seen in a long time.
I found the simple beauty this film was portrayed in leant more to the beauty of the story itself and the beauty that is England.
Thought Keira Knightly was much much better than I had expected... although I thought she wasn't buxom enough for the role.
Theatre was packed full with mostly females but at the end of the film one of the few men in the theatre behind me boasted loudly that was the best movie he'd seen in a long time.
I found the simple beauty this film was portrayed in leant more to the beauty of the story itself and the beauty that is England.
I just watched "Das Boot" again. In my opinion it is one of the best movies about WWII. The German language only bothered me for like two minutes and after that you are sucked into this metal tube they call an U-boat (sub-marine) and will experience first hand the tensions, fear, anger and comradery between the crewmembers when they are trapped on teh bottom of the Mediterranean see, with British anti-submarine boats, with their dept-bombs, above their head.
It is a must see if you are interested in WWII.
It is a must see if you are interested in WWII.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Nov 20 2005, 03:51 PM)
My daughter and I just saw the Harry Potter film too. We really enjoyed it. I think it was probably my second favorite after the first one. If you read the book and were expecting that it be exactly like the book-- you might have been disappointed (my sitter was). But my daughter did not care in the least and has seen it twice already. Ralph Fiennes was a great Voldemort-- but he could have pulled it off on the strength of his acting alone-- and did not need the Star trek-esque make-up. I wish the books were not getting so dark (with characters dying and all). All in all a big and well worth the price of admission.
and well worth the price of admission.In the book, Voldemort's face is said to be a bit inhuman and snake-like after his return, so I don't it would've worked without the makeup.
I also thought this film was fantastic. The best one so far, in my opinion. One of the best things about the Harry Potter series of books -- it's genius, really -- is that each one has been written for the kids who read the first book when it came out in 1997. Those kids are now 8 years older. I think that explains the ever darker books and the change in the language that the characters use. This is also happening with the movies. It's brilliant.
On a side note, I was always bothered by the change in the US of the title of the first book and the reference changes. The Philosopher's Stone is a well documented bit of mythology.
I haven't seen Water yet, but I'm looking forward to it. I absolutely loved Fire and Earth.
I'm bummed that I missed Serenity. Is it still out in the States? I'll have to check. It's not playing where I am in Canada. And I was in Ireland when it was released.
.
Serenity was one of the best three movies this year (Star Wars, Batman Begins the other two). It had around a four to five week run grossing around 23 million. I was hoping it would make over 35 million to encourage further production of the story. With the ending of Star Wars and Star Trek, this is a potential heir apparent to the sci fi afficiandos.
I am sorry you missed it. There is no news on DVD release though some are speculating it may receive some awards nominations. That would be a reason to withhold DVD release as a re-release at the theaters may happen if it is nominated for an award.
I am sorry you missed it. There is no news on DVD release though some are speculating it may receive some awards nominations. That would be a reason to withhold DVD release as a re-release at the theaters may happen if it is nominated for an award.
Oh, yeah - I saw Rent a few days ago and, boy, did it suck. I don't really want to go into detail here as I've been embroiled in a couple of debates about the film at IMDb for the past few days, but I have to say that Rentheads are as bad as Scientologists. Sheesh - say one bad word about Jonathan Larson (who wrote the Broadway musical) and it's like you burnt the flag, tortured a kitten, and drop-kicked an infant all at the same time. So, a word of warning: if you see Rent (which I do not recommend) and dislike it, keep your opinion to yourself. You never know where some Renthead might be lurking, ready to pounce and denounce.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Dec 2 2005, 10:34 AM)
Oh, yeah - I saw Rent a few days ago and, boy, did it suck. I don't really want to go into detail here as I've been embroiled in a couple of debates about the film at IMDb for the past few days, but I have to say that Rentheads are as bad as Scientologists. Sheesh - say one bad word about Jonathan Larson (who wrote the Broadway musical) and it's like you burnt the flag, tortured a kitten, and drop-kicked an infant all at the same time. So, a word of warning: if you see Rent (which I do not recommend) and dislike it, keep your opinion to yourself. You never know where some Renthead might be lurking, ready to pounce and denounce.
Out of curiosity do you attribute the quality of the movie to the production itself or the fact that you've seen it performed and it doesn't compare?
I haven't seen the movie or the musical before so I'm just wondering if I should save my $10 and hope a travelling group makes it out to San Francisco one day.
Edited to add: Nevermind
I had a feeling you'd have a review on your blog so lo and behold you do and I'll check it out.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Dec 2 2005, 10:34 AM)
Oh, yeah - I saw Rent a few days ago and, boy, did it suck. I don't
really want to go into detail here as I've been embroiled in a couple of debates
about the film
really want to go into detail here as I've been embroiled in a couple of debates
about the film
It is usually a let-down to see books and/or musicals or plays made into
motion pictures. I don't think I would even rent Rent quite honestly.
I saw the Billy Bob Thorton/John Cusack dark comedy called The Ice Harvest.
It wasn't bad. The best character in the movie was played by an actor
named Oliver Platt. He supplied the comic relief. Billy Bob turned in his usual
hickified performance. He's got "white trash" down to a tee. If I was going to
grade the movie I'd give it a C and say wait until it comes out on DVD.
First, in relation to Rent, no I hadn't seen the show previously. I'd heard the original cast recording once - and several of the songs another couple of times - and found the music pretty unmemorable. The original script (which I've read) is pretty shallow and juvenile and, though it treats a number of "issues" - AIDS, addiction, homelessness - its quasi-liberal politics are fairly vapid (and completely unchallenged - there's certainly no "debate" in the story), so I don't imagine I would have liked the show much, had I seen it. But the film compounds its problems with pedestrian direction and performances that are directed to the second balcony rather then the camera. So tepid pop-rock music, sophomoric story, bad acting, bad direction: it was horrible.
But I'm actually posting because I saw another film last night that was one of the most fulfilling entertainment experiences I've had in ages: Joe Dante's Homecoming, which was produced for Showtime's "Masters of Horror" series.
It's basically a cheesy zombie movie - except it concerns American soldiers killed in Iraq coming back from the dead. Okay, the acting is B-movie coarse, the production values are pretty low, and the script was written with a sledgehammer, but who cares? There's an evil slut of a character based on Ann Coulter who gets her head blown off, there's a character based on Karl Rove who gets stabbed in the eye and has his head smashed against a table repeatedly, there are characters based on Karen Hughes and Falwell/Robertson/Dobson who are shown up as the manipulative hypocrites they actually are. It is hilarious and cathartic and a thoroughly good time.
The only part that doesn't ring true is that the central character, a speechwriter in the current administration (who bears a passing resemblance to Scott McClellan), actually appears to have a conscience. But the hour-long film has some great touches. When the zombies first start rising from their flag-draped coffins at Dover Air Force Base, the soldiers on duty think it's journalists breaking in to take photographs, for example, and, best of all, the zombies haven't come back to attack people or eat brains, but to vote!
My favorite moment concerned the right-wing pundit characters. When it's learned that the undead have only risen from the grave to vote for president in the 2004 election, it is declared a miracle: "Who's going to tell a hero who died fighting for his country that he doesn't have the right to vote? Not even death can stop the march of freedom!" When it's learned that they've come back to vote for "anyone who ends this evil war", the same pundits are back: "The bowels of hell have opened and disgorged these demons! They're giving aid and comfort to the enemy!" When we next see the zombies, they've been rounded up (as a public health risk) and are being kept in what looks very like Gitmo, dressed in orange jump suits. For a cheap horror flick, it was damned true-to-life.
Homecoming may not be the most potent anti-war film ever made, or the most thoughtful political tract, but, oh my God, was it satisfying! It's airing again on December (at 11pm) and 10 (at 12 am) and on Showtime Too on December 8 (at 1am) - at least in this region. Catch it if you'd like to exorcise a few demons - if only for an hour.
Oh, and thanks, dp: I had been thinking of catching The Ice Harvest this evening. Maybe I'll finally check out the new Harry Potter instead.
***SPOILERS BELOW***
But I'm actually posting because I saw another film last night that was one of the most fulfilling entertainment experiences I've had in ages: Joe Dante's Homecoming, which was produced for Showtime's "Masters of Horror" series.
It's basically a cheesy zombie movie - except it concerns American soldiers killed in Iraq coming back from the dead. Okay, the acting is B-movie coarse, the production values are pretty low, and the script was written with a sledgehammer, but who cares? There's an evil slut of a character based on Ann Coulter who gets her head blown off, there's a character based on Karl Rove who gets stabbed in the eye and has his head smashed against a table repeatedly, there are characters based on Karen Hughes and Falwell/Robertson/Dobson who are shown up as the manipulative hypocrites they actually are. It is hilarious and cathartic and a thoroughly good time.
The only part that doesn't ring true is that the central character, a speechwriter in the current administration (who bears a passing resemblance to Scott McClellan), actually appears to have a conscience. But the hour-long film has some great touches. When the zombies first start rising from their flag-draped coffins at Dover Air Force Base, the soldiers on duty think it's journalists breaking in to take photographs, for example, and, best of all, the zombies haven't come back to attack people or eat brains, but to vote!
My favorite moment concerned the right-wing pundit characters. When it's learned that the undead have only risen from the grave to vote for president in the 2004 election, it is declared a miracle: "Who's going to tell a hero who died fighting for his country that he doesn't have the right to vote? Not even death can stop the march of freedom!" When it's learned that they've come back to vote for "anyone who ends this evil war", the same pundits are back: "The bowels of hell have opened and disgorged these demons! They're giving aid and comfort to the enemy!" When we next see the zombies, they've been rounded up (as a public health risk) and are being kept in what looks very like Gitmo, dressed in orange jump suits. For a cheap horror flick, it was damned true-to-life.
Homecoming may not be the most potent anti-war film ever made, or the most thoughtful political tract, but, oh my God, was it satisfying! It's airing again on December (at 11pm) and 10 (at 12 am) and on Showtime Too on December 8 (at 1am) - at least in this region. Catch it if you'd like to exorcise a few demons - if only for an hour.
Oh, and thanks, dp: I had been thinking of catching The Ice Harvest this evening. Maybe I'll finally check out the new Harry Potter instead.
It sounds like Homecoming is off 'da hook in its skewering of our present day neo-con darlings, Wertz. Since you steered me right about City of God, I'll probably trust you on this one and how putrid Rent must be. I remember seeing A Chorus Line on Broadway and then when the movie came out, boy did it suck. Kind of gives me pause about Dreamgirls coming out in 2006.
What I'm curious about is a movie I haven't seen and now I'm afraid I never will. I was looking in my local fishwrap for a review of Aeon Flux and realized there wasn't one. Nor was there any in any of the alternative papers. Ditto for ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY. That could only mean one thing: it wasn't screened for critics prior to its release. Studios do that when they think a movie is a stinkbomb.
Sure enough, when I broused the Rotten Tomatoes website for reviews of Aeon Flux it had only 31 reviews, but 27 were "rotten" and only 4 were "fresh." Yipes! Those were Halle Berry "Catwoman" numbers. And pretty much the same kind of reviews.
"Charlize Theron has her Oscar. Now she has her Catwoman."
"It was so uncomfortable to watch this film, I felt like I was desperately holding back a bout of extreme diarrhea while having dinner with my girlfriend's folks for the first time."
"Even worse than Catwoman... If you are compiling a Ten Worst of the Year list, Aeon is a must-see. Otherwise, your time would be better spent doing just about anything else."
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/aeon_flux/
Whew. Maybe that's why Paramount dumped this sick puppy in the theaters and hoped the suckers looking to see Charlize Theron in a skin-tight leather suit would go before the bad word of mouth killed it off.
I guess I'm kind of glad I won't be seeing Aeon Flux anytime soon. I wasn't a big fan of the MTV cartoon it was based on, but a cast with Theron, Frances McDormand, Sophie Okenedo and Pete Postelwaite features two Oscar winners and two nominees. Unfortunately, once again it seems that Hollywood hasn't figured out a way to make flicks with superchicks (Elektra, Catwoman, and the two Lara Croft: Tomb Raider movies) worth watching.
Seems like lately the only superchick who really clicked was Beatrice Kiddo in the "Kill Bill" flicks. Sad but true.
What I'm curious about is a movie I haven't seen and now I'm afraid I never will. I was looking in my local fishwrap for a review of Aeon Flux and realized there wasn't one. Nor was there any in any of the alternative papers. Ditto for ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY. That could only mean one thing: it wasn't screened for critics prior to its release. Studios do that when they think a movie is a stinkbomb.
Sure enough, when I broused the Rotten Tomatoes website for reviews of Aeon Flux it had only 31 reviews, but 27 were "rotten" and only 4 were "fresh." Yipes! Those were Halle Berry "Catwoman" numbers. And pretty much the same kind of reviews.
"Charlize Theron has her Oscar. Now she has her Catwoman."
"It was so uncomfortable to watch this film, I felt like I was desperately holding back a bout of extreme diarrhea while having dinner with my girlfriend's folks for the first time."
"Even worse than Catwoman... If you are compiling a Ten Worst of the Year list, Aeon is a must-see. Otherwise, your time would be better spent doing just about anything else."
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/aeon_flux/
Whew. Maybe that's why Paramount dumped this sick puppy in the theaters and hoped the suckers looking to see Charlize Theron in a skin-tight leather suit would go before the bad word of mouth killed it off.
I guess I'm kind of glad I won't be seeing Aeon Flux anytime soon. I wasn't a big fan of the MTV cartoon it was based on, but a cast with Theron, Frances McDormand, Sophie Okenedo and Pete Postelwaite features two Oscar winners and two nominees. Unfortunately, once again it seems that Hollywood hasn't figured out a way to make flicks with superchicks (Elektra, Catwoman, and the two Lara Croft: Tomb Raider movies) worth watching.
Seems like lately the only superchick who really clicked was Beatrice Kiddo in the "Kill Bill" flicks. Sad but true.
QUOTE(deathalive)
Im big on "Walk the line".
I just saw this and thought it was excellent. It wasn't all I thought it would be, but it was quite good. Phoenix did an great job acting and Witherspoon did too (as well as the other actors). The only part I was kinda disappointed by was that the movie focused so heavily on his mid life where he toured and tried to get with June Carter. This wasn't bad by it's self, but I wanted to see more of how he became who he was. I felt like the lead up was a bit quick, but his relationship with his wife, June Carter, and his drug addiction were obviously central to his life. I did, however, particularly like the dynamics with his family. I didn't know he had such a strained relationship with his father, but I thought that came through really well. Overall I would recommend this to anyone who likes Cash or wants to know about his life.
Well, I'm finally getting a chance to catch up on some at-home
movie viewing. Here are some that I've seen on DVD:
The Upside of Anger- with Joan Allen and Kevin Costner. I really enjoyed
this movie. It was funny and poignant. Costner was surprisingly good in his role
as a middle-aged, compassionate man who drinks a little too much.
Stage Beauty - with Claire Danes and Billy Crudup. It was a very
interesting movie in terms of emotional subject matter. Billy Crudup was amazing
in his role. I would recommend it to anyone who doesn't mind the slower pace
of english-style films.
Must Love Dogs- with Diane Lane and John Cusack. This movie is good
for women who have hit middle age and find themselves divorced or alone for
whatever reason. I wouldn't see this movie again, but it's tolerable for an
at-home, one-time viewing.
Melinda and Melinda- with Will Ferrell and Chiwetel Ejiofor. It's a Woody
Allen film, so it's got all the neurosis you will need in a movie. I really enjoyed
this one, especially Will Ferrell, who was very funny in his role. The premise is
interesting. You take one scenario and play it out as a comedy, then as a tragedy.
movie viewing. Here are some that I've seen on DVD:
The Upside of Anger- with Joan Allen and Kevin Costner. I really enjoyed
this movie. It was funny and poignant. Costner was surprisingly good in his role
as a middle-aged, compassionate man who drinks a little too much.
Stage Beauty - with Claire Danes and Billy Crudup. It was a very
interesting movie in terms of emotional subject matter. Billy Crudup was amazing
in his role. I would recommend it to anyone who doesn't mind the slower pace
of english-style films.
Must Love Dogs- with Diane Lane and John Cusack. This movie is good
for women who have hit middle age and find themselves divorced or alone for
whatever reason. I wouldn't see this movie again, but it's tolerable for an
at-home, one-time viewing.
Melinda and Melinda- with Will Ferrell and Chiwetel Ejiofor. It's a Woody
Allen film, so it's got all the neurosis you will need in a movie. I really enjoyed
this one, especially Will Ferrell, who was very funny in his role. The premise is
interesting. You take one scenario and play it out as a comedy, then as a tragedy.
Peter Jackson has done it again. He's made an huge, epic movie that remains interesting and fun despite it's 3h length. I thought it might drag in a few parts, but I was entertained the whole way through. Also, I was worried that the parts which were added wouldn't gel with the original, but Jackson also did that well. He added some more subplots and developed Kong as a character more. Overall my brother and I liked the movie, and I would compare it to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy in its style and solidness. Everything in the movie works well; even the Jack Black character, which I didn't think would work. I'd give it 4/5 and recommend people go see it.
QUOTE(Argonaut @ Oct 9 2005, 05:36 AM)
They didn't come out on the big screen, but I'd like to nominate HBO as the best producer of adult drama in the last ten years. On Sundays anyway...
With Oz, the Sopranos, Deadwood, and now Rome, HBO has taken the notion of the weekly prime-time soap opera, and added brilliant storylines, amazingly perfect character performances, mesmorizing dialogue, and extraordinarily realistic production values. Any two episodes of any one of these shows could stand alone as a great "hollywood film".
Before the Sopranos came out, I would have told you that Oz was the best show on TV. Before Deadwood, I would have said the same about the Sopranos. Now that Rome is their signature series, I must confess a longing for Deadwood (but only because it's easier to relate back 125 years compared to an unimaginable 2000 years.) Regardless the lapse in time, human trevails remain seemingly unchanged as does human nature.
Anyway, am I the only Sunday night HBO junkie on the board?
With Oz, the Sopranos, Deadwood, and now Rome, HBO has taken the notion of the weekly prime-time soap opera, and added brilliant storylines, amazingly perfect character performances, mesmorizing dialogue, and extraordinarily realistic production values. Any two episodes of any one of these shows could stand alone as a great "hollywood film".
Before the Sopranos came out, I would have told you that Oz was the best show on TV. Before Deadwood, I would have said the same about the Sopranos. Now that Rome is their signature series, I must confess a longing for Deadwood (but only because it's easier to relate back 125 years compared to an unimaginable 2000 years.) Regardless the lapse in time, human trevails remain seemingly unchanged as does human nature.
Anyway, am I the only Sunday night HBO junkie on the board?
You're not alone!!! HBO produces the only series that I remember to watch every week. Rome is my favorite, also my favorite period of history, but the Sopranos are amazing as well.
King Kong has been one of my favorite movies since as far back as I can remember and Peter Jackson has done a great job of redoing the movie for a whole new generation while remaining loyal to the movie's original spirit. Unlike the 1970s debacle which made King Kong political tale of big business ignoring ethical practices, this movie re-tells the heart breaking story of two kindred spirits finding each other in a world neither seemed meant for. It made me laugh and cry.
If you should choose not to spend the money to see this movie on the big screen you are cheating yourself out of 3 hours of escape and fantasy that your heart and soul would be better off having seen. And for the record I cannot think of another movie I have ever said that about.
If you should choose not to spend the money to see this movie on the big screen you are cheating yourself out of 3 hours of escape and fantasy that your heart and soul would be better off having seen. And for the record I cannot think of another movie I have ever said that about.
I really liked the The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Surprisingly, I heard that it stayed pretty close to the book. It has some Great CGI and some good battle spots.
Despite the pummeling Fun with Dick and Jane took in the reviews it's actually the best comedy to come out in a while, if not the best of this year then darn close.
Why?
Not because it makes a poignant statement on corporate corruption (as the critics apparently expected) or touches our hearts with the struggle of the poor oppressed middle-class
.
..but because unlike many other comedies it has remembered the prime directive.
This movie did not take the path of Bad Santa (my favorite example of everything wrong in recent comedy movies) it actually did its job.
It made people laugh, out loud, repeatedly for the duration of the film.
There, mission accomplished.
There are some flaws of course, a plot hole or two towards the end of the film, the non-white characters in the film, few and far-between are portrayed stereotypically and are not particularly flattering.
..but if you can get past that (more likely outside the unabashed politico crowd
)
then go see it.
It's a bit more entertaining that the very good, if lengthy King Kong and can't touch "Narnia" but it's worth seeing if you have the time.
Why?
Not because it makes a poignant statement on corporate corruption (as the critics apparently expected) or touches our hearts with the struggle of the poor oppressed middle-class
. ..but because unlike many other comedies it has remembered the prime directive.
This movie did not take the path of Bad Santa (my favorite example of everything wrong in recent comedy movies) it actually did its job.
It made people laugh, out loud, repeatedly for the duration of the film.
There, mission accomplished.
There are some flaws of course, a plot hole or two towards the end of the film, the non-white characters in the film, few and far-between are portrayed stereotypically and are not particularly flattering.
..but if you can get past that (more likely outside the unabashed politico crowd
) then go see it.
It's a bit more entertaining that the very good, if lengthy King Kong and can't touch "Narnia" but it's worth seeing if you have the time.
40 Year Old Virgin: Best of it's kind. Not abstract off the wall humor that you would expect after seeing say Anchorman and Dodgeball. A more serious comedy then that. Some very funny moment's even though it does the cliche racial jokes. Katherine Keener is hot for an older woman.
Syriana: Just watched it in theater. Awesome film. Fast paced. I did not know going in that the director of Traffic made it but had realized as much before the movie was over....without asking anyone. Kind of like knowing without checking that 12 Monkeys was a Gilliam movie. You have to be awake when you watch it. I was in a theater of about 25 people and I am positive I was one out of like maybe 5 who understood what was going on. I heard no less then 10 people (exiting the theater and building) state how confused they were. A series of interloping personal stories and dramas centered around oil and it's vast social, economic and political implications basically. Shown through the context of a CIA operative working in the middle east, migrant workers turned terrorist pawns, Oil Company Ceo's, Economists and Middle Eastern politicians. Everything work's out and is explained that needs to be explained. Highly recommended and suggest everyone ignore the right wing commentators (who haven't even watched it) who have been saying that it empathized with terrorism. Ridiculous. Just because George Clooney is in it doesn't make it some pinko/capitalism stinks film. Matt Damon and Alexander Siddig ( who I only knew as the doctor on a Star Trek series) were awesome in it. Everyone was good really. Great scene highlights include Damon and Siddig on a sand dune speaking job opportunities and cultural perception after some tragedy had happened and the corruption speech by Tim Blake Nelson.
Syriana: Just watched it in theater. Awesome film. Fast paced. I did not know going in that the director of Traffic made it but had realized as much before the movie was over....without asking anyone. Kind of like knowing without checking that 12 Monkeys was a Gilliam movie. You have to be awake when you watch it. I was in a theater of about 25 people and I am positive I was one out of like maybe 5 who understood what was going on. I heard no less then 10 people (exiting the theater and building) state how confused they were. A series of interloping personal stories and dramas centered around oil and it's vast social, economic and political implications basically. Shown through the context of a CIA operative working in the middle east, migrant workers turned terrorist pawns, Oil Company Ceo's, Economists and Middle Eastern politicians. Everything work's out and is explained that needs to be explained. Highly recommended and suggest everyone ignore the right wing commentators (who haven't even watched it) who have been saying that it empathized with terrorism. Ridiculous. Just because George Clooney is in it doesn't make it some pinko/capitalism stinks film. Matt Damon and Alexander Siddig ( who I only knew as the doctor on a Star Trek series) were awesome in it. Everyone was good really. Great scene highlights include Damon and Siddig on a sand dune speaking job opportunities and cultural perception after some tragedy had happened and the corruption speech by Tim Blake Nelson.
I thought I'd previously commented on Syriana, but no - that was just in my LiveJournal. I, too, thought it was great (second-best film of the year - the best being Crash). Anyone who found the film "confusing" - including way too many professional critics - has the attention span of an MTV addict. Sure, there are four different threads running through the film, but each narrative is pretty linear. If you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you really should have no problem with the film.
Does the interweaving of the plot-lines create a sense of chaos and sometimes disorientation? Sure. But the world is chaotic and disorienting, especially the parts of the world caught up in the global politics of the oil industry. To expect a film that contends with multinational chicanery, political and economic finagling, government intrigue, and terrorism to be some simple boy-meets-girl scenario with no gradual reevelation of plot elements (which, apparently, is all a modern audience has the palate for any more) is brainless.
I haven't seen anything by the people claiming that Syriana empathizes with terrorism, but the notion is patently absurd. Granted, the terrorist thread is the least well-developed, but its depiction of how the madrassas manipulate the dispossessed and indoctrinate the disgruntled is far from sympathetic. It is simply accurate (if a bit shorthanded). This is one of the first movies I've seen in ages that has real, grown-up political content - and it isn't preachy or one-sided. It is thoughtful, complex, challenging, and extremely stimulating (not to mention very well-acted and directed). I would recommend it to anyone who participates here: we are it's prime audience.
(Oh - just for the record, Stephen Gaghan, who wrote and directed Syriana was the screenwriter of Traffic. Steven Soderbergh, who directed Traffic, was an executive producer on Syriana.)
I, too, thought it was great (second-best film of the year - the best being Crash). Anyone who found the film "confusing" - including way too many professional critics - has the attention span of an MTV addict. Sure, there are four different threads running through the film, but each narrative is pretty linear. If you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you really should have no problem with the film.Does the interweaving of the plot-lines create a sense of chaos and sometimes disorientation? Sure. But the world is chaotic and disorienting, especially the parts of the world caught up in the global politics of the oil industry. To expect a film that contends with multinational chicanery, political and economic finagling, government intrigue, and terrorism to be some simple boy-meets-girl scenario with no gradual reevelation of plot elements (which, apparently, is all a modern audience has the palate for any more) is brainless.
I haven't seen anything by the people claiming that Syriana empathizes with terrorism, but the notion is patently absurd. Granted, the terrorist thread is the least well-developed, but its depiction of how the madrassas manipulate the dispossessed and indoctrinate the disgruntled is far from sympathetic. It is simply accurate (if a bit shorthanded). This is one of the first movies I've seen in ages that has real, grown-up political content - and it isn't preachy or one-sided. It is thoughtful, complex, challenging, and extremely stimulating (not to mention very well-acted and directed). I would recommend it to anyone who participates here: we are it's prime audience.
(Oh - just for the record, Stephen Gaghan, who wrote and directed Syriana was the screenwriter of Traffic. Steven Soderbergh, who directed Traffic, was an executive producer on Syriana.)
I'm with you in that regard, Wertz. The film wasn't confusing, it was complex. But it's a movie about the socio-political-economic relationship between America's government and oil industry with the Middle East...if you can simplify that so John Q. Public understands it, you're a better man than I. I was pleasantly suprised by Syriana but found it a wee bit disingenuous at times. For example, the movie made us out to be the only reason why Iran isn't a Western style Republic or Democracy...That's a bit of a stretch. But otherwise I thought it was excellent though I'm horrified of clipping my nails now...if you've seen the movie you'll get that.
CP
CP
So not the same director just some interelation between some of the film's major backer's and script writers? The camera work and the way in which it was paced...even the presentation of the film's dialogue (kind of somber) heavily reminded me of Traffic. I asked a friend "That had to be the same director who did traffic?" to which he said "oh yeah". It seems we were wrong although the touch was there.
I also did not find it confusing at all. However, you would have thought everyone had just watched Primer as they spoke of Syriana while exiting the theater. You would have thought they had just been asked to crack the Rosetta stone or something. These were not teenagers either. 40 year old men...well dressed men. Things like "I could watch that 2, 3, 4 times and still not know what was going on" was something I heard. People were grumbling as I exited the theater. It was clear that few had understood what had just happened before their eyes
I mean I guess that's Springfield, Illinois for you.
Even worse as I headed home I stopped at a gas station and had to listen to a female Jay & Silent Bob type who was talking to the clerk at the station and relating to her how Ford had just went bankrupt and pining how she wanted to move to Australia because they are wealthier then we are.
I also did not find it confusing at all. However, you would have thought everyone had just watched Primer as they spoke of Syriana while exiting the theater. You would have thought they had just been asked to crack the Rosetta stone or something. These were not teenagers either. 40 year old men...well dressed men. Things like "I could watch that 2, 3, 4 times and still not know what was going on" was something I heard. People were grumbling as I exited the theater. It was clear that few had understood what had just happened before their eyes
I mean I guess that's Springfield, Illinois for you.
Even worse as I headed home I stopped at a gas station and had to listen to a female Jay & Silent Bob type who was talking to the clerk at the station and relating to her how Ford had just went bankrupt and pining how she wanted to move to Australia because they are wealthier then we are.
Same writer, kalabus - just, this time, he also directed. I think much of the similarity between the two is in the structure, so the screenplay would loom large in that regard. 
I don't think it's just Springfield, either. I've seen lots of reviews in major dailies and weeklies going on and on about how "confusing" and "outrageously complicated" the film is. I keep reading these things and going "What? Pay attention, you idiots!" I think a lot of these people are afraid of coming off as too anti-business (i.e., anti-American) if their reviews are too glowing, so they're targeting the film's complexity as a flaw or something. They should just chill. The movie could have been far more damning - and still remained well within the realm of plausibility.
One of the things I like about Gaghan's work is that his stories are very human - and, while their characters may have certain biases of their own, he tends to focus more on personal reactions to situations rather than condemning the politics of the situations themselves. At least that seemed to be the case in Rules of Engagement and Traffic and Havoc and Syriana. I haven't seen The Alamo (his other screenplay), but I suspect it, too, might have focussed on the people caught up in events rather than the events themselves. That's not to say that his scripts are devoid of political content - he certainly does his homework and the background events are usually pretty convincing, but I don't think his stuff is at all as biased as some would like to make out.
I don't think it's just Springfield, either. I've seen lots of reviews in major dailies and weeklies going on and on about how "confusing" and "outrageously complicated" the film is. I keep reading these things and going "What? Pay attention, you idiots!" I think a lot of these people are afraid of coming off as too anti-business (i.e., anti-American) if their reviews are too glowing, so they're targeting the film's complexity as a flaw or something. They should just chill. The movie could have been far more damning - and still remained well within the realm of plausibility.
One of the things I like about Gaghan's work is that his stories are very human - and, while their characters may have certain biases of their own, he tends to focus more on personal reactions to situations rather than condemning the politics of the situations themselves. At least that seemed to be the case in Rules of Engagement and Traffic and Havoc and Syriana. I haven't seen The Alamo (his other screenplay), but I suspect it, too, might have focussed on the people caught up in events rather than the events themselves. That's not to say that his scripts are devoid of political content - he certainly does his homework and the background events are usually pretty convincing, but I don't think his stuff is at all as biased as some would like to make out.
I saw Munich recently, and I thought it was excellent. Although moderate political statements in films drive me to distracction, this time it didnt. I thought the film did a good job portraying the complexity of the subject: whether or not its OK for states to get involved with terrorism, the human cost of adhereing to an ideology.
Side note, why do all these new films have to deal with terrorists? Even some of the previews I saw before the movie all had the same theme.
Side note, why do all these new films have to deal with terrorists? Even some of the previews I saw before the movie all had the same theme.
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Dec 29 2005, 12:57 PM)
I saw Munich recently, and I thought it was excellent. Although moderate
political statements in films drive me to distracction, this time it didnt. I thought
the film did a good job portraying the complexity of the subject: whether or not
its OK for states to get involved with terrorism, the human cost of adhereing to
an ideology.
political statements in films drive me to distracction, this time it didnt. I thought
the film did a good job portraying the complexity of the subject: whether or not
its OK for states to get involved with terrorism, the human cost of adhereing to
an ideology.
I saw this movie a few nights ago and had the same feelings. It's a movie
worth seeing, though it's depressing.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.