BetterMost, Wyoming & Brokeback Mountain Forum

The World Beyond BetterMost => The Culture Tent => Topic started by: ednbarby on October 21, 2006, 10:27:34 am

Title: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on October 21, 2006, 10:27:34 am
My dear JennyC mentioned in chat last night that we should really resurrect the movies thread we had going a while back.  Being too lazy to actually find that thread, I'll just start another one if you all don't mind.

I've been a theater-going fool lately, ever since I discovered the highly secure children's playroom my local Muvico theater provides and found that Will *loves* it and in fact prefers going there over seeing a movie (must be his father's son on that one).  They have all kinds of computers and computer games for little kids, they show a Disney movie on a big-screen TV continuously (oh, well - gotta take the good with the bad), they have a chest full of costumes for them to play dress-up, which Will has decided he really likes doing - I've found him running around in fireman garb when I've gone to pick him up more times than I can count...  It's all good.

ANYway, here is the litany of movies I've seen since making this discovery:

The Illusionist - liked it a lot

The Black Dahlia - didn't like it at all

The Departed - liked it a lot

The Devil Wears Prada - liked it

Little Miss Sunshine - liked it a lot

Today, for lack of anything better playing at this theater, I'm going to see "Flicka," mostly because I'm one of those weirdos who always loves the following movie genres, no matter how bad the resulting movies may be:

Movies about horses

Movies about baseball (even though I couldn't actually care less about baseball)

Movies about serial killers (don't ask me why on that one)

So what movies have you all seen lately in the theaters or on DVD that you've liked/hated/would recommend?

I'd recommend all of the above except for The Black Dahlia, but none of them knocked my socks off.  I keep waiting for that to happen since Brokeback, and it ain't yet.  But I'm hopeful.

Movies I'm looking forward to seeing:

Sherrybaby

Infamous (hopefully this week on that one)

Running With Scissors (opens next Friday here)

You?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: SFEnnisSF on October 21, 2006, 10:39:20 am
I think I'm gonna go see Flicka too.  Mmmmm, Tim McGraw....  :P :D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: RouxB on October 21, 2006, 12:53:16 pm
Prior to BbM, Flicka would have never entered my consiousness to see. Now, I'm counting the days for it.

Good idea Barb to resurrect the movie thread. I would love to see the level of analysis (if not the love) we bestowed on BbM directed towards some other flicks.

Someone pick one...or two.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: jura86 on October 21, 2006, 03:58:40 pm
I've been a cinema junkie recently too. I saw The Departed and thought it was brilliant! Perhaps not a classic like "Goodfellas" but still had me interested and entertained throughout. Went to see World Trade Center the other day, which I thought was awful, not at all moving, the story was very strangely told, I just couldn't connect with any of the characters. Also saw Children of Men a few weeks ago - I know that its not coming out in the US for a while - but when it does, I urge you all to see it. Wasn't perfect, but thought-provoking - the idea of a world without children is very creepy indeed... Also saw The Queen which I really enjoyed, very amusing!

As for upcoming films I'm really looking forward to seeing Bobby - what an amazing cast! Wanna see The Good Shepherd, The Prestige and Babel too.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on October 21, 2006, 04:45:07 pm
Also saw Children of Men a few weeks ago - I know that its not coming out in the US for a while - but when it does, I urge you all to see it. Wasn't perfect, but thought-provoking - the idea of a world without children is very creepy indeed...

I just got back from the cinema where we saw this movie. Depressing and creepy indeed, but with a glimmer of hope at the end. I thought it was very well made and a good performance by Clive Owen.

I saw Thank You For Smoking last week. Very good, sarcastic, funny and thought provoking too.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on October 21, 2006, 09:56:52 pm
You know, I actually saw The Departed twice (my husband hadn't seen it with me the first time).  And on my second viewing, I did appreciate Leonard DiCaprio's work much more.  And Matt Damon's much less.  The latter was really just playing Bad Will Hunting.  The character was very charming, but then so was Will Hunting.  Meanwhile, I didn't see any of Howard Hughes in Leo's Billy Costigan.  At least he's capable of stretching.

I thoroughly enjoyed Flicka today.  A bit predictable at times, but excellent performances throughout, and fairly true to the short story except it was a girl not a boy who tried to tame him.  And all the horses were *gorgeous* - especially Flicka.  He put Black Beauty to shame.

Tim McGraw was especially good.  I'll tell you what - these country singers (for the most part) have got it going on.  Dwight Yoakum blew me away in "Sling Blade," and McGraw was equally intimidating here, but in a much less violent way.  It's funny - just looking at a still shot of McGraw doesn't do much for me, but he's so magnetic in these roles that you can't help but go... "Ooh."

I agree with you, Jura, about World Trade Center.  I was pretty underwhelmed by it.  The women were good, but there was way too little of them to allow you to really connect with them.  And I think Oliver Stone (of all people) was trying too hard to be tasteful, and in so doing sacrificed an already compelling story.  United 93 is the movie you want to see if you want to really get in touch with the magnitude of the loss we experienced that day.  I still shudder thinking about a couple aspects of it.

I'm looking forward to The Good German (as opposed to The Good Shepherd - sorry - on Matt Damon overload lately - I might have to pass on that one).  That's the one where Tobey Maguire actually plays a (mostly) bad guy.  I know he's been on a couple of your most hated actors lists, but dammit, I think the boy can act.  I love him in the Spider-Man movies - I love how really subtle he is, especially when he's first realizing the extent of his new-found powers in the first one.  And I loved him in Pleasantville and The Ice Storm, too.

Speaking of horse movies again, I think Sea Biscuit was my favorite one of all time, mostly because it captured the extraordinary personality of that horse.  And the race sequences were truly thrilling.  That real-like jockey - what is his name? - stole the show.  Talk about magnetic.  I'm not usually one for really short men, but WOW.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: SFEnnisSF on October 22, 2006, 01:24:38 am
Dwight Yoakam is THE MAN.  Not only is he one of my favorite CW singers, he's a great actor too.  Check him out in THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA, where Tommy Lee Jones gives an excellent performance as well. 

Back in March, several Century Theatres locations paired BBM with THREE BURIALS as a double feature!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: silkncense on October 22, 2006, 11:17:09 am
Quote
saw The Departed twice (my husband hadn't seen it with me the first time).  And on my second viewing, I did appreciate Leonard DiCaprio's work much more.  And Matt Damon's much less.  The latter was really just playing Bad Will Hunting.

Barb - I'm glad to read this.  I was going to take issue w/ your first assessment but got sidetracked somewhere along the way & never did.  I loved DiCaprio in The Dparted - actual made me know how he was feeling - w/ Damon - what the hell was he feeling??  I loved this film - not in the realm of Brokeback, but then I truly believe nothing else ever will.

Eric  - Having said that, The Three Burials is the only other movie I even went to while Brokeback was in theaters (saw it once - Brokeback 17 times) and I loved it as well.  Own it also.  The scene with the Blind Rancher - very thought provoking.

Also thouroughly enjoyed Little Miss Sunshine - my sons wanted me to go to that with them (Hmmmmmmm).  Actually laughed out loud.

Planning on seeing The Prestige at some point...

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: jura86 on October 22, 2006, 06:57:33 pm
Also thouroughly enjoyed Little Miss Sunshine - my sons wanted me to go to that with them (Hmmmmmmm).  Actually laughed out loud.


Little Miss Sunshine was brilliant! Will defnitely add that one to my dvd collection when it comes out...

I was surprised too ednbarby by what Oliver Stone did with WTC - I have only just recently watched JFK for the first time, and really enjoyed it - of course it is completey historically inaccurate, but was entertaining nevertheless, and full of great performances, which just made WTC all the more disappointing by comparison. I guess it must be a reactionary thing, Stone was convinced that Alexander was a flop because America is homophobic, which probably isn't true, it just flopped because it was a poor film. I guess he was aiming this one directly at the audiences he supposedly lost last time round.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: littleguitar on October 23, 2006, 12:10:48 am
Saw The Prestige today... it was good, not great, but I enjoyed it. It was smarter than the Illusionist and the ending wasn't quite as predictable, but even given that I still enjoyed The Illusionist more.

Christian Bale gives a good performance, though I wouldn't say it's his best. Hugh Jackman was very good. Scarlett Johansen once again convinced me that she is plastic and she gets steadily worse with every movie since the Island. I think it's worth seeing, but don't expect it to blow you away. And I think the beginning is messy. I'm not sure if that makes sense, maybe it will when you see it...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on October 23, 2006, 12:16:37 am
I'm dying to go see 'The Prestige', and 'Marie Antoinette' and 'The Queen' (the one with Helen Mirren).

2007 is shaping up to be a great movie year for me.

Jake has a new movie cominig out and Ewan McGregor is going to star with Hugh Jackman in one movie, Colin Farrell in another.

Life is sweet.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on October 23, 2006, 09:08:59 am
I'd like to see The Prestige mostly because I like Christopher Nolan films.  They're always so atmospheric - they really put you in that place with the characters.  I love that.  I'd also like to see Marie Antoinette mostly, again, because I like Sofia Coppola.  I really loved Lost in Translation (and yes, Mandy, kind of in spite of Scarlett Johannson - she doesn't do a thing for me, either).

LJ, I totally agree with you about Leo in The Departed.  Not sure where my head was at on that first viewing.  I do still believe that Mark Wahlberg stole it, and I still can't believe I'm saying that.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: chefjudy on October 23, 2006, 09:19:34 am
 :) I saw "The Prestige" last night and really liked it.  If you are thinking of going, watch it with an open mind and pay attention to everything, characters, spoken lines and sets, etc. and even if you figure some of it out, you will want to see it again just to see how it was done, so to speak :D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: silkncense on October 23, 2006, 01:06:39 pm
Quote
Scarlett Johansen once again convinced me that she is plastic and she gets steadily worse with every movie since the Island

Littleguitar - Sooo true.  I totally do not understand any of the hype.  She is a worthless addition to every movie she's in.

Barb - Mark Wahlberg was indeed a great surprise.  Glad you went back & saw how good DiCaprio really was - I've been holding out hope for him every since I saw Gilbert Grape.
 
When things in the theaters got so boring earlier, I went to Hollywood Video & they'd have (haven't seen it lately) 5 DVD's for $20.00.  Bought all kinds of movies I'd never have seen otherwise, some very good, some - worth the money & a few that I couldn't make it through.  It's was a great experiment in movie viewing.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on October 23, 2006, 07:48:14 pm
OK, I don't like Leonardo DiCaprio, but his accent in 'Blood Diamond' has me intrigued.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: jura86 on October 23, 2006, 08:27:33 pm
OK, I don't like Leonardo DiCaprio, but his accent in 'Blood Diamond' has me intrigued.

I laughed out loud when that trailer came on before Departed - his accent was atrocious!

Just remembered I saw Death of a President the other day - have to say I was disappointed with it, I was under the impression that the film would look at what would happen to the world, what the consequences would be, if Bush was assassinated. Instead, it just focused on who committed the assassination, so played a bit like an episode of CSI, different people investigating the shooting.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on October 23, 2006, 10:12:38 pm
I laughed out loud when that trailer came on before Departed - his accent was atrocious!

Is he supposed to be South African or Scandinavian?  I can't tell.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: littleguitar on October 24, 2006, 12:22:07 am
I thought South African... and maybe it was just me but I thought it was fairly good. I spent some time with a few south african men about a year ago... about 12 days on a bus... and it sounded right to me, but that could just be time messing with my mind as 12 days isn't long in the grand scheme of things.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on October 24, 2006, 01:00:43 am
I thought South African... and maybe it was just me but I thought it was fairly good. I spent some time with a few south african men about a year ago... about 12 days on a bus... and it sounded right to me, but that could just be time messing with my mind as 12 days isn't long in the grand scheme of things.

Accents are funny things.  People hear them differently.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: RouxB on October 24, 2006, 10:34:13 pm
I'll play it for a South African tomorrow and see what he says...

 O0
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on October 25, 2006, 09:33:33 am
What do you guys think of Tim Robbins' attempt at it in "Catch a Fire" - have you seen the trailer for that one yet?  From what I can tell, I think he does it better - more (or some) subtle.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on October 29, 2006, 10:41:40 pm
Bumped for her pleasure...  ;)

So here's my new tally:  This week, I have seen Infamous, The Prestige, and today - Running With Scissors.  I'd give them three stars, two and a half stars, and three stars respectively.  That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the first and the last.  The Prestige I did not care for much - I saw the "twist" from a mile away and it irritated me.  Way too obvious.  And I saw what several of you mean about Scarlett Johannson.  I didn't think she was terrible, but compared with the actors who played the young magicians' wives, she sucked royally.  Both of them were so subtle.  I don't know what it is, but I've just never fully believed Scarlett in a role.  Not ever.  She even irritated me in The Horse Whisperer.  I kept thinking "Too bad somebody else isn't playing that girl."  I hadn't even read the book - I just didn't believe her.  Hell, I wanted to see the horse's acting more.  He conveyed way more humanity.

Infamous is one of those movies that's deeply flawed - the tone and pacing are uneven to the point of being unnerving - but that contains one or two movie "moments" that burn into your memory cells.  The first for me was the very first scene, with Gwyneth Paltrow singing a Peggy Lee type song and Capote's and his companion's reaction to it.  Beautiful, beautiful acting by Paltrow, Toby Jones and Sigourney Weaver.  Just - Wow.  The other one is the scene with that rancher I mentioned in another post talking to Capote and Harper Lee about what makes a good person go bad.  Sandra Bullock was excellent, by the way.  And I'm not one of those who particularly likes her, especially ever since that certain movie she so gleefully touted last year got a certain award it didn't come close to deserving.  But I digress.  I liked that this one gave the Harper Lee character much more air time and depth than did "Capote."  I liked how Catherine Keener played her in the latter - I just wanted to know more about her.  This one did that.  In spades.  And since Sandra Bullock sufficiently uglified herself, she's a shoo-in for an Oscar.   ::)

The thing about Running With Scissors that makes it most worth seeing is the acting.  Just fearless, vulnerable, wide-freaking-open-and-out-there stuff.  I've never seen so many people cry so often and found myself so entertained by it before.  Joseph Cross was amazing.  I will now say what I said out loud about The Gyllenhaal after seeing "October Sky" - if that boy plays his cards right, he's got a bright future ahead of him.  And Joseph Fiennes was just - Holy Shit Wow.  And I'm not just saying that because I lusted for him mightily after seeing Shakespeare in Love.  Eleven times.  After that, I kept watching his movies with high hopes that I'd see that same spark and intensity as before and was disappointed every time.  Not this time.  Again, totally fearless portrayal.  Just the psychotic episodes alone would be daunting to a lesser actor.  And of course Annette Bening was, as they say, riveting.  You know what it is?  She has those bright eyes, like Judi Dench - you just cannot take your eyes off of them.

OK, enough pontificating for now.  But God, I love this time of year where movies are concerned.  And it's only getting better from this point on.  Have I seen a Romeo/Brokeback Mountain?  I have not.  But I have high hopes.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: dot-matrix on November 05, 2006, 08:29:47 pm
Been working lots of hours so haven't been to the cinema in a while now but I did see a film last night I'd like to suggest to anyone renting or netflixing films.

Bee Season(2005)
directed byScott McGehee & David Siegel 

Richard Gere, Juliette Binoche, Flora Cross and Max Minghella

My initial attraction to this film was because the screen play was written by Jake’s Mom, Naomi Foner Gyllenhaal based on a novel by Myla Goldberg.  First let me say, I love indie films, there are some real jewels to found outside studio films. They are often quiet, deep, introspective films like Brokeback Mountain.  That’s what I found here, a quiet profound little jewel.

In many ways, the family at the center of this story is not that different from the family in the middle of the divorce drama THE SQUID AND THE WHALE. They enjoy the benefits of belonging to an upper-middle class society and their household is one full of books and musical instruments and a sense of harmony.

Or is it? Are they the perfect family? Meet the Naumanns: Father (Richard Gere) is an avid scholar who teaches the Kabbalah. Mother (Juliette Binoche) is an introvert who passes the time going into other people's properties and collecting items (some which she even gives her daughter Eliza) and has of late taken to a habit of coming home late to dinner. Oldest son Aaron (Anthony Minghella) has a quiet intensity and devotion to his family, particularly his sister, whom he clearly loves. And Eliza (Flora Cross) is one of those quiet individuals who have an ancient wisdom that makes her come across closer to an old soul. It is Eliza who senses all that is wrong with her family, as it appears they are falling apart in front of her, and as a little girl, she simply can't do anything at all to bring everyone together. As a way to escape the unhappy home, Eliza immerses herself in the spelling bee contests in which she excels. Not until then, does she get the attention of her father, who supports her newly found talent.

The advent of the spelling bee victories signals the downward spiral that eventually tears at the foundation and reveals the ugliness beneath. For people who are in love with words, and for Saul Naumann, who teaches the vibration of words and their connection to a greater reality, the reality of being One with the Verb, he is the one most at fault. He's the perfect student who knows what he's reading, but doesn't necessarily practice what he preaches. This spelling bee is a ways for him to bask in Eliza's prowess.

Aaron progressively becomes aware of this lie within his home and is the first to openly rebel. It's a predictable move because it's happened to the best of us. Since Dad practices the Jewish faith, why not choose a belief that challenges it? Enter Challi (Evan Rachel Wood), the girl whom Aaron finds attractive, like a siren calling out to him. Sure, their meeting feels cliché, but I've seen the same types of encounters happening with people of other sects. Her pat screen time serves to instill action in Aaron and create a deeper need to attack Dad's quiet, arrogant pomposity.

Even so, it's not a sincere move.  Against this back drop the mother, Miriam is a woman who is deeply disturbed by what happened in her own life with the tragedy of her parents death. Saul and Miriam's marriage is over, but they don't do anything to correct the situation. Miriam's problems come to a head when she is taken away and makes Saul confront the many issues that he probably never dealt with before.  And with Miriam 's progressive descent into her own world of trinkets and stolen gifts, the only one who seems capable of any real sense of spirituality is young Eliza who lives deep inside her own unformed, unnamed faith. It's of such a magnitude that she at one key moment, invoking the voice of God before her climactic contest, suffers a seizure immediately following an intense rapture.

BEE SEASON is a movie that looks hokey from different perspectives but spoke to me with its message of what true mysticism means
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Ellemeno on November 06, 2006, 01:49:56 am
I really was glad to read the book Bee Season.  I look forward to the movie.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on November 13, 2006, 11:48:13 am
I really was glad to read the book Bee Season.  I look forward to the movie.

I'll have to check that out, too.  It gets really good reviews, and I always enjoy Angela Bassett.

Speaking of six degrees of Jake movies, I checked out Stranger Than Fiction yesterday (Maggie's in it) and LOVED it.  Maybe it helps that I went into it with somewhat lowered expectations - for Will Ferrell, primarily.  And I was very pleasantly surprised.  This just in:  It turns out he can act.  And he and Maggie had a very nice and believable chemistry together.  She's so adorable, really.  And the character she plays is basically me, except I don't have tattoos and I didn't drop out of Harvard Law.  But I can bake (quite well, thankyouverymuch - my bourbon pecan pie is to die for), and I *am* somewhat of an anarchist.  And I'm definitely opinionated.  I especuially loved her character Ana's rationale for not paying 22% of her federal income tax.

And I so enjoyed listening to Emma Thompson's beautiful voice and witty narration of Harold Crick's life.

It was all good, even the ending - which normally wouldn't be my cup of tea - because it was ironic.  And that's all I'll say on that matter.

Don't miss it!  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on November 13, 2006, 08:31:07 pm
Saw Marie Antoinette.

I liked Sofia Coppola's 'Lost in Translation', but though Marie is lushly filmed and the costumes are gorgeous, the settings magnificent (you can't go wrong with Versailles), you can see she was going for something similar with Marie, but didn't pull it off.

The period was too fraught with history, politics and change, the court at Versailles rife with intrique and cabals...and all of that is ignored.

The few modern soundtrack pieces did nothing for the story which was extremely spare in dialogue.  It was meant to be a character study, I think, but it failed.  You get next to nothing on her character, no history, no politics, it's not a dialogue/plot driven movie.  The whole movie was like gorgeous postcard shots of Marie's life.

I think Coppola meant to point out how isolating and boredom-inducing being a dauphine was, but Coppola touched so little on Marie's character that you didn't much care that she was bored.  She seemed to fill her time amply enough without any deep thoughts about it being any other way.

Several people walked out before the end.

I didn't pay full price and I'm glad I didn't.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on November 14, 2006, 02:08:33 pm
You know, I debated about seeing this one.  Then I saw it go to just night-time screenings after being open for only a few weeks, and I knew that was the kiss of death.  I like Kirsten and Sofia, but I've never been too wild about purposely (or otherwise) anachronistic things.  Titanic, anyone?   :P

Thanks for the review, Del.  I'll gladly pass.

Again, I really must urge everyone to go see Stranger Than Fiction.  Especially given we're such a literate crowd.  Here's a link to a review that aptly describes exactly why it's so appealing to literature buffs like us:

http://www.pajiba.com/stranger-than-fiction.htm (http://www.pajiba.com/stranger-than-fiction.htm)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on November 16, 2006, 11:57:01 pm
OK, just got home from a free screening of The Fountain with Hugh Jackman.

Pluses - beautiful cinematography, imaginative camera angles, intriguingly crafted tale, the camera loves the two acting leads (Hugh Jackman has his contractual obligatory shirtless scene which is always a plus), deeply emotional story

Minuses - deeply emotional story.  It's heartwrenchingly depressing.  I'm sure there is supposed to be a positive note to the movie somewhere, but the anguish of the characters completely buries it.  You will spend much of the movie in tears.

Hint - the advertising for the movie is misleading.  It's not what you think.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on November 17, 2006, 12:27:40 am
I'd like to see Hugh in The Boy from Oz or Oklahoma, but I guess I never will.

Has anybody seen Casino Royale yet? I'd like to know what Brokies think of this newest Bond film.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: dot-matrix on November 17, 2006, 03:24:11 am
I'd like to see Hugh in The Boy from Oz or Oklahoma, but I guess I never will.

Has anybody seen Casino Royale yet? I'd like to know what Brokies think of this newest Bond film.

His London stage production of Oklahoma for Trevor Nunn is on DVD Front Ranger and it is magnificient!  Unfortunately Boy from Oz is noton DVD, I keep watching for it though with my fingers crossed  :D So far no luck.  Since it was such a limited run and only he played it you'd thing by now they would have a DVD out.  Hmmmmm unless of course Hugh plans to reprise the role in a revival of Boy from Oz...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on November 25, 2006, 02:43:33 pm
Saw A Good Year yesterday.

Lovely, picturesque move.  It's a movie about love.  Love between an uncle and his nephew, between a man and his career, a man and a country, a man and his memories, a man and his lifestyle and finally, less importantly, love between a man and a woman.

Ridley Scott keeps the tempo of the movie moving quickly considering the subject matter.  Beautifully filmed, Russell Crowe at his most charming.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on November 27, 2006, 06:27:13 pm
Thanks for the review, I went to A Good Year yesterday. Russell Crowe was so charming that his early attempts at being an ass I couldn't believe in the film.

Also, della, could you give me more info on The Fountain? Is it really an adaptation of the novel The Time Traveler's Wife?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 03, 2006, 01:43:09 pm
Thanks for the review, I went to A Good Year yesterday. Russell Crowe was so charming that his early attempts at being an ass I couldn't believe in the film.

Also, della, could you give me more info on The Fountain? Is it really an adaptation of the novel The Time Traveler's Wife?

Sorry being so late in response.  I'm on vacation now and last week was a bear tying up loose ends.

No, The Fountain is defintely NOT an adaption of The Time Traveler's Wife.  It is an original work.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 16, 2006, 11:41:16 pm
Went and saw The Holiday.  Good romantic comedy fluff.

Practically got a headache from all the blinding whitened teeth showing during the scenes between Jude Law and Cameron Diaz when the Beautiful People are smiling at each other and flirting.

The Kate Winslet/Jack Black storyline is more believable, as much as can be expected in such a comedy about fabulously wealthy people who have love troubles in a world where everyone dresses in high end designer wear and lives in huge fabulous houses

Hollywood sure does like to make movies about itself though.  :P
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 26, 2006, 11:09:17 pm
Went and saw Apocalypto.

Amazingly it was a just a good action adventure.  That simple. 

You can indentify with the characters - on both sides - and really feel for them.  There are plot holes but not anymore than any other movie.  HIstorically there were problems, but you're pretty much following the story which could have been set in any ancient culture.

The violence is not as gory as I thought it would be.  No different than some Conan the Barbarian type movie - much much less gory than a Quentin Tarantino movie.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: silkncense on December 27, 2006, 02:59:17 pm
As an aside:


Premiere's Top 20 Most Overrated Films of All Time

American Beauty
Chicago
Clerks.
Fantasia
Field of Dreams
Chariots of Fire
Good Will Hunting
Forrest Gump
Jules and Jim
A Beautiful Mind
Monster's Ball
Moonstruck
Mystic River
Nashville
The Wizard of Oz
An American in Paris
Easy Rider
The Red Shoes
2001: A Space Odyssey
Gone with the Wind
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on December 27, 2006, 03:30:02 pm
Okay, I can agree with all those except Nashville. That Robert Altman film was groundbreaking conceptually, entertaining, and thought-provoking on several levels. Plus, it had amazing performances by Lily Tomlin and others.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on January 02, 2007, 08:54:11 pm
Went and saw The Children of Men with Clive Owen.

Clive is looking fine and was worth the price of admission alone.

The movie was OK.  Not great.  Watching the movie's version of the 3rd worldization of the West was disturbing.  But what got to me the most was the movie's attitude.


I don't believe the below contains any spoilers because it was pretty much evident from the previews.



I'm not sure if it's because I'm not a big fan of children, but the attitude of the main character and movie in general I found unusual.  Clive's character was described as being depressed and the society in general has an atmosphere of hopelessness because the human race is going to go extinct because of the infertility of the women (the movie states outright it's the women and not the men).

I guess I don't understand this attitude being so prevalent.  Would it be, do you think?

Is it a parent thing?  I understand that some people feel bereft for a myriad of reasons if they wanted to have children and can't.  But that doesn't bother the rest of us who never wanted children.

Or is it a humanocentric thing?  That nothing matters except humans and if we are going to go extinct then that's a reason to want to commit suicide or tear society apart?

What's wrong with enjoying what's left of one's life?   
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: cmr107 on January 02, 2007, 10:13:07 pm
I don't usually like to make recommendations, but I highly recommend The Pursuit of Happyness (sic) with Will Smith. He had a wonderful performance. They say this is the performance of his career, and I agree. His son (his real son played his son in the movie) is adorable and gave a really great performance too. I hardly ever cry at movies, but I got teary twice.

I also saw Dreamgirls. For those of you who don't know, it's a movie version of a Broadway musical. I never saw the stage version, but a friend of mine who knows pretty much everything there is to know about musicals said it did a great job of staying true to the original. Great cast, with terrific performances by all. Jennifer Hudson has an AMAZING voice, and Keith Robinson has probably the most gorgeous smile I've ever seen. If you like musicals, you won't be disappointed.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: j.U.d.E. on January 03, 2007, 05:47:27 am
As far as I can see, noone has mentioned "Little Miss Sunshine". Saw it yesterday and it is a truly wonderful film! All the cast is exceptional and there's lots of poetry!

j. U. d. E.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on January 03, 2007, 08:01:54 am
As far as I can see, noone has mentioned "Little Miss Sunshine". Saw it yesterday and it is a truly wonderful film! All the cast is exceptional and there's lots of poetry!

j. U. d. E.


Yes! i saw it too last week and loved it. It was funny and very moving. Great film.

hey Jude! Good to see you again! Happy New Year!  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on January 03, 2007, 08:14:48 am
I also saw it recently, but I guess I missed the poetry?? Can you refresh my memory??

Maybe join us for the full moon chat later on and discuss it??

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 03, 2007, 08:19:39 am
I saw Little Miss Sunshine a week or two ago on DVD and enjoyed it.

As for the overrated movies list, I would take The Red Shoes off. I have always loved that movie and the dancing is spectacular.

Some of the others...Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind...seem overexposed to us now, but we have to remember the time and context in which they were made.

I definitely agree on American Beauty and Monster's Ball, though.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 03, 2007, 10:06:32 am
I didn't think Moonstruck was all that overrated.  Not a *great* movie, but then it wasn't touted to be.

TOTALLY agree on A Beautiful Mind.  That was SO not even a good movie.  What a bunch of crap.  And of course it won the Oscar.   ::)

I really enjoyed Little Miss Sunshine.  At the time I saw it in the middle of last year, I thought it was overrated.  But now I look back on the year and realize it was one of the best five or so movies I saw in the theater.

Was it a crap movie year, or is it just me?

Of all the movies I saw, these are the ones I liked the best, in order, with my Barb-O-Meter rating following:

The Departed - 8 1/2
The Queen - 8
Little Miss Sunshine - 8
Casino Royale - 8
The Illusionist - 7 1/2
The Fountain - 7

Crap.  I can't think of any other good ones.  I haven't seen The Pursuit of Happyness, Dreamgirls, or Babel yet, though.  And I'm hoping Notes on a Scandal will be good.  I'm sure Judi Dench's performance alone will be worth the price of admission.  That opens here this weekend.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 03, 2007, 10:15:50 am
I posted on another thread that I thought it was a lousy year for movies, so you are not alone, Barb.

I saw the first three on your list and would agree with your ratings, although I think The Departed is a consolation prize for Scorcese. I liked GoodFellas better and thought it was a better movie.

Other things I saw this year: Prairie Home Companion (yawn); The Devil Wears Prada (good for a few laughs but I felt like Anne Hathaway was reprising her role from The Princess Diaries); Candy (Heath is great, the movie is depressing). I liked The Prestige ALOT. I'd give it an 8.5. I am surprised more people aren't talking about it.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 03, 2007, 11:46:47 am
I liked The Prestige, but Christian Bale leaves me cold as an actor.  He's another one like Mark Wahlberg that has little to no light in his eyes.  I feel like he's always behind a curtain, you know?  The only thing I've ever liked Wahlberg in was The Departed, and he wasn't only good, he stole the damned thing.  It's like someone turned on the light inside of him.  Scorsese, maybe?  I don't know, but he was brilliant.  Couldn't stand him in Invincible - I spent the entire movie imagining how much better it would be with someone - ANYONE - else playing Vince Papale.  When they showed the real Vince at the end, he blew Wahlberg off the screen.

But I digress.  The Prestige was very good, but again, I'd have liked it better with someone with a tad more (or some) charisma playing Bale's part.  Sorry, Christian fans.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 03, 2007, 11:55:16 am
Ha ha, I guess I was too busy be mesmerized by Hugh in The Prestige to pay too much attention to Christian. I am not all that familiar with him, anyway (but isn't he going to be Batman to Heath's Joker?)

As for Mark Wahlberg, I agree...I have never cared for him, since Boogie Nights (another overrated movie, IMO). But he absolutely stole the show in The Departed. I didn't realize who the actor was until the credits rolled and my jaw dropped open.

Leslie
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 03, 2007, 03:03:02 pm
Yep, Christian Bale was Batman in "Batman Begins" and will be again opposite Heath.  Didn't much like the former in that one, either.  I think what bugs me about him is that he played Laurie in "Little Women" and didn't live up to the decades-long vision I'd had (and carried close in my heart) of that character.  He looked the part, but again there was no light in his eyes.  And don't even get me started about Winona Ryder playing Jo.   ::)
Title: Re: Best Movie of 2006?
Post by: ednbarby on January 05, 2007, 11:22:34 am
I have *got* to see United 93.  Just put it on the top of my Netflix queue.  Dammit.

Of all the ones I've seen, I liked The Departed the most, but I haven't seen the above, Little Children, or Letters From Iwo Jima yet.  I think those are gonna be great.
Title: Re: Best Movie of 2006?
Post by: Lynne on January 05, 2007, 11:29:15 am
I have *got* to see United 93.  Just put it on the top of my Netflix queue.  Dammit.

Of all the ones I've seen, I liked The Departed the most, but I haven't seen the above, Little Children, or Letters From Iwo Jima yet.  I think those are gonna be great.

I've missed The Departed in the theatre and I really wanted to see it, thanks in large part to the good things you had to say about it, Barb.  See Babel if you get a chance - it's highly decent and nice to watch/hear Rodrigo and Prieto together.
Title: Re: Best Movie of 2006?
Post by: Scott6373 on January 05, 2007, 11:40:58 am
"United 93" was brilliant.  "The Departed" was also quite good, but just because if the star-studded cast dosen't mean it is the best.  "Cars", was awfully good as well.
Title: Re: Best Movie of 2006?
Post by: ednbarby on January 05, 2007, 03:21:28 pm
I agree about The Departed, Scott.  Actually, if anything, the weak links in it were Jack Nicholson and Martin Sheen.  I believed Jack well enough, but I thought a couple of the scenes were overindulging him.  Martin Sheen I barely believed at all.  I kept seeing President Whats-It from The West Wing.  But I thought it was overall a well-structured movie and compelling story, well-done for the most part.

I'm looking (strangely) forward to seeing United 93, now.  I see it's at the top of most critics' Top Ten lists.  I just put it at numero uno on my Netflix queue.  My bonehead husband got to the queue first and put (gag) Hostel there, so that's what we're getting tonight.  I have news for him:  He'll be watching that one alone.  He may tell me the same about United 93.  I hope not, though, because in that case he'll be missing probably a great movie.
Title: Re: Best Movie of 2006?
Post by: Kd5000 on January 05, 2007, 03:55:59 pm
I think I will remember this cinematic year for the number of disappointments. I was looking fwd to RUNNING WITH SCISSORS.  It wasn't up to par.  THE FOUNTAIN directed by the guy who did REQUIEM FOR THE DREAM had beautiful imagery, good score, but very, very confusing narrative. THE BLACK DHALIA was no L.A. CONFIDENTIAL. 

THE QUEEN was the movie I most enjoyed watching this year. Saw it at a film fest. Got a standing ovation.   

I didn't see THE DEPARTED. For some reason, couldn't get motivated to go see it.   I rather Scorsese when he does movies like THE AGE OF INNOCENCE or THE AVIATOR as oppose to gangster films.  I might be seeing CHILDREN OF MEN (a dystopic future sci-fi film) this weekend.

Abstaining from THE OSCARS won't be hard for me this year as I think it was a rather mediocre year in cinema.

Good look with watching UNITED 93.  The local critic picked that as his favorite movie.  I just don't think I'm ready for it.
Title: Re: Best Movie of 2006?
Post by: Scott6373 on January 05, 2007, 03:58:44 pm
"United 93" wasn't that tough to watch.  It was so well done.  Everyone should see it.  "World Trade Center" was garbage in comaprison.  I liked "The Queen", and Helen deserves some award (besides there were no other noteworthy female performances this year).
Title: Re: Best Movie of 2006?
Post by: MaineWriter on January 05, 2007, 04:06:43 pm
Remember when rt was here and telling us all (begging us, actually) to go see United 93? He said it was that good? Obviously, he was right since it is landing on lots of top ten lists.

I have said it before and I'll said it again, The Departed was good, but GoodFellas was better. And Barb and I have already agreed that Mark Wahlberg stole the show.

All of the Oscar watch predictions have Helen Mirren lock, stock, and barrel for Best Actress. Meryl Streep may get nominated for The Devil Wears Prada.  Who else? Nothing comes quickly to mind. Maybe the woman from Little Miss Sunshine (blanking right now...Toni Collette?).

A movie I enjoyed that is not getting much press is The Prestige.

Leslie
Title: Re: Best Movie of 2006?
Post by: ednbarby on January 05, 2007, 06:04:07 pm
I sure do remember rt talking about United 93, Leslie.  He'd laugh if he could see us talking about it now, like, "Hel-LO!  I told you guys about this six months ago!"  (But in a good-natured way, of course.)

I'm sure it's WAY better than World Trade Center.  I thought that one sucked out loud (except for Maggie's, as always, riveting part in it).  Sorry, but it was a total bust other than that.  I swear Oliver Stone has been invaded by the Bush Administration Soul Snatchers.  Did he just get way too rich and now he's a Republican?  I don't get it.  Way dumbed down for the masses, if you ask me.

I really liked The Queen, too.  Actually, there's starting to be a lot of talk about Judi Dench in Notes on a Scandal and Kate Winslet in Little Children, both of which I hope to see this weekend.  They're about my favorite actors, so it's all good.  I guess I'd have to go see who else was nominated for Golden Globes.  I think Toni Collette might have been.  And maybe Meryl Streep.

Yeah, it was a pretty random fiesta as far as movies went this year (so far).  Like I say, I still have high hopes for Letters From Iwo Jima - it'll be something to see that story told from the Japanese point of view (and not have them - or us - portrayed as monsters, but just people involved in a very unfortunate situation).
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on January 07, 2007, 02:57:56 pm
Did anyone see "The Good Shepherd"?  I saw it last night and thought it was respectable.  It follows the career of a bigwig in the CIA (Matt Damon) from when he was a child to the time following the Bay of Pigs invasion in the 60's.  There are tons of flashbacks, which after a while made me pretty confused, but the performances are good.  Don't expect lots of action, though.  It's mostly a character study of a very private, conflicted man.  Robert DeNiro directed it and played a small part, and I totally missed noticing Keir Dullea in a small role as the Senator who is Angelina Jolie's character's father.

It really is anybody's guess what movies will emerge as Oscar nominees.  The NY Times critics published their choices today, and only one movie was chosen by all three: "Letters from Iwo Jima."  Two chose "Pan's Labyrinth."  The rest were all different.  Not one of them chose "The Departed" or "United 93."  Out of all the acting categories, all three agreed only one person: Helen Mirren for "The Queen."
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 07, 2007, 05:28:37 pm
I saw The Good Shepherd.  And at the risk of sounding just like one of those idiots on the IMDb board with their usual list of complaints about BBM, I thought it was way too long and overall pretty forgettable.  Two weeks later, I can't remember a single one of the character's names except Clover/Margaret (Angelina Jolie).  That tells you something (in my case, anyway).  And what was Robert DeNiro's purpose to be in it, other than to indulge himself?  His character was completely disposable.  Another thing that bugged me was that Matt Damon's character didn't age, like, a minute in 22 years.  I mean, it's like no attempt was even made.

Maybe I just had too high expectations for it, but it really let me down.

I saw Dreamgirls yesterday.  It had a couple of thrilling moments - mostly when Jennifer Hudson sang - but otherwise was just eh.  Jamie Foxx basically phoned it in.  He was by far the most blah I've ever seen him.  Eddie Murphy was tremendous, though.  It was worth the price of admission for him and Hudson alone.  I'd give it a 6 1/2 on the Barb-O-Meter was just being way too uneven and for the couple of unintentionally funny moments where the songs were so cheesy it was almost painful to watch/listen to them.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lynne on January 07, 2007, 11:08:14 pm
I haven't seen a lot of new movies this year.  Seeing BBM 21 times and a bunch of the older recommended films has taken a lot of time.  I really want to see The Departed.

But to rank what I managed to see besides BBM that was released - here's the order - and I have a tie for #1.

1) Babel
1) Bobby
2) A Scanner Darkly
3) The Good Shepherd
4) The Lake House
5) Clerks II
7) The Holiday
8) The Devil Wears Prada
9) Casino Royale
10) Something New

I think that's it...and if it makes me fluffly, I don't care...I've been loving Keanu since Point Break and I don't see that changing!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 08, 2007, 09:52:47 am
I like Keanu.  He was Africa hot in "Speed."  Liked him in My Own Private Idaho a lot.

I have a story about him (do I ever not have a story?).  Absolutely true.  About seven years ago, I worked with this guy who had studied filmmaking at the University of Miami, of all places, and whose wife Barbara had studied at the all-powerful USC.  In so doing, she had worked with a few big name actors and still kept in touch with a few of them.  Around the time Keanu was playing in his band (Dogstar, wasn't it?), the phone rings one day, my co-worker answers and someone says, "Yeah, can I speak to Barbara, please?"  He says, "She's not in right now, can I take a message?"  He goes, "Yeah.  Just tell her Keanu called."  We laughed about that, like, imagine if he said, "Keanu who?"  Turns out he was calling her to invite her to see Dogstar play at a local club (in Miami) that night.  Both of them ended up going, naturally, and they were out until 4 a.m.  He said he was "a really cool guy - just acted like a regular guy you've grown up with, or something."
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 08, 2007, 11:39:06 am
I saw Children of Men yesterday and didn't love it. It wasn't boring, and its vision of a near-future dystopia was dazzling and scary. But overall I thought the story was bleak and kind of pointless. (Re the question Dell posed: I do have children, so that might color my view, but I really do understand why some people don't have and don't want children. However, I think the prospect of all of humanity being wiped out within a few decades would be depressing, regardless of one's parent or nonparent status. Besides, I'm not sure whether the movie was suggesting that the world was falling apart BECAUSE children weren't being born, or the other way around.)

But overall, I saw a lot of pretty good movies over the past year. (That is, once I could venture out to the theaters and enjoy any movie at all, aside from ... you know.) In no particular order, I liked:

Little Miss Sunshine -- just saw that again a week ago, and it's still wonderful
The Queen -- both lead performances were excellent
The Departed -- yes, Mark Wahlberg was great (actually I always like him, for some reason, even though he's bland and affectless) but personally I think Leo stole the show
Blood Diamond -- again, Leo was excellent, and believe me, I am NOT a huge Leo fan normally
Hollywoodland  -- critics just did not get this movie; it was a lovely study on success and failure
The Illusionist -- I usually like Edward Norton, too, again inexplicably because he, too, is bland and affectless
The Prestige -- not only do I l ike Christian, but * donning hardhat * I like him even better than Hugh!
The Devil Wears Prada -- light and cute

I still haven't seen United 93 or Babel or Casino Royale or The Good Shepherd, The Lake House, The Pursuit of Happyness, Dreamgirls, A Good Year, and probably a bunch of others.

Back to the overrated movies: my picks for most overrated from that list are Forrest Gump and Chicago.

Whew! OK, now I think I've caught up.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 08, 2007, 12:11:19 pm
I would definitely pick Forrest Gump from that list, too.  And (donning my hardhat) I would add Titanic.

I really loved Chicago - own it, in fact - so I'm going to plead the Fifth on that one.

I've avoided seeing Children of Men because it seems just too bleak to me, too.  But I hear it's a good "action" movie and that Clive Owen is "the perfect action hero."

I still want to see Little Children and Notes on a Scandal next, because they contain, together, my three favorite actors right now (Judi Dench, Kate Winslet, and Cate Blanchett, in order (not respectively ;)).  I might take Friday afternoon off to see Little Children, because it's only playing at a theater that doesn't have a day care center for Will-O.  I'd also like to see Volver, but I'll have to try to fit that in sometime maybe next week.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 08, 2007, 12:14:10 pm
Oh, and Katherine, I thought Ben Affleck was *wonderful* in Hollywoodland.  It's a shame he hasn't gotten more notice for it - it was really such a subtle, nuanced performance.  That last scene shooting the home movie - Oh.My.God.  Amazing, beautiful stuff.  And like you with Leo, I *am not* a Ben Affleck fan.  But I do think he tends to be more underrated than not.  For instance, I thought his comic, self-satirizing turn in Shakespeare in Love was brilliant.  Maybe that's where he just excels - at making fun of himself.  He was also quite good in Bounce, which I hear was another self-deprecating one in the alcoholic-in-rehab sense.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lynne on January 08, 2007, 04:06:05 pm
I like Keanu.  He was Africa hot in "Speed."  Liked him in My Own Private Idaho a lot.

I have a story about him (do I ever not have a story?).  Absolutely true.  About seven years ago, I worked with this guy who had studied filmmaking at the University of Miami, of all places, and whose wife Barbara had studied at the all-powerful USC.  In so doing, she had worked with a few big name actors and still kept in touch with a few of them.  Around the time Keanu was playing in his band (Dogstar, wasn't it?), the phone rings one day, my co-worker answers and someone says, "Yeah, can I speak to Barbara, please?"  He says, "She's not in right now, can I take a message?"  He goes, "Yeah.  Just tell her Keanu called."  We laughed about that, like, imagine if he said, "Keanu who?"  Turns out he was calling her to invite her to see Dogstar play at a local club (in Miami) that night.  Both of them ended up going, naturally, and they were out until 4 a.m.  He said he was "a really cool guy - just acted like a regular guy you've grown up with, or something."

Thanks for the terrific story, Barb!  Ah...one day maybe I'll get to brush close with Keanu's greatness!   While having coffee after Gustavo with the NYC crowd, someone (John Gallagher maybe?) was trying to think of 'that actor who was born in Beirut'...I immediately came up with 'Keanu Reeves' and I think everybody else looked at me like I had two heads ;), but that's who he was thinking of.  I mean just because I know all of Jacob Benjamin Gyllenhaal's pertinent data doesn't mean I don't have room for additional trivia!

Oh, and Katherine, I thought Ben Affleck was *wonderful* in Hollywoodland.  It's a shame he hasn't gotten more notice for it - it was really such a subtle, nuanced performance.  That last scene shooting the home movie - Oh.My.God.  Amazing, beautiful stuff.  And like you with Leo, I *am not* a Ben Affleck fan.  But I do think he tends to be more underrated than not.  For instance, I thought his comic, self-satirizing turn in Shakespeare in Love was brilliant.  Maybe that's where he just excels - at making fun of himself.  He was also quite good in Bounce, which I hear was another self-deprecating one in the alcoholic-in-rehab sense.

I need to see Hollywood - I also like Ben Affleck.  He was very good, I thought, in Bounce, and I also loved him in Chasing Amy.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 08, 2007, 05:25:15 pm
So true about Ben Affleck, Barb and Lynne! I think JLo and a few bad role choices were his downfall. I liked him in a few things (Shakespeare, Good Will Hunting), then became soooo not interested in him for a while. But Hollywoodland changed my whole view of Ben -- he was fantastic: poignant, likeable, subtle, tragic.

And thanks for the nice words about Keanu! I probably would not fight to the death to defend his acting, but he's cute and appealing and not nearly as bad as people make fun of him for being.

I wish I could see Little Children, but it hasn't shown anywhere near here at this point. And another one I'd love to see but will probably have to wait for the DVD: Half Nelson.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 08, 2007, 05:33:42 pm
I saw Half Nelson.  It was very good.  Very... raw.  As good as Ryan Gosling was, the performance somehow didn't stay with me.  I probably need to don my hard hat again, but I think it's being a tad overrated.

One nice thing about living in Boca Raton - we do get many arthouse films here that a lot of similar-size markets don't because there are so many transplanted New Yorkers here.  We never did get Sherrybaby or Sweet Land, unfortunately, but we have gotten several others that didn't make it to other places.
Title: Re: Best Movie of 2006?
Post by: Kelda on January 12, 2007, 04:58:06 am
I think I will remember this cinematic year for the number of disappointments. I was looking fwd to RUNNING WITH SCISSORS.  It wasn't up to par. 

Really?  - I was really looking forward to seeing this (not in UK cinemas yet) as I really enjoyed the book.

From the 'best Movie of 2006' thread in 'Movie resources' ...

quote author=JakeTwist link=topic=7088.msg135563#msg135563 date=1167626628]
http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/features/article2115036.ece (http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/features/article2115036.ece)

The Belfast Telegraph

Damon's top 5 movies

[Published: Sunday 31, December 2006 - 15:27]

By Damon Smith


1. BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (released January 6)

The most controversial film of the year, Ang Lee's heartbreaking love story, based on a 30-page novella by Annie Proulx, wears its heart on its sleeve to chart the tempestuous 20-year love story of ranch hands Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger), who cross paths one summer in ultra-macho 1960s Wyoming.

This is a heartrending portrait of an enduring yet impossible love, distinguished by gorgeous cinematography, haunting orchestral score and an elegant screenplay.

Gyllenhaal's energetic turn as talkative dreamer Jack contrasts with Ledger's riveting portrayal of an introverted soul, simmering with self-loathing.

Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway are stunning as the wives who end up casualties of Jack and Ennis's war with their true desires. As Jack puts it: "That ol' Brokeback got us good."


2. UNITED 93 (released June 2)

On September 11, 2001, the world as we knew it was changed forever. The events in New York City that fateful autumn still resonate today and are a stark reminder of mankind's terrifying capability for destruction.

Paul Greengrass' harrowing recreation of events on United Airlines Flight 93, the fourth hijacked plane, unfolds in real time, beginning with scenes of the hijackers in their hotel rooms, preparing for their mission.

Greengrass shoots events in the claustrophobic cabin and on the ground on handheld cameras, with a cast of largely unknown actors playing the passengers.

Key military and civilian personnel, including Ben Sliney (the man in charge of the FAA's command centre), play themselves, adding to the unsettling air of realism.

Even though we know, with sickening certainty, how the film will end, we pray for a different resolution.


3. THE DEATH OF MR LAZARESCU (released July 14)

Cristi Puiu's jet black comedy, charting one man's haphazard journey through the Romanian health system, is by turns hilarious and emotionally heartbreaking, shot with an unflinching eye for detail.
.
/snip/
.
.
.

4. LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE (released September 8 )

Husband and wife team Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris gearshift seamlessly from directing music videos to the vast canvas of big screen with their glorious celebration of 21st century family life in all of its perplexing, dysfunctional glory.
.
/snip/
.
.
.

5. RED ROAD (released October 27)

British writer-director Andrea Arnold, who collected the 2005 Oscar for best live action short, graduates effortlessly to feature film with this voyeuristic thriller that crawls under your skin and lingers in the memory long after the end credits roll.

CCTV operator Jackie (Kate Dickie) is one of the team of people charged with scouring the city, spotting trouble before it happens. While focusing one of the cameras on the Red Road estate, Jackie is shocked to see Clyde (Tony Curran), the man she thought was still in prison for killing her husband and child.
.
/snip/
.
.
.

http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/features/article2115036.ece
© Belfast Telegraph


[/quote]

Red Road is a notorious estate in Glasgow (gang fights are common - and its really just a very depressing council estate) - I haven't seen it but I have been told it gived a pretty accurate portrayal of life there. And has got a lot of directing and acting awards... If you want an idea of REAL scottidh accents - and not those of Mel Gibson in Braveheart - see this!!!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 15, 2007, 12:01:15 pm
OK, so I finally saw United 93 on Friday night.  Wow.  WOW.

I would urge everyone to see it mainly because it's so well-done.  It's difficult to watch, though - not for the reason you might think - not because it's tear-jerking and/or manipulates you into caring so deeply for the characters that you're haunted afterwards.  But because it's so fast-paced that it agitates you.  It agitates you to know what ultimately happened to those poor people and to wish you could tell them through the TV set what's going on and to take the plane over sooner so they can save themselves.

My husband was actually quite upset afterwards, and I, for once, had to calm him down.  It wasn't because he's an airline pilot and it freaked him out to think he could be on the receiving end of such a thing.  But because he truly believed that had he or someone like him (who is an airline pilot who happens to have a purple belt in karate and who used to carry a hunting knife under one of his socks back when they could still do that) been on that flight, he could have saved them all.  And he was upset that they didn't do what they did sooner.  I told him you have to remember that they had no idea that the hi-jacking was any different from the kind they'd known of in the past, where they take you somewhere and make demands of the government but eventually let you go.  It was only when they started talking to people on the ground about it that they learned the truth, and by then, it was too late.  But the fact that they did as much as they did and didn't just sit there like lemmings waiting to die, I think, is extraordinary.

The movie was fantastic.  It is *not* a Hollywood movie.  That's what I love about it.  There is no back-story on any of the people on the plane.  You can't even figure out who Todd Beamer is until he finally says his infamous line "Let's roll."  And it's not said in a big Hollywood, "Die Hard," Ahnuld kind of a way.  It's said in the way a real guy under those conditions would say it at that moment.  If you blink, you might miss it.  I only recognized two of the actors - the only way it could have been better, I think, as if I didn't recognize any of them.  Because other than them, you feel as if you're watching a film someone on that plane and in those air-traffic control towers and at that military base took that somehow survived it all.  It feels real.  You are there.  I can't say enough about how impressive it is that Peter Greengrass made the suspense build like he did even though you know the outcome.  Or maybe it's because you know.  It made my stomach spin.

But I talked about it with my husband for about a half hour afterwards and then went to bed and had no trouble sleeping, and didn't find myself crying in the shower afterwards.  Why?  I don't think I'm heartless.  But I think this was, thankfully, an extraordinary situation that people got caught up in that brought the best out of most of them and the worst out of some of them.  We can only relate to it in our imaginations.  Most of us have not been held at gun- or knife- or bomb-point.

It's a reverent tribute to all of those people without being manipulative like World Trade Center, I think, was.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Scott6373 on January 15, 2007, 12:07:35 pm
Wasn't it something?  I need to watch it again soon.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 15, 2007, 12:34:06 pm
Sure enough, Scott.

Here's a link to a site that plays several critics' sound bites about it.  Gotta say I agree with all of them - especially "intestinally powerful."  I have never had my stomach so churned up by any movie in my life.  I could feel the tension in every single person on that screen, even the terrorists (which was in itself unsettling).  I also strongly agree with the critic who said, "both unbearable and unmissable."

http://www.united93movie.com/ (http://www.united93movie.com/)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: silkncense on January 21, 2007, 12:48:43 pm
I wasn't looking forward to United 93 but now I will definitely get it - Thanks for that.

Yesterday I saw Notes on a Scandal.  I very much like the actresses & was looking forward to it.  And, the acting was very good - but the film just left me cold.  The actions of the characters didn't seem to fit exactly.  Anyone else see it? 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 21, 2007, 06:50:48 pm
I saw it yesterday, too.  I thought it was quite good, actually.  I know what you mean about its leaving you cold - I kind of feel that way, as well.  But not because I think the characters' actions didn't fit - I thought they did so well that their actions were totally believable.  The only problem I found with it was that Bill Nighy's character didn't have enough reason to have so much disdain for Barbara at the time he lashed out at her when they were on their way to the play.  Later he did, sure, but at that point, I thought his words were overly harsh.

I saw The Last King of Scotland today.  I had been basing my opinion on Forest Whitaker's performance being legendary on seeing the trailer alone.  I learned today that I was right.  That was the kind of performance that actually enriches your life just to see it, which is especially admirable considering he played a.) a real historical figure and b.) a monster.  I thought James McAvoy was really quite good, too.  Too bad he had to be the counterpart to that role - no matter who you were or how well you did, Whitaker *owned* every scene.  Hell, even the ones he wasn't in.

It was a much better-done movie than I expected, too.  I kind of expected a tour-de-force performance in an otherwise mediocre movie.  Instead I got a tour-de-force performance in a great movie.  What a fantastic character study about how power can so easily corrupt, and not just Amin, but the fictional doctor who started out being so believably (but not cloyingly so) idealistic.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 21, 2007, 06:59:40 pm
I saw Dreamgirls yesterday. As many have said, Jennifer Hudson, in her first big role, was excellent. I also thought Eddie Murphy was very good. Beyonce Knowles did a good job and Jamie Foxx must have been good because I just hated his character...by the end of the movie, it was "hiss, boo!" every time he showed up on the screen.

The movie did seem long, though, and as my mother said, by the end I was tired of the "shouting songs."

While Jennifer Hudson was very good, I don't think she'll win Best Supporting Actress...it's her first time out of the gate and I just don't think the Academy is that generous.

Thoughts from others who have seen Dreamgirls?

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on January 21, 2007, 07:06:08 pm
It was a much better-done movie than I expected, too.  I kind of expected a tour-de-force performance in an otherwise mediocre movie.  Instead I got a tour-de-force performance in a great movie.  What a fantastic character study about how power can so easily corrupt, and not just Amin, but the fictional doctor who started out being so believably (but not cloyingly so) idealistic.

That's a great endorsement, Barb.  I think I'll have to add that one to the (very) long list of films I want to see.

I saw "Pan's Labyrinth" a few days ago, a story that takes place during the Spanish Civil War.  What an interesting combination of the real and unreal!  But is the unreal any less real than what we think is the real world?  The imagery is beautiful, and the little girl who plays the lead is excellent.  It makes you think about all the layers of history, in fact the layers of reality itself, that lie just under the surface of where we live our day to day lives.  It's also about being tested and about both winning and losing what is most dear to you.  I definitely recommend it.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 21, 2007, 07:12:50 pm
I very nearly saw that one instead today, but I opted for The Last King of Scotland because Pan's Labyrinth just started for the first time on Friday, whereas the former is just a revival of sorts so I was afraid it'd be gone, soon.  Although, judging from the packed theater today and the applause at the end, maybe I was wrong about that one.

I'm still wanting to see Volver, but it's only playing at a theater I really don't like, so chances are I'll have to wait for the DVD.  Same goes for Little Children, unfortunately.

I hope to see Babel this Thursday.

Kind of annoying that they can't spread these good movies out over the year a little more (or some).  Stupid "awards season."  Man, I wish all that would just go away.  I mean, hand out awards if you want - we do at my company and in my business, too.  But the televising of it all (and the marketing and the hype) needs to stop.

And that's my truly revolutionary comment for the day.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 21, 2007, 07:14:25 pm
Oh, and Leslie, I have no comment to add to your Dreamgirls review except that I agree with every word.  Well, no - I thought Jamie Foxx was a little blah - but otherwise I agree with every word.

:)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 21, 2007, 08:08:34 pm
Barb, I think you and I should go to the movies together...one of these days, right?

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Ellemeno on January 21, 2007, 09:20:40 pm
Late to the party - and just popping in to say I think An American in Paris should come off the over-rated list.  George Gershwin and Gene Kelly - who could ask for anything more?

My sister's boyfriend's brother was on United Flight 93.  I'm not ready to see it.  Though I go through dark phases of scouring the internet about it every six months or so.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 22, 2007, 12:00:21 am
My sister's boyfriend's brother was on United Flight 93.  I'm not ready to see it.  Though I go through dark phases of scouring the internet about it every six months or so.

I can understand that.  I think it's one of those things that when you're ready for it, you'll know.  You go through hell watching it, even if you don't have such a personal connection.  But you come out clean on the other side.

Getting back to The Last King of Scotland (obsessive much?) - this thought just occurred to me: the relationship between Idi Amin and Nicolas Garrigan is not unlike that between, ironically, Forest Whitaker's and Stephen Rea's in The Crying Game.  But the roles are reversed this time.  Amin is now the captor instead of the captive.  Everything else is the same: the two of them are utterly infatuated with each other.  And it's easy to understand why.  They are both completely beguiling.  The homoeroticism in this movie is now staying with me, and I suspect will for a long while.  To a straight woman, there is nothing more electrifying - and heartbreaking - than the affection between two (apparently, anyway) straight men - especially when you care deeply about one (or both) of them.

My husband has a couple of such close friendships with men.  And I envy his partners deeply.  Because I know I can't give him what they do.  We've been living together for 19 years.  And we still get along exceedingly well on a platonic level.  And yet he'll get on the phone with one of these two or three and laugh like I haven't heard him laugh since the early days.  For hours.  Similarly, I know that when I get on the phone with one of my two or three closest women friends, I can talk and laugh like that for hours.  And he gets equally as jealous - to the point that he'll usually find some reason to interrupt me, even.  I just don't do it as often as he, so he forgets.

The electricity between these two characters is palpable.  They just understand each other.  Instantly.  Even though one comes from a very privileged background and one comes from a very disadvantaged one.  They both speak the same language of Lack of Father Love.  I guess it's so intoxicating when it's between two men because they don't let us in on that shit very often in real life.  With us women, it's just modus operandi.  What I love about this movie is that it doesn't force the Father/Son Conflict down our throats - just as Brokeback doesn't - it just lets it unwind slowly like a coiled spring, just as it would between people who understand each other instantly in the real world.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on January 24, 2007, 12:34:34 am
Went and saw Miss Potter with Ewan McGregor and Renee Z.  This movie can be described as achingly sweet and sincere and just nice nice nice.  Think 'Neverland-lite'.  Gonna buy this one when it comes out.   ;D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lynne on January 26, 2007, 03:18:54 am
...I've been loving Keanu since Point Break and I don't see that changing!

My second fave guy is getting seriously dissed!  There's a dinner theatre production of Point Break where ...

What is unique about the stage take is that the role of Utah (played by Reeves in the film) is played by an audience member (selected at random each night) who is thrust upon the stage (guided by a PA - who also serves as stunt double) and given his/her lines on cue-cards. "Keanu Reeves roles demand a special kind of acting," explains director Hook, on the show's conceit. "Essentially, in every scene, you have to look like you've just been dropped into a room and you have no idea what's going on."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/playbill/20070125/en_playbill/105174

Oy!  Hopefully, his sense of humor is intact!
 8)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: silkncense on January 26, 2007, 10:26:08 pm
Lynne -

Do you recall a Keanu film w/ Peter Falk where Keanu's character falls in love w/ an older woman - I think played by Barbara Hershey?  I'm trying to recall the name - I swear I owned it a some point on VHS but have no idea whatever became of it. 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lynne on January 26, 2007, 10:32:48 pm
Lynne -

Do you recall a Keanu film w/ Peter Falk where Keanu's character falls in love w/ an older woman - I think played by Barbara Hershey?  I'm trying to recall the name - I swear I owned it a some point on VHS but have no idea whatever became of it. 

Sure thing, silkie!

That's Tune in Tommorrow!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100822/
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: silkncense on January 27, 2007, 12:11:15 pm
Ah yes -

Thanks much.  I remember at the time I thought it was cute.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Scott6373 on January 27, 2007, 12:15:27 pm
I saw Dreamgirls yesterday. As many have said, Jennifer Hudson, in her first big role, was excellent. I also thought Eddie Murphy was very good. Beyonce Knowles did a good job and Jamie Foxx must have been good because I just hated his character...by the end of the movie, it was "hiss, boo!" every time he showed up on the screen.

The movie did seem long, though, and as my mother said, by the end I was tired of the "shouting songs."

While Jennifer Hudson was very good, I don't think she'll win Best Supporting Actress...it's her first time out of the gate and I just don't think the Academy is that generous.

Thoughts from others who have seen Dreamgirls?

L

Having seen the original on B-Way, the movie was well made.  All the actors did a fine job with both singing and acting, however, it was basically a musical rip-off of the original artists.  It's a tough genre of music not to plagiarize, but they needed to do more than throw a few measures of music at some new performer in order to make it fresh and original.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on January 27, 2007, 12:54:16 pm
That was a very poignant post, Barb. I think it's possible to have that kind of relationship with someone, not necessarily of the same gender, but certainly not with one's spouse.

I saw the trailer for Miss Potter and I don't think I'll be seeing it, because I can't stand to look at Renee Zellweger's face!! The review in The New Yorker was not all that good either.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 27, 2007, 01:55:03 pm
I can't stand Renee Zellweger's face, either!  She always looks like she just swallowed a bug.  I don't know who it was who put it in her head that that smarmy, pursed-lip grin of hers is the least bit attractive.  But they were wrong.

Yes, Leslie, I think you, Lee and I should go to the movies together.  We seem to have the same taste.  Too bad we're scattered all over the country - practically in a diametrically opposite triangle, in fact.

I'm going to go see Pan's Labyrinth today at 2:20.  Can't wait!!!  Wish you all could join me.  :)



Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on January 27, 2007, 02:32:24 pm
My daughter's words to me before I saw Pan's Labyrinth were "it's a little violent." Well, no sh**!!! Just so you'll be prepared!

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: mvansand76 on January 27, 2007, 03:26:23 pm
I am not sure if I should post this here, but has anybody seen Little Children?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 27, 2007, 04:16:17 pm
Count me in as a member of the "not able to stand Renee Zellweger's face" club!

Anthony Lane's review of "Miss Potter" in the New Yorker is hilarious. He talks about how Ewan McGregor's character "is required to utter the line, 'We shall give them a bunny book to conjure with."  :P  Then he writes, "Only one man on earth can speak those words with a straight face, and that is Hugh Hefner."  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I was considering taking my kids to "Pan's Labyrinth," but because it is R I looked it up on one of those parent/movie websites (my kids can see some R movies, no problem -- "28 Days Later," "V for Vendetta," "Little Miss Sunshine," "The Royal Tennenbaums," "Collateral" -- but not others). Anyway, the site had a list describing every single act of violence in the movie, and it sounded so sickening that by the end I didn't even want to see it.

Other than that, did you like it, Lee? ("Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"  :laugh:)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on January 27, 2007, 04:57:18 pm
Actually, sorry to say, I didn't. I really wanted to like it and wanted the director to be a new Bunuel. But the whole thing was so murky and dark I couldn't really see the details. My favorite character was a mandrake root.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on January 27, 2007, 05:31:18 pm
Count me in as a member of the "not able to stand Renee Zellweger's face" club!

She scrunches her face unbearably in this movie.  I'm not sure why.  Perhaps the real Miss Potter did the same and they hired Renee because she's already so good at it?  ;)

Quote
Anthony Lane's review of "Miss Potter" in the New Yorker is hilarious. He talks about how Ewan McGregor's character "is required to utter the line, 'We shall give them a bunny book to conjure with."  :P  Then he writes, "Only one man on earth can speak those words with a straight face, and that is Hugh Hefner."  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 :D :D  He does say the line, and it's supposed to be funny for both the audience and the characters because in the plotline, Miss Potter has gone to some publishers to get her book published and they accept it, but then send their youngest brother (Ewan's character) to arrange the details.  They're essentially fobbing off the 'bunny book' job as they derisively described it to get rid of their youngest brother who is trying to do something with his life.  Ewan's character is quoting his brothers.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 27, 2007, 07:15:07 pm
I actually quite liked Pan's Labyrinth.  My theater's print was not murky and dark at all.  Yes, of course it was violent, but mercifully most of the violent acts were implied and not shown (or at least not fully).

I thought it was a beautiful parable, actually, of the importance of questioning authority at times when authority is clearly, terribly wrong.

I'm very glad I went to see it today.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 28, 2007, 03:46:03 pm
I am not sure if I should post this here, but has anybody seen Little Children?
I saw it yesterday and loved it!  I had to really suspend disbelief when it came to seeing Kate Winslet as plain though, lol! An excellent film with a constant underlying feeling of dread throughout.

Another favourite which I've mentioned in the Oscar Prediction thread, is Perfume: The Story of a Murderer.  It was badly marketed and is very underrated, I can't wait for the DVD.  Ben Whishaw was a revelation.

Pan's Labyrinth was a bit disappointing.  I realize that it's billed as fairy tale for adults but I still found the "bad guys" too easy to hate.  I too found the print way too dark.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: mvansand76 on January 28, 2007, 03:54:52 pm
I saw it yesterday and loved it!  I had to really suspend disbelief when it came to seeing Kate Winslet as plain though, lol! An excellent film with a constant underlying feeling of dread throughout.

Another favourite which I've mentioned in the Oscar Prediction thread, is Perfume: The Story of a Murderer.  It was badly marketed and is very underrated, I can't wait for the DVD.  Ben Whishaw was a revelation.

Pan's Labyrinth was a bit disappointing.  I realize that it's billed as fairy tale for adults but I still found the "bad guys" too easy to hate.  I too found the print way too dark.

Thank you Oilgun, I am gonna watch it on Tuesday!  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 28, 2007, 05:57:10 pm
I wanted to see Little Children today, myself.  But, alas, it has left all my local theaters.  I ended up seeing Venus and loving that instead.  What a gem!  And again, not just because of the lead actor's (Peter O'Toole's) performance - the movie as a whole was lovely.

Yes, the bad guys were awfully easy to hate in Pan's Labyrinth, but they were fascists, after all.

I still thought it was beautiful.  Sorry about the dark prints you guys have experienced.  I'm usually very sensitive to that, so I'm certain the one I saw did not have that problem.  I remember seeing a very dark print of BBM in one of my theater viewings, and it was very disappointing indeed not to be able to see very much at all - even/especially facial expressions - during TS1.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on January 28, 2007, 06:50:53 pm
I actually quite liked Pan's Labyrinth.  My theater's print was not murky and dark at all.  Yes, of course it was violent, but mercifully most of the violent acts were implied and not shown (or at least not fully).

I thought it was a beautiful parable, actually, of the importance of questioning authority at times when authority is clearly, terribly wrong.

I'm very glad I went to see it today.


Just came from seeing he movie.  My theater version was dark and murky too.  It was easy to hate the bad guys, but it made you wonder when the Captain drew the straight edge across his mirror image.

I thought it was very well done.

I guess it had a happy ending.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 28, 2007, 07:48:19 pm
Re dark prince prints: I have read articles, I think by Roger Ebert, saying that in order to save money some movie theaters use dimmer projection lighting than the films are designed to require. So that could be the problem, rather than the prints.

I haven't noticed that problem before, but thanks to BBM I do now know that theaters' sound quality differs considerably. The first two times I saw it, I had trouble making out much of the dialogue. The third time I saw it in a different theater, and suddenly everything was clear as a bell. Then back to the original theater, and it was murky again.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 28, 2007, 10:09:24 pm
That makes perfect sense, Katherine.  I would hope Muvico can afford to use the proper lighting systems - they charge more than any other theater in the area.  But I had the same experience with the sound of BBM.  My first two viewings were in that theater.  The picture quality was tremendous, but the sound was not quite clear.  Then I saw it in a theater where the picture was darker, but the sound was perfect.  I think the best showing overall was the Castro Theater showing in San Francisco.  Both the picture and the sound were the clearest I'd ever seen and heard.

Yes, I thought the captain drawing the knife across his own mirror image and deliberately fixing the watch his father had wanted him to keep broken to remind him of the time of his death showed self-loathing probably due to father-son conflict.  So he wasn't quite as cut and dried as he seemed.  I also thought that the showing of his stitching up his own face showed what a hard-ass, tough son of a bitch he was.  I saw him actually as fairly complex.  But the best acting I thought was done by the woman who played Mercedes.  I honestly didn't know whether she was a "good guy" or "bad guy" until about a third of the way through.  I credit the writing and acting for that.

I just thought it was a beautiful film about the power of the imagination to help us through hard times and about how obeying just for obeying's sake is dangerous and wrong.  I imagine if the film had appeared dark and murky the whole time, I would literally not have seen all I did see in it.  But as it was, I thought it was magical.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 29, 2007, 11:56:56 pm

Yes, the bad guys were awfully easy to hate in Pan's Labyrinth, but they were fascists, after all.


Lol! Good point but I'm sure fascists aren't evil all the time, wouldn't that be too tiring?  The guy didn't even like his wife, he was really the evil king figure. 

I realise that the shaving & mirror scene and the watch thing were there to add some complexity to the character but for some reason, it wasn't enough for me, I just wanted him dead, no questions asked.  I was hoping that some of his underlings might have second thoughts about following some of the orders. [mild spoiler ahead] Actually, now that I think of it, there were some protests in the farmer and son bottle-in-the face-scene.

Anyway, don't get me wrong, I thought it was a wonderful film overall.  I'm just not a big fan of the fantasy genre, I guess. (although I loved Naked Lunch if that can considered fantasy)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 30, 2007, 12:17:48 am
I get you, oilgun.  Yes, he was overall pretty black and white, I agree.

I, too, am not a fan of the fantasy genre.  For example, I couldn't care less about The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter movies.  I saw the first installment of both and didn't feel the need to continue.

I dunno...  Something about this movie just grabbed me.  Maybe because I can relate to using one's imagination to get through terrible times.  But I can also understand why it's not universally appealing.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 30, 2007, 07:45:26 am

I, too, am not a fan of the fantasy genre.  For example, I couldn't care less about The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter movies.  I saw the first installment of both and didn't feel the need to continue.


Another similarity in our movie taste, Barb. I have tried to watch LOTR a bunch of times and get totally bored in the first 15 minutes. I have sat through more of the Harry Potter movies, only because I love the books so much, but this is another example of a situation where the book is way better than the movie.

I also don't like comic book movies, at all, which is why I am not looking forward to Heath as Joker in the Batman movie. Speaking of that, I just read yesterday that Katie Holmes Cruise will not be reprising her role in that.

Leslie
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 30, 2007, 10:11:37 am
Totally agree with you on all of that.  I like the Spider-Man movies, but they're about the only comic book movies I can stand.  And they're pushing the envelope on that one.  The LOTR lose me after about 15 minutes, too, as do the Harry Potters.  I've only seen the first of both of those series, and the first 15 minutes of the second in both!

I was hesitant to see Pan's Labyrinth knowing that the director has done a couple of comic book movies, one of which I saw and *hated* (and won't mention here lest I totally dissuade you from seeing it).  But it just drew me in.  Very subtlely at first.  Like my first Brokeback viewing, I'm kind of at a loss for words to describe it except to say, again, that I thought it was magical.  And it has stayed with me since Saturday when I saw it.  I keep seeing certain scenes in my head.  A couple of the underworld creatures are scary as hell, but they're beautiful allegories for the very essence of the natural world (Pan, the faun) and of all unseen, dormant evil (the pale, sleeping monster).  Oops - guess I'm not at a loss for words after all.  But that would be one of the Seven Signs of the Apocalypse, wouldn't it?


 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: southendmd on January 30, 2007, 10:21:28 am
I saw "Pan's Labyrinth" last night on a number of friends' recommendations. 

While I appreciated the history/fantasy/allegory, I found the violence appalling.  To me, it was gratuitous and unnecessary to the story; the brutality could easily have been suggested more subtly.  It spoiled the film for me.

I'm all for dark fairy tales.  This one was nauseating.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 30, 2007, 10:31:37 am
Really, Paul...thanks for this.

Tony wants to take Hannah to see Pan L. I have no interest and have been of two minds about Hannah seeing it...I will share your comment with him. He may do some re-thinking.

Leslie
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on January 30, 2007, 10:38:37 am
Late to the party - and just popping in to say I think An American in Paris should come off the over-rated list.  George Gershwin and Gene Kelly - who could ask for anything more?

My sister's boyfriend's brother was on United Flight 93.  I'm not ready to see it.  Though I go through dark phases of scouring the internet about it every six months or so.


I agree with you about An American in Paris! Did you know that Leslie Caron will be in an upcoming episode of Law & Order?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 30, 2007, 11:27:18 am
While I appreciated the history/fantasy/allegory, I found the violence appalling.  To me, it was gratuitous and unnecessary to the story; the brutality could easily have been suggested more subtly.  It spoiled the film for me.

That's too bad. It sounds like a movie that, if not for the violence, I'd like to take my kids to see (I don't know if any of us could handle it -- me included!). And it seems as if they're cutting their own nose off to spite their face (so to speak  ;D). You'd think the audience for über-violent movies and the audience for fantasy movies don't have a huge overlap. Reduce the violence, and I bet a lot more people would go.

I hear "Smoking Aces" is really violent, and of course my sons want to see that, and they can't. But in that case, it makes more sense; from what I've read, it's the kind of movie that would attract an audience that would tolerate -- if not prefer -- lots of violence.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 30, 2007, 11:33:44 am
Really, Paul...thanks for this.

Tony wants to take Hannah to see Pan L. I have no interest and have been of two minds about Hannah seeing it...I will share your comment with him. He may do some re-thinking.

Leslie

How old is Hannah?  I don't think I'd take a kid much younger than 15 or 16, myself.  It's pretty intense.

It's interesting that I didn't find the violence nauseating.  Usually gratuitous violence really turns me off and spoils a film for me, too.  Not sure why I was in a frame of mind to accept it this time.  For what it's worth, Saturday was the 15-year anniversary of my mother's death.  I wanted to see something that took me completely outside of myself.  This did the trick for me.  But I agree - it's not for everyone.  And impressionable young people (and impressionable old people, too) should steer clear.

That said, I haven't had any nightmares about it, whereas I had nightmares for 2-3 weeks following seeing "The Passion of the Christ" and "Saving Private Ryan."  The 2-3 extremely violent scenes were fairly fleeting and you could see them coming and know to look away ahead of time.  Which I did.  BTW, "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" has the dubious distinction of being the only movie I've ever walked out of the theater in the middle of.  (I at least did it discretely so as not to spoil it for the folks who were actually enjoying it.)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Scott6373 on January 30, 2007, 11:34:56 am
I saw "Pan's Labyrinth" last night on a number of friends' recommendations. 

While I appreciated the history/fantasy/allegory, I found the violence appalling.  To me, it was gratuitous and unnecessary to the story; the brutality could easily have been suggested more subtly.  It spoiled the film for me.

I'm all for dark fairy tales.  This one was nauseating.

You're not the first person to say that to me.  It's not my kind of film to begin with, but I probably will be avoiding this one.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 30, 2007, 11:40:52 am
That said, I haven't had any nightmares about it, whereas I had nightmares for 2-3 weeks following seeing "The Passion of the Christ" and "Saving Private Ryan."  The 2-3 extremely violent scenes were fairly fleeting and you could see them coming and know to look away ahead of time.  Which I did.  BTW, "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" has the dubious distinction of being the only movie I've ever walked out of the theater in the middle of.  (I at least did it discretely so as not to spoil it for the folks who were actually enjoying it.)

That's the only reason I never saw "Saving Private Ryan," and one of the reasons I never saw "The Passion of the Christ." "Kill Bill" I never saw because it looked like it would be violent and gimmicky and pretentious. (I could be wrong about that, I guess.)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Scott6373 on January 30, 2007, 11:49:57 am
That's the only reason I never saw "Saving Private Ryan," and one of the reasons I never saw "The Passion of the Christ." "Kill Bill" I never saw because it looked like it would be violent and gimmicky and pretentious. (I could be wrong about that, I guess.)

No you're not wrong.  I did not see KB as I dislike Tarrentino, but I did see the other two.  SPR was tedious...I had a hard time staying interested.  I've had many discussions about TPOTC and, even now, I hold to my assertion, that if you remove the violence, it's "B" retelling of the same old biblical story. 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 30, 2007, 12:00:34 pm
Totally agree with you about TPOTC, Scott.  And SPR, come to think of it.  After you're barraged by the first 20 minutes (and do we *really* have to see the guys' heads and legs get blown to bits?), it's tedious at best.  And the ending was cringe-worthy, IMO.  But then, Spielberg's endings always are.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 30, 2007, 12:55:49 pm
How old is Hannah?  I don't think I'd take a kid much younger than 15 or 16, myself.  It's pretty intense.


She's 15. And she has dark thoughts, so this concerns me a bit. But she wants to see this movie and Tony said he did too, and that they'd go together, so maybe the water is under the bridge on this one.

Leslie
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 30, 2007, 12:56:22 pm
That's the only reason I never saw "Saving Private Ryan," and one of the reasons I never saw "The Passion of the Christ." "Kill Bill" I never saw because it looked like it would be violent and gimmicky and pretentious. (I could be wrong about that, I guess.)

What she said.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 30, 2007, 01:36:32 pm
Well, it does give a little bit of a history lesson, too, about the Fascists winning the Spanish Civil War.  And as fantastical as it is, its message is not at all a dark one.  It's actually a very liberal message - about taking a stand when the people/society around you are doing something terribly wrong, even if taking that stand puts you at risk.  It is also kind of Christian allegory in the sense that when you do the right thing, you are rewarded with everlasting life.  Normally, that would annoy me a bit, but the way it was presented here is actually rather comforting.  It's presented in the sense that you shouldn't do what you think your God/your church is telling you to do if you know it isn't right - that sometimes going against all that is preached is really the way to salvation.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on January 30, 2007, 05:12:08 pm
I agree with all you've said about "Pan's Labyrinth," Barb.  I almost didn't go, knowing about the violence, but nowadays if we avoid films with violence in them, we won't see much.  And when all is said and done, I didn't think it was really gratuitous.  Its very senselessness and severity was indicative of how far the commander had gone in losing his humanity.  It's the first film I've seen since BBM that I felt was rich enough in ideas and execution to warrant the kind of analysis we've given our beloved movie here.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 30, 2007, 05:46:44 pm
It's the first film I've seen since BBM that I felt was rich enough in ideas and execution to warrant the kind of analysis we've given our beloved movie here.

Couldn't agree more.  I'm even toying with posting on its very own IMDb board about it, since I can't get it outta my head.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 31, 2007, 10:32:07 am
OK, so I went to see Letters From Iwo Jima last night.  And I have to say...  Pfffffffffft.  Not good.  Not good at all.  In fact, I'd daresay it's one of Eastwood's weakest films.  Which isn't saying a lot, since I'm one of the few people on the planet who isn't bowled over by his directing prowess.  Of all his movies, I thought Unforgiven was the best.  By far.  I honestly don't think he's ever come close to that again.  A big part of the problem - perhaps the major part - is his collaborater - Paul Haggis.  I can poop better dialog than that man can write.  Here are just a few examples of what he had Japanese Imperial Army soldiers saying, in Japanese (I think it's almost more painful to read the triteness than to just hear it):

"Everything comes in threes."

"Every man for himself!"

"Do the right thing.  Because it is the right thing."

Um...  Hello?  First of all, the first two expressions are purely Western/American.  Second of all, I don't even want to talk about how gut-wrenchingly bad that third line is.  Not to mention that he actually made it the theme of his movie, so it got repeated once or twice.

The good things about the movie (that Haggis the Hack had nothing to do with) are that the violence was more implied than shown - I always deeply appreciate that - and that it's always an enjoyable experience to watch Ken Watanabe, even when he's saying trite crap in Japanese.  The other good thing about it that I have to concede he had something to do with was that at least an attempt was made to tell this story from the Japanese point of view and in a way that didn't paint them all as mindless, soulless robots.  The attempt missed the mark in that even though they were speaking Japanese, it was still a very American story.  But at least the attempt was made.

If this thing wins the BP award (and the fact that it was even nominated, and for screenplay besides, makes me wanna yak)...  Well, it'll just be case in point for why the Academy has become utterly irrelevent and couldn't recognize real art if it tripped over it.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 31, 2007, 10:58:20 am
OK, so I went to see Letters From Iwo Jima last night.  And I have to say...  Pfffffffffft.  Not good.  Not good at all.  In fact, I'd daresay it's one of Eastwood's weakest films.  Which isn't saying a lot, since I'm one of the few people on the planet who isn't bowled over by his directing prowess.  Of all his movies, I thought Unforgiven was the best.  By far.  I honestly don't think he's ever come close to that again. 

Amen to that, sweetheart. Don't even get me STARTED on Million Dollar Baby!
Quote
If this thing wins the BP award (and the fact that it was even nominated, and for screenplay besides, makes me wanna yak)...  Well, it'll just be case in point for why the Academy has become utterly irrelevent and couldn't recognize real art if it tripped over it.

And it may still win. Even though I predicted "Little Miss Sunshine" yesterday, part of my mind still believes that the cadre of old white men who vote will get some twisted notion in their heads of patriotism, WWII, the greatest generation and all the rest and decide this movie is deserving of the honor of best picture...to remind of us all of when America Was Great.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 31, 2007, 11:04:22 am
A big part of the problem - perhaps the major part - is his collaborater - Paul Haggis.

Whoa, Barb! I'm surprised you even consented to see it!  :o
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on January 31, 2007, 11:22:52 am
So am I.  Note to self:  Never again.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: SFEnnisSF on January 31, 2007, 11:49:26 am
I saw THE GOOD GERMAN last night.  http://thegoodgerman.warnerbros.com/

Cate Blanchett was HOT HOT HOT!  :D

The movie was not.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 31, 2007, 01:27:39 pm
I saw THE GOOD GERMAN last night.  http://thegoodgerman.warnerbros.com/

Cate Blanchett was HOT HOT HOT!  :D

Is there any movie out right now that Cate Blanchett is not in? I'm trying to decide whether to go this weekend to see "Babel" (with Cate Blanchett) or "Notes on a Scandal" (with Cate Blanchett).
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lynne on January 31, 2007, 01:32:47 pm
Is there any movie out right now that Cate Blanchett is not in? I'm trying to decide whether to go this weekend to see "Babel" (with Cate Blanchett) or "Notes on a Scandal" (with Cate Blanchett).

I vote Babel, but that's my inner Gustavo fan speaking!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 31, 2007, 01:34:17 pm
I may try to squeeze in both. And because I live in Chicago and the Super Bowl is Sunday -- I might have the whole theater to myself!  :D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: nakymaton on January 31, 2007, 01:35:13 pm
A big part of the problem - perhaps the major part - is his collaborater - Paul Haggis.  I can poop better dialog than that man can write.

This is why I won't go see "Letters from Iwo Jima." Heck, I wouldn't have seen Crash even before the BBM snub at the Oscars, simply because I was so annoyed with the writing in Million Dollar Baby.

If this is what counts as good writing in movies these days, well, that's depressing.  ::) (I'm trying to think of what screenwriters other than Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana have impressed me lately, now. Did Emma Thompson write or co-write the script for "Stranger than Fiction"? That was pretty clever. I didn't see "For Your Consideration," but that comedy troupe is usually pretty clever. But that's comedy; I don't know about drama. I guess bad writing can kill comedy as well -- see Saturday Night Live -- but bad writing in drama is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lynne on January 31, 2007, 01:44:33 pm
::) (I'm trying to think of what screenwriters other than Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana have impressed me lately, now. Did Emma Thompson write or co-write the script for "Stranger than Fiction"?

Emma's biggest screenwriting successes are Pride & Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility - I thought both were fabulous.

From IMDb:

Nanny McPhee (2005) (screenplay)
Pride & Prejudice (2005) (additional dialogue) (uncredited)
... aka Orgueil et préjugés (France)
Wit (2001) (TV) (teleplay)
Sense and Sensibility (1995) (screenplay)
"Thompson" (1988) TV Series (writer)
Emma Thompson: Up for Grabs (1985) (TV)
An Evening for Nicaragua (1983) (TV)
"Alfresco" (1983) TV Series (additional material)
Cambridge Footlights Revue (1982) (TV)

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000668/
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on January 31, 2007, 02:46:19 pm
Aw, Nanny McPhee is really a sweet movie.  I just saw it on cable.  It goes a little awry at the end (snow at the summer wedding?), but it's nicely done.  Emma Thompson is the greatest.  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on February 02, 2007, 03:39:30 pm
I watched a lovely indy last night - "Sweet Land."  It was a screener for members of Film Independent only (la-tee-da, I know), so it's not available yet for DVD rental.  But it will be soon.  I highly recommend it.  It's about a Norwegian immigrant farmer in Minnesota in the 1920s who has his marriage arranged with a young woman who turns out to be German.  Apparently at that time there was a lot of anti-German/anti-Socialist sentiment, so when the townspeople find out she's German, they essentially turn their backs on both of them and no one will marry them.  She refuses to leave and he's too busy struggling with bringing in his corn crop alone and with no machinery to be too concerned.  So she sleeps in the bedroom and he sleeps in the barn.  She can't speak English and his is only broken, so they can barely communicate, at least with words.  And they fall in love.  And it's magical, because you fall in love with each of them yourself as the layers of their characters are revealed.  They are strong, brave, compassionate people with hearts and wills as big as the all outdoors and you can't help but love both of them.  And watching their furtive glances at each other and how they come to bond before they even touch each other's hands is sublime.  Reminds me of something...  I can't quite put a finger on it, but some other movie where love seemed to be being invented on the screen before our very eyes...  It'll come to me...

On tap for this weekend:  "Children of Men."  I wasn't originally planning to see this one because I don't much like Julianne Moore, but I keep seeing too many good reviews and hearing too many people here and elsewhere say they felt like they were part of the action and it was thrilling, etc., to miss it.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on February 02, 2007, 07:17:03 pm
I finally got to see "Volver" the other day.  I didn't want to miss an Almodovar movie that had gotten such good reviews, and I wanted to see Penelope Cruz in a role that really used her talents.  I enjoyed it, though I wasn't wowed by it. 

It's rather overplotted, with a fair number of twists and turns and convenient coincidences that require some suspension of belief.  Family secrets, ghosts and mistaken identity all figure in the story.  In the hands of, say, Mel Brooks, it would make a good slapstick comedy.  Almodovar makes it more like a Spanish Woody Allen film--you laugh more because of the characters than the situations.  Penelope Cruz does have some nice scenes, but   I don't think it's a role that would usually be singled out for an Oscar nomination.  I think voters were rewarding her for stepping out of the girlfriend roles in big Hollywood movies and doing something more artsy.  She looks great, but a little too great--what regular Spanish housewife who cleans office buildings for a living looks like she's had her hair and makeup done by a professional every day?

In the end I didn't think it was satisfying because it stayed too much in the middle of comedy and tragedy, not taking either far enough.  The other actors are fine, and it's very enjoyable.  Just think of it as a nice, light meal rather than dinner.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on February 02, 2007, 09:40:54 pm
I agree with all you've said about "Pan's Labyrinth," Barb.  I almost didn't go, knowing about the violence, but nowadays if we avoid films with violence in them, we won't see much.  And when all is said and done, I didn't think it was really gratuitous.  It's very senselessness and severity was indicative of how far the commander had gone in losing his humanity.  It's the first film I've seen since BBM that I felt was rich enough in ideas and execution to warrant the kind of analysis we've given our beloved movie here.

Quote
Well, it does give a little bit of a history lesson, too, about the Fascists winning the Spanish Civil War.  And as fantastical as it is, its message is not at all a dark one.  It's actually a very liberal message - about taking a stand when the people/society around you are doing something terribly wrong, even if taking that stand puts you at risk.  It is also kind of Christian allegory in the sense that when you do the right thing, you are rewarded with everlasting life.  Normally, that would annoy me a bit, but the way it was presented here is actually rather comforting.  It's presented in the sense that you shouldn't do what you think your God/your church is telling you to do if you know it isn't right - that sometimes going against all that is preached is really the way to salvation.

Well said Meryl and Barb.  I didn't think the violence was gratuitous, it was war, the real violence  - torture scenes - were done - thankfully - offscreen.  I agree the stepfather's character was a complex man.  Cruel and callous but still his character was more than just an ogre.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 03, 2007, 01:56:34 pm
I finally got to see "Volver" the other day.  I didn't want to miss an Almodovar movie that had gotten such good reviews, and I wanted to see Penelope Cruz in a role that really used her talents.  I enjoyed it, though I wasn't wowed by it. 


I agree Meryl, I wasn't wowed by Volver either.  It didn't have the emotional impact of All About My Mother, which I think is Almodovar's masterpiece.  I'm pretty excited  because I just bought the Viva Pedro boxed set which has eight of his films, including Law of Desire, Matador, Women on the Verge, Live Flesh, The Flower of My Secret, All About My Mother, Talk To Her & Bad Education.

Has anyone seen Soderbergh's Bubble?  It's one of his low budget Digital Video projects and it was released in theatres, PPV and DVD all at the same time.  It's the story of two friends in a midwestern working class town who work in a doll factory and how the dynamics of their relationship is affected when a new employee arrives on the scene.  A murder complicates things further.  The actors are all non-professional but are surprisingly effective.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on February 03, 2007, 10:01:00 pm
I haven't seen Bubble yet, but I'd like to.

I saw Children of Men today.  It was very good - I'd give it a solid three stars.  But as you've said about Volver, as much as this one tried, it somehow lacked that emotional punch I was hoping for.  I do quite like Clive Owen, though.  There is something so multi-layered even about his physical appearance.  How he looks so craggly and lined and hard (albeit handsome) in the face, but how when he smiles, it's a little boy's bashful smile with perfect white teeth.  Amazing.  Changes his whole face so much that it's almost like it's someone else's for a time.  I really enjoyed Michael Caine, which I don't always do, too.  When he doesn't take himself too seriously, he's still quite a gifted comic actor.

Meanwhile, I can't stop thinking about two scenes in Sweet Land when it's subtlely but profoundly shown how the protagonists are falling in love with each other.  One is when their eyes meet - I won't say when or why because it's so beautiful I don't want to spoil the impact for someone later - and hold on each other's for several seconds.  The other is when one takes the other's hand for the first time.  The filmmakers leave a lot to the imagination, not unlike certain other filmmakers I could mention, so I find myself finishing a couple of the scenes in my mind, if'n ya know what I mean.  Good, GOOD stuff.  Can't recommend it enough.  (But God knows I'll try.)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: SFEnnisSF on February 03, 2007, 10:26:37 pm
Anybody here a David Lynch fan?  :D

I'm excited about INLAND EMPIRE opening here next Friday.  It is opening at the two theatres BBM premiered at, The Embarcadero and the California in Berkeley.  The Landmark Theatres website says this about the Cal:
Giveaways before all evening shows all weekend!
Plus: Prizes for anyone who brings a log
or comes in a Lynch-inspired costume!


Too bad I'll be headin' to Santa Barbara this weekend, otherwise I'd come as Frank Booth, gas mask and all.  LOL.  :D  And after reading the fan fiction Green Eyes, I'll all ready for another David Lynch adventure...

The Cal was so great for BBM on opening night.  The ran an old trailer for Urban Cowboy!  :D


(http://www.inlandempirecinema.com/)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on February 03, 2007, 10:32:54 pm
I'd come as Laura Palmer, draped in a plastic body bag with grey face paint and lipstick.  Probably not the most original idea out there, though, I reckon.

You know what I think my favorite movie of his is?  The Straight Story.  Man, that was lovely.  I also thoroughly enjoyed Blue Velvet back in the day.  You too, I take it.




Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: SFEnnisSF on February 03, 2007, 11:03:43 pm
I'd come as Laura Palmer, draped in a plastic body bag with grey face paint and lipstick.  Probably not the most original idea out there, though, I reckon.

You know what I think my favorite movie of his is?  The Straight Story.  Man, that was lovely.  I also thoroughly enjoyed Blue Velvet back in the day.  You too, I take it.

Barb!  Fly out here and I'll cancel my Santa Barbara trip!  Let's do it!  :D

Blue Velvet is of course a classic, but I think my favorite is Lost Highway.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on February 03, 2007, 11:22:09 pm
Oh, how I wish I could!  At my company, until you're on five years, you accrue vacation days.  So far, I've spent all the ones I've accrued for this year on Will's sick days or to go see schools for him.

I liked Lost Highway, too.  It's been a long time since I've seen it - I'm thinkin' I should check it out again.  :)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lynne on February 03, 2007, 11:27:28 pm
The Cal was so great for BBM on opening night.  The ran an old trailer for Urban Cowboy!  :D

 :D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: SFEnnisSF on February 03, 2007, 11:41:36 pm
:D

And when Nurse Betty opened, all the staff was in nurse costumes with broken arm casts on and such.  LOL.

When Donnie Darko Directors Cut opened, Frank The Bunny greeted everyone in the audience.

So you know Inland Empire is gonna be 'off the hook'.

 :D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: SFEnnisSF on February 03, 2007, 11:43:25 pm
I liked Lost Highway, too.  It's been a long time since I've seen it - I'm thinkin' I should check it out again.  :)

"Her name is Renee, if she tells you her name is Alice, she's lying."  ;)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on February 04, 2007, 01:55:00 pm
Sorry to change the topic here. But considering Penelope Cruz has been nominated for an Oscar, has any of you (other than Kirk) seen Volver? I'd like to know your opinions about it. I thought it was an amazing piece of cinematography but I think you need to understand a bit about Spain's culture in order to fully comprehend the characters, their ways of thinking and behavior, and in some ways the plot itself. I'm not sure if people who reviewed the movie were aware of it. Almodovar does an amazing portrayal of the female culture in Spain, especially women from La Mancha (as in Don Quixote), where he is from. I was totally taken by surprise, considering that he is a man.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on February 04, 2007, 03:30:22 pm
Sorry to change the topic here. But considering Penelope Cruz has been nominated for an Oscar, has any of you (other than Kirk) seen Volver? I'd like to know your opinions about it. I thought it was an amazing piece of cinematography but I think you need to understand a bit about Spain's culture in order to fully comprehend the characters, their ways of thinking and behavior, and in some ways the plot itself. I'm not sure if people who reviewed the movie were aware of it. Almodovar does an amazing portrayal of the female culture in Spain, especially women from La Mancha (as in Don Quixote), where he is from. I was totally taken by surprise, considering that he is a man.

Natali, check out page 9 of this thread.  I gave my impressions of Volver, and oilgun also made some remarks about it.  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: saucycobblers on February 08, 2007, 02:13:16 pm
Just had to stop by and recommend 'The Last King of Scotland' starring Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin. I saw it at the weekend. Absolutely EXCELLENT. I had knots in my stomach by the time the credits rolled, which I always take as a good sign  :D

So pleased he's been nominated for an Oscar, as I've loved him since seeing him in the excellent Jim Jarmusch film 'Ghost Dog' and think he's criminally underrated. Go Forest!!  :D

(http://images.killermovies.com/l/thelastkingofscotland/gallery/poster.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on February 08, 2007, 02:55:29 pm
Yes, wasn't it (and he) WONDERFUL???  Now you can see why this one is on my Top Five list for the year.  I find it better as a movie than all five Oscar nominees, and I find Whitaker's performance better than just about any I have ever seen on film.  For once, a juggernaut who *totally* deserves all the praise and awards he's getting and then some.

I add my enthusiastic recommendation that everyone see this one if you can, too, and SOON.  Then, for those who still care about the Oscars, when he inevitably wins, you'll be nothing but glad.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: saucycobblers on February 08, 2007, 03:08:16 pm
And WHEN he wins I'll be a-cheerin' very loudly and hoping we'll be seeing more of him on our screens as a result!

Have you seen 'Ghost Dog' Barb? If you haven't then you should check it out. A completely different kind of performance from our man Forest, but equally as powerful. Man oh man, he's a huge talent. Even in the smallest of film or TV roles you can't take your eyes off him.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on February 08, 2007, 04:36:21 pm
No, I haven't seen Ghost Dog yet, but you're the second person in as many days to tell me I should.  :)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on February 08, 2007, 10:06:09 pm
Barb, I saw "Venus" last weekend because you were so enthusiastic about it, and I loved it.  Peter O'Toole is just wonderful, as are all the actors.  It's both sad and funny, and I thought the direction by Roger Michell was very good, too--witty and illuminating.  I looked him up on IMDb and saw that he directed "Notting Hill" and "Changing Lanes" as well as a couple of films with Daniel Craig.

I'm so glad that Peter O'Toole found this great vehicle to remind us how good he IS, not just WAS.  It was a treat, too, to see Vanessa Redgrave in it, always so radiant no matter how frumpy and old they try to make her.  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: jpwagoneer1964 on February 08, 2007, 11:03:33 pm
I Like 'Venus' as well. I got to see it Jan 28 at my bud's, Chris Atkins.

Saw 'In Search of Happiness' last Sat with one of my oldest bud's (we have known eachother since we were ten). Very good Movie.

Mark
Title: I watched Making Love again on HBO tonight
Post by: Bucky on February 09, 2007, 08:06:36 am
I don't think I truly appreciated just what a complex, sad and moving movie Making Love was until I saw it again tonight.  For its time it was truly a pioneer movie.  The movie was made in 1981 and at that time many gay guys were afraid of long term relationships and were content with "one night stands."  This movie also was made prior to the outbreak of AIDS and many gay men did engage in alot of sex without true love.  Bard who was Harry Hamilin's character was like that.

 Michael Ontkean's character Zach in my opinion was the saddest character in the movie because he had homosexual desires most of his life but repressed them and married Kate Jackson's character(Claire).  They had a life together which had everything but sexual passion.  Zach loved Claire but mostly as a friend who had a lot in common with him but she wanted more out of him than he could give her.  He became attracted to Bard when Bard was a patient of his and spent an evening with Bard.  Bard knew who he was and he knew that he did not want a long term relationship with a man but that was exactly what Zach was looking for at the time.  Bard pushed Zach away and finally Zach told Claire that he was gay.  She didn't accept it very well at least not at first so they seperated and Zach went to New York. 

In the end Claire finally married another man and had a child that she always hoped that she and Zach would have.  Zach found a man in New York while he worked at the Sloan-Kettering Medical Center.  They met again when Zack went back to California to attend a funeral of a mutual friend.  The whole thing was sad.  It was a sad experience for Zach, Claire and Bard.  I can relate to the struggles of Zach trying to come to terms with who he was and his confusion about his sexual identity at first.  Claire was sad because she would always love Zach and Bard had to question his "one night stand" love style and his encounter with Zach made him think that perhaps a long term relationship might be better for him. 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: saucycobblers on February 09, 2007, 08:52:13 am
I was wondering whether or not to bother with 'In Search of Happiness'. I definitely will if you recommend it Mark!  :D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on February 09, 2007, 08:55:46 am
I rented Maurice and was wondering if it is a good film to see with a friend or by myself. Your recommendations?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: saucycobblers on February 09, 2007, 08:57:33 am
I rented Maurice and was wondering if it is a good film to see with a friend or by myself. Your recommendations?

It's a bit like BBM, in that if you're gonna watch it with someone it has to be someone like-minded 'cos it's very emotional in places  :'(
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on February 09, 2007, 11:33:33 am
Barb, I saw "Venus" last weekend because you were so enthusiastic about it, and I loved it.  Peter O'Toole is just wonderful, as are all the actors.  It's both sad and funny, and I thought the direction by Roger Michell was very good, too--witty and illuminating.  I looked him up on IMDb and saw that he directed "Notting Hill" and "Changing Lanes" as well as a couple of films with Daniel Craig.

I'm so glad that Peter O'Toole found this great vehicle to remind us how good he IS, not just WAS.  It was a treat, too, to see Vanessa Redgrave in it, always so radiant no matter how frumpy and old they try to make her.  :)

Glad you loved it, Meryl.  It's a shame that this movie isn't getting more (or much) attention.  It really is a gem, as they say.  And another one that I find better than all five Oscar nominees.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on February 09, 2007, 11:39:06 am
I was wondering whether or not to bother with 'In Search of Happiness'. I definitely will if you recommend it Mark!  :D

You're talking about the movie with Will Smith? (Not to nitpick, but that's "pursuit.") Anyway, yes, I was wondering whether or not to bother, too, but I found it very enjoyable. Mainly because of Will Smith. He's just the world's most likeable person. Could he ever play a bad guy, do you think?

Robin Williams successfully made the transition from good guy to bad guy, but then he was already getting pretty annoying as a good guy. Tom Hanks has kind of edged a bit toward badness, but has never quite made it all the way there.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on February 09, 2007, 11:51:13 am
It's a bit like BBM, in that if you're gonna watch it with someone it has to be someone like-minded 'cos it's very emotional in places  :'(

Thank you for that recommendation!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on February 10, 2007, 09:46:17 pm
Has anybody here seen Bobby? Emilio Esteve's latest flick. I saw it tonight and totally hated it. It was two hours of complete boredom, which was too bad given the topic of the movie. I thought it was too propagandist.  IMO the movie would've been a lot better if it took place after the murder of Bobby Kennedy, instead of before. 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on February 11, 2007, 10:20:17 am
I haven't seen it mostly because it got thumbs-down reviews like yours.  I noticed it only lasted in our biggest megaplex for three weeks.  It started out in the "Premiere" section, which is a balcony-only section with assigned seating that you pay extra for.  Only the most-promising/biggest money-making movies are shown up there because you have to pay double for a ticket.  It lasted a week up there, got bumped down to the minors for two more, then was gone.  That tells me something.  On the other hand, The Departed started out up there in November and is *still* showing up there, and at the full gamut of possible movie times.  Brokeback started up there in late December last year and lasted up there until the end of April.  A theater manager told me that so far, that's the longest any movie's run up there.  The Departed may give it a run for its money, especially if it wins Best Picture, but that's OK with me because I found it thoroughly entertaining and very well-done.

On a side note (ha ha), Crash didn't play up there at all until *after* it got nominated for Best Picture.  Then, it lasted two weeks up there and only another three downstairs.

But who's counting?

 ;D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on February 11, 2007, 10:23:50 am
OT but I saw the Vagina Monologues last nite with LauraGigs, it was great!! I laughed a lot. Don't know why, but it seemed very appropriate for Valentines.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on February 11, 2007, 11:55:30 am
I didn't see "Bobby" for all the reasons Barb and Natali mentioned -- and also because I thought even the trailer was boring!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on February 11, 2007, 07:50:58 pm
I went to see Little Children tonight and I totally recommend it. It is a haunting and thought provoking film. Well acted, well written, and well done. Kate Winslet was superb and so was Jackie Earle Haley (he's nominated for best supporting actor). He managed to make me hate his character and feel very sorry for him at the same time. Noah Emmerich's performance was also impressive and IMO he deserved a nomination too for his role. It's a must see. Go see it if you haven't.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on February 11, 2007, 08:28:29 pm
It's rather overplotted, with a fair number of twists and turns and convenient coincidences that require some suspension of belief.  Family secrets, ghosts and mistaken identity all figure in the story.  In the hands of, say, Mel Brooks, it would make a good slapstick comedy.  Almodovar makes it more like a Spanish Woody Allen film--you laugh more because of the characters than the situations. 

I did like Volver, and very much. But I think this movie was not really suitable for the international public. IMO, it is too deep rooted in the culture of Spain, especially of La Mancha. It's really about the women, and the strange, but strong-tied relationship they develop, mostly to protect each other. They can fight and grow apart, but in the end they go back to each other. They also have a different understanding of death. I went to see it with two friends whose parents are from small towns of La Mancha. They live in Madrid, but they still have strong ties with their respectives towns, and visit them often. They thought the movie's portrayal of La Mancha women is very accurate. Of course, their lives are different to Raimunda's, but in general, they felt very represented in the movie.

Penelope Curz's Raimunda is based on Almodovar's own aunt, who was also a Raimunda. Part of the plot is based on real-life events.

This is the type of movie you can't see from an American point of view, IMO that is.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on February 12, 2007, 12:05:40 am
I did like Volver, and very much. But I think this movie was not really suitable for the international public. IMO, it is too deep rooted in the culture of Spain, especially of La Mancha. It's really about the women, and the strange, but strong-tied relationship they develop, mostly to protect each other. They can fight and grow apart, but in the end they go back to each other. They also have a different understanding of death. I went to see it with two friends whose parents are from small towns of La Mancha. They live in Madrid, but they still have strong ties with their respectives towns, and visit them often. They thought the movie's portrayal of La Mancha women is very accurate. Of course, their lives are different to Raimunda's, but in general, they felt very represented in the movie.

Penelope Curz's Raimunda is based on Almodovar's own aunt, who was also a Raimunda. Part of the plot is based on real-life events.

This is the type of movie you can't see from an American point of view, IMO that is.

I guess that's so that an American wouldn't get as much out of it, but I didn't really have a problem believing the relationships or the supernatural part.  It was just that some of the plot twists seemed pretty contrived.  I can't go into much detail without spoiling it for others, but I hope you know what I mean.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: saucycobblers on February 12, 2007, 09:28:21 am
WOOHOO!!! Forest Whitaker won the Best Actor BAFTA!! Go Forest!!

The BAFTAs sure have great taste - remember thay gave the statue to Jakey last year?

 ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on February 12, 2007, 12:03:11 pm
Yes, they have great taste.  Except for not giving one to Heath and Michelle, that is.  But I'll give them snaps for at least getting it right where Jake and the movie, screenplay, and director were concerned.

I was glad to see Forest win.  As I've said before, he's one juggernaut who deserves everything he gets and then some.  I've just about never seen a performance like his - legendary.  The only film performances I can compare it to are Judi Dench in "Mrs. Brown," Ralph Fiennes in "Schindler's List," and Heath Ledger in "Brokeback Mountain."

And unlike Phillip Seymour Hoffman, I feel like Forest is just gettin' started.

(Sorry, btw - but I appear to be about the only person on the planet who thinks Marlon Brando, James Dean, and Sean Penn are vastly over-rated, so I didn't include their penultimate performances in that list.)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on February 17, 2007, 12:24:17 pm
I guess that's so that an American wouldn't get as much out of it, but I didn't really have a problem believing the relationships or the supernatural part.  It was just that some of the plot twists seemed pretty contrived.  I can't go into much detail without spoiling it for others, but I hope you know what I mean.

I thought the plot twist were plot devices. I didn't see them as an important part of the movie. I think it was more about the relationship. That's why it is called Volver. It means coming back.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on February 17, 2007, 12:48:31 pm
I thought the plot twist were plot devices. I didn't see them as an important part of the movie. I think it was more about the relationship. That's why it is called Volver. It means coming back.

Yes, they were devices.  But once you accept them as such, they work well to help the story achieve that "coming back" theme. "Volver" applies in many ways to the story and characters, don't you think?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on February 17, 2007, 11:18:17 pm
I just got done watching "sherrybaby."  Wow.  What a great character study.  And Maggie is so wonderful.

I've known two heroin addicts in my time.  Both ended up meeting early ends.  I totally believed her struggle to stay clean.  That anyone can come back from that particular addiction and lead any semblance of a normal life is extraordinary, and yet she makes you believe it's possible.  Junkies are a breed apart from your run-of-the mill addicts, and I've known and know all kinds.

The movie is difficult to watch, as they say, at times because Sherry is so self-destructive.  You know she's better than what she cracks herself up to be, so it's that much more painful to see her fail, and fail so spectacularly.  What is the line in the song...   Every junkie's like a setting sun.

It's ultimately a very interesting story about family relationships, too.  The good, the bad, and the ugly.  And it's one that stays with you.  I find myself still rooting for her (and worrying for her) from the point at which the story left off on as if she is a real person.  Kinda like some other fictional (?) character I could name.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on March 06, 2007, 09:28:02 pm
I saw "Amazing Grace" this weekend and really enjoyed it.  I mainly went for the period flavor and the plethora of terrific English actors I saw in the previews.  It's the story of William Wilberforce's battle to make the slave trade illegal in Britain in the early 1800's.  I am a big fan of the Patrick O'Brian novels set in the same period, the ones that "Master and Commander" is based on, so I wanted to drink in that atmosphere.

The settings and costumes are first rate, from lovely English estates to the dirty, congested docks in London to the halls of Parliament.  Ioan Gruffudd was very good as Wilberforce, and it was especially nice to see Albert Finney and Michael Gambon in lesser roles.  The camera loved every wrinkle in their glorious old faces.  Rufus Sewell and Ciaran Hinds also had good parts.

Although they tried hard to approach each scene interestingly, the screenwriters focussed unrelentingly on Wilberforce's mission, so the film was centered on politics and religion.  Still, there are lots of human touches, and the ending is quite emotional, if a little corny.  I recommend it, and probably you should see it soon, since it won't be around too long.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: saucycobblers on March 07, 2007, 08:29:38 am
'amazing Grace' is next on my must-see list, so thanks for the info Meryl!

I saw 'Notes on a Scandal' a couple of days ago and highly recommend it. Judi Dench is fantastic - a very, very complex performance and most deserving of the Oscar nom. And anyone who's ever taught kids for a living will be chuckling and nodding in agreement at the first 10-15 minutes! :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on March 07, 2007, 11:03:20 am
I saw "Amazing Grace" this weekend and really enjoyed it.

Good to know, Meryl! I was going to probably skip it, but with your endorsement I will try to get to it.

I saw Breach this weekend. It was quite good. I always love Chris Cooper (especially in Adaptation!). Ryan Phillipe was pretty good, too, though having just seen Half Nelson a couple of days earlier, I couldn't help wishing that if they were going to cast a Ryan they'd have picked Ryan Gosling instead.

Half Nelson was great -- right up until the time I fell asleep (I started the DVD way too late). But Ryan Gosling was fantastic and so was Shareeka Epps. I also finally saw Proof, which I'm sure most of you have already seen. I liked it pretty well. I was a little uncertain about Gwyneth in the lead role -- I'd seen it on stage with the wonderful Mary Louise Parker, and couldn't imagine anyone else in the part -- but I thought she was fine. And Jake, it goes without saying, was excellent.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on March 12, 2007, 01:02:20 am
I got to see the German film "The Lives of Others" last weekend.  What a good movie!  I can see why Anke and Chrissi have been rooting for it to win awards, and it did win the Oscar for Best Foreign Film over "Pan's Labyrinth," surprisingly.  It's quite a different film from PL, although both deal with political oppression.

The main character works for the government in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall.  He's assigned the job of spying on a playwright and his actress girlfriend, looking for evidence of subversive ties with the West.  As he comes to sympathize with his subjects, he finds himself looking for ways to protect them and plays a dangerous double game.  It's very well written and acted, and it makes you ever so happy to live in a country that has freedom of speech!  The ending is perfect.  It won't play in many theaters here, but when it comes out on DVD, it's definitely worth renting.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on March 12, 2007, 01:06:26 pm
Meryl, I watched "The Lives of Others" this past weekend, myself.  EXCELLENT.  I agree with all you've said.  The acting across the board was extraordinary.  What a wonderful film.  And the last line, as they say, is like a shot to the heart.

Now that I've seen it, I guess I can live with it winning those awards over "Pan's Labyrinth."  It is truly a A+ movie.  One of the few perfect ones I've seen in recent times.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on March 12, 2007, 07:29:11 pm
WOOHOO!!! Forest Whitaker won the Best Actor BAFTA!! Go Forest!!

The BAFTAs sure have great taste - remember thay gave the statue to Jakey last year?

 ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

I finally saw The Last King of Scotland and I have to say, Forest Whitaker's performance is beyond outstanding. I was so impressed. Too bad they gave too much movie time to the scot guy. He didn't do it that good.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: saucycobblers on March 12, 2007, 07:38:02 pm
I finally saw The Last King of Scotland and I have to say, Forest Whitaker's performance is beyond outstanding. I was so impressed. Too bad they gave too much movie time to the scot guy. He didn't do it that good.

I felt the same - I think he overdid the cocky new boy act a little. It didn't need to be that strong (or irritating) in the beginning to show his journey over the course of the film.

I hope the Oscar means we'll see more of Forest on our screens from now on  :D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on March 12, 2007, 07:49:55 pm
I actually quite liked James McAvoy in that role.  But then again, I'm an American, and we don't get to hear nearly enough of that particular accent, IMO.  Or at least I don't.

:)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on March 12, 2007, 08:31:40 pm
I'm dying to see 'Amazing Grace' simply because of my man Ioan Gruffud.  :-* :-*

The cast looks outstanding and I love the era.  Haven't made it yet, though.

Did go see 'Bridge to Terebithia' which is based apparently on a famous children's book, which I didn't know.  My friend who is a teacher and up on those kind of things took me, and it was very well done.  The children were excellent actors and very convincing, the adults played with dignity and not mocked and it was truly emotional. 

The previews are somewhat misleading.  What they show is mostly just to sell the story to the kids and get them in the theaters.  It's the least of the story.  Thumbs up! 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on March 24, 2007, 04:14:14 pm
Meryl, I watched "The Lives of Others" this past weekend, myself.  EXCELLENT.  I agree with all you've said.  The acting across the board was extraordinary.  What a wonderful film.  And the last line, as they say, is like a shot to the heart.

Now that I've seen it, I guess I can live with it winning those awards over "Pan's Labyrinth."  It is truly a A+ movie.  One of the few perfect ones I've seen in recent times.


I finally went to see it and I have to say it is one of the most touching movies i have ever seen. That oscar was well deserved.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on March 25, 2007, 09:08:08 pm
The Shooter   5/10

The plot was conventional and formulaic, but points for the sidekick being ethnic, the woman actually able to use a gun and of course, points for Marky Mark's obligatory shirtless scenes, worth the price of admission alone.

Amazingly, the plot is politically balanced, showing neither support nor contempt for our current administration.

But all you pacificists and our lovely European fans, be warned it is a strictly gun culture American shoot 'em up.  In one scene, we learn that the valued memento mori of one character is a rifle left to them by a dead loved one.  :P
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: mvansand76 on April 28, 2007, 01:12:10 pm
I get you, oilgun.  Yes, he was overall pretty black and white, I agree.

I, too, am not a fan of the fantasy genre.  For example, I couldn't care less about The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter movies.  I saw the first installment of both and didn't feel the need to continue.

I dunno...  Something about this movie just grabbed me.  Maybe because I can relate to using one's imagination to get through terrible times.  But I can also understand why it's not universally appealing.


Hey!
I just saw Pan's Labyrinth and I was so amazed. It's such a disturbing movie. I don't know why the movie grabbed me like it did, but by the end I was crying more than I have ever cried over BBM. The violence was definitely too much and I had to close my eyes several times (The Oh-no-they-are-not-gonna-show-that-are-they-oh-shit-yes-they-are moments). It was refreshing to see this movie also because of the actors, they were incredible, the little girl and Mercedes were so good. Spain does have some amazing talents! Anyway, I am still trying to figure out why it grabbed me like it did....
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on April 28, 2007, 08:13:54 pm
I'm glad you got to see it, Snavel.  It's something I urge everyone here to see - it and "The Lives of Others" were by far the most moving films I've seen in the last year.  Like it did you, "Pan's Labyrinth" really got a hold of me.  It haunted me for a long time afterwards.  I had a vivid imagination as a child, too, and actually wrote a fairy tale once about a girl who sees the reflection of the sky in big puddle and gets mezmerized by it, bends down to see it more closely, and gets pulled into another world on the other side of it.  But never in my wildest imaginings did I conjure up anything like Pan or the pale monster (yikes) or the giant toad.  It was all beyond magical.  Put all the LOTR and Harry Potter crap to shame, if'n you ask me.  (OK, so I've only seen the first LOTR and Harry Potter movies and was underwhelmed by both of them...)

I saw a good one today - "Hot Fuzz" - made by the guys who made "Shaun of the Dead."  Wonderful satire.  Some very gross violence in that one, too, but it somehow wasn't as disturbing as Pan's because it was so surreal, ironically enough.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on April 28, 2007, 10:00:04 pm
Hey!
I just saw Pan's Labyrinth and I was so amazed. It's such a disturbing movie. I don't know why the movie grabbed me like it did, but by the end I was crying more than I have ever cried over BBM. The violence was definitely too much and I had to close my eyes several times (The Oh-no-they-are-not-gonna-show-that-are-they-oh-shit-yes-they-are moments). It was refreshing to see this movie also because of the actors, they were incredible, the little girl and Mercedes were so good. Spain does have some amazing talents! Anyway, I am still trying to figure out why it grabbed me like it did....

Yes, I really like Pan's Labyrinth as well.  I was enthralled by the world the girl made for herself.  At the end, my friend was asking, "Well did she make it up or not?"

That's the best part.  You don't know.  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: mvansand76 on April 29, 2007, 05:40:05 am
Yes, I really like Pan's Labyrinth as well.  I was enthralled by the world the girl made for herself.  At the end, my friend was asking, "Well did she make it up or not?"

That's the best part.  You don't know.  :)

Yeah I was discussing that with my boyfriend last night and we think it was all in her head, because her body really was still there, the grown-ups didn't see anything magical (he took her brother away from her, but didn't see the Faun). But then that little root she put in the milk under her mother's bed did have that effect on her mother.. it's all very intriguing and it leaves a lot to be discussed, just like BBM, that's probably why I thought it was such an interesting film, for the first time since BBM I saw a movie that I was still thinking about hours later, and now even days later...

I'm glad you got to see it, Snavel.  It's something I urge everyone here to see - it and "The Lives of Others" were by far the most moving films I've seen in the last year.  Like it did you, "Pan's Labyrinth" really got a hold of me.  It haunted me for a long time afterwards.  I had a vivid imagination as a child, too, and actually wrote a fairy tale once about a girl who sees the reflection of the sky in big puddle and gets mezmerized by it, bends down to see it more closely, and gets pulled into another world on the other side of it.  But never in my wildest imaginings did I conjure up anything like Pan or the pale monster (yikes) or the giant toad.  It was all beyond magical.  Put all the LOTR and Harry Potter crap to shame, if'n you ask me.  (OK, so I've only seen the first LOTR and Harry Potter movies and was underwhelmed by both of them...)

I saw a good one today - "Hot Fuzz" - made by the guys who made "Shaun of the Dead."  Wonderful satire.  Some very gross violence in that one, too, but it somehow wasn't as disturbing as Pan's because it was so surreal, ironically enough.


Oh I would love to see Hot Fuzz, I looooved Shaun of the Dead, it was hilarious! It's me, Mel, by the way (Snuitje). LOL! Das Leben der Anderen I need to see too.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on April 29, 2007, 10:02:25 am
Oh, hi, Mel.   ;D

You'll love "Hot Fuzz."  I looooved "Shaun of the Dead," too, and this one is very much in keeping with that same broad but sly wit.  I laughed myself silly at several things in it.  Funny thing - this youngish guy two seats over from me and I kept laughing at exactly the same stuff and in exactly the same way - we'd chuckle at some stuff, kind of snort at others, and laugh out loud at others.  It was almost a little awkward until finally I quietly said to him "Hey.  Are we related?"  He and his friends laughed at that and the awkwardness dissipated.  We still kept laughing at the same stuff in the same way.

It was a fun crowd at this movie.  In the Land of Seniors, I was for once one of the oldest people in the theater instead of one of the youngest.  That was definitely refreshing.  I did enjoy how the one group of senior men who came together sitting in the row in front of me and one seat over laughed enthusiastically at several parts.  So my sense of humor will still be very much intact at their age.  Good to know.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on May 02, 2007, 05:14:35 am
Yeah I was discussing that with my boyfriend last night and we think it was all in her head, because her body really was still there, the grown-ups didn't see anything magical (he took her brother away from her, but didn't see the Faun). But then that little root she put in the milk under her mother's bed did have that effect on her mother.. it's all very intriguing and it leaves a lot to be discussed, just like BBM, that's probably why I thought it was such an interesting film, for the first time since BBM I saw a movie that I was still thinking about hours later, and now even days later...

I still think it was all part of the girl's imagination. Even the mandragora, the root she puts underneath her mother's bed. I don't know why she gets better but it could've been the medicines the doctor had been giving her, though the doctor doesn't understand her sudden improvement. I think the girl, with her fantasy, is trying to cope to the reality of death. Not killiing herself but that dying is possible. She said the the princess's father is waiting for the return of her soul. We all think children don't think of death, but I think they do if they are within an environment where dying violently seems to be norm.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: mvansand76 on May 02, 2007, 07:57:44 am
Oh, hi, Mel.   ;D

You'll love "Hot Fuzz."  I looooved "Shaun of the Dead," too, and this one is very much in keeping with that same broad but sly wit.  I laughed myself silly at several things in it.  Funny thing - this youngish guy two seats over from me and I kept laughing at exactly the same stuff and in exactly the same way - we'd chuckle at some stuff, kind of snort at others, and laugh out loud at others.  It was almost a little awkward until finally I quietly said to him "Hey.  Are we related?"  He and his friends laughed at that and the awkwardness dissipated.  We still kept laughing at the same stuff in the same way.

It was a fun crowd at this movie.  In the Land of Seniors, I was for once one of the oldest people in the theater instead of one of the youngest.  That was definitely refreshing.  I did enjoy how the one group of senior men who came together sitting in the row in front of me and one seat over laughed enthusiastically at several parts.  So my sense of humor will still be very much intact at their age.  Good to know.


I can't help but think I would be laughing at the same things as you did! I love the type of humour in Shaun of the Dead. I love the part in the beginning where he keeps passing by zombies and he doesn't realise it. Or the record throwing in the garden. LOL!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on May 02, 2007, 07:50:23 pm
Reading about the humour in Shawn of the Dead reminds me of another more recent "horror" film that had me on the floor laughing:  Slither with Nathan Fillion.  It has some rather disturbing scenes so it's not for the squeamish but man is it ever funny in parts.  I was pleasantly surprised.

Has anyone seen Dito Montiel's A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints.  At first I was really hating it because it felt like watching a bunch of people in an acting class and we all know how awful that can be, lol!  There is a lot of Acting with a capital A  in this but once I got used to it I really enjoyed it.  The revelation for me was Channing Tatum, the guy CAN act althopugh he doesn't need to as this pic of him (not from the movie) will attest: 

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/ChanningTatum-1.jpg)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: loneleeb3 on May 08, 2007, 07:02:31 pm
Channing Tatum[/i], the guy CAN act althopugh he doesn't need to as this pic of him (not from the movie) will attest: 

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/ChanningTatum-1.jpg)
DANG!
Who cares if he can act!!!!
Title: Pirates of the Caribbean III
Post by: delalluvia on May 28, 2007, 01:13:39 am
Just came from watching "Pirates of the Caribbean III:  At World's End."

Entertaining but overly long, they made the same mistake as the producers did on The Mummy II - had too many characters, introduced more and spent too little time on the important ones - they didn't have to show what happened to everyone, ya know? - worried more about amping up the special effects than the characters' stories.  One plotline was very interesting, but took a bizarre and unnecessary turn, another storyline we waited for for 3 years took a tragic turn that was tossed off way too casually for what actually happened.

I give it a 6/10
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on May 28, 2007, 08:38:03 am
Sounds an awful lot like Spider-Man 3, Del.  Thanks for the intel - I do believe I'll pass.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on May 29, 2007, 05:47:26 pm
Sounds an awful lot like Spider-Man 3, Del.  Thanks for the intel - I do believe I'll pass.

I have to go, if for no other reason than to see Keith Richards!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on May 29, 2007, 09:30:01 pm
I'd love to see that bit, too, Kat - and Geoffrey Rush is always a joy.  But...I...just...can't.

I'm going through another "I refuse to sit through mediocre movies" stage, and I haven't even seen Brokeback lately!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on May 30, 2007, 08:07:32 pm
Not to say Pirates III completely sucked.   I enjoyed it, it was just disappointing.  I completed the trilogy and will probably have to buy the DVD just to complete my set.

Jack is still Jack which is always a plus and I did enjoy the quadruple double-crosses they had going at one point.  By the time Keith Richards showed up, I had completely forgotten he was going to be in it.  He looked perfect, played his part perfectly, the director made him comfortable and did not ask too much of him.  Heh.  They probably didn't bother with any makeup for him.

If you do go, it's very long, so don't drink too much before hand and stay for the end of the credits.  Unbeknownst to me, all 3 movies have a final scene at the end of the credits and I missed this one as well.  I'll have to check my DVDs for the others.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on May 31, 2007, 10:56:42 pm
Keith Richards, in my book, can pretty much do no wrong (he and I even share initials!). Sounds like his role is too short.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on June 01, 2007, 07:36:25 pm
Yesterday I watched Terry Gilliam's Tideland and I'd like to nominate it as one of the most underrated films ever.  The bad press and my disappointment with The Brothers Grimm   prevented me from seeing it at the theatre and now I really regret it. It might well be my favourite Gilliam film ever, I loved it!

Some people have compared it to Pan's Labyrinth because both involve a little girl escaping into a world of fantasy but I think it is superior.   I became emotionally invested in Tideland very early in the film but for some reason with PL, it was the opposite, I lost the connection early on.

I'd love to hear what others thought of it.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on June 01, 2007, 08:01:18 pm
Wow - I'll have to check that one out, oilgun.  I *love* "Brazil" - and if you say it's superior even to "Pan's Labyrinth," I'll have to see it.

Thanks for the recommendation.  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on June 02, 2007, 12:37:56 pm
Yesterday I watched Terry Gilliam's Tideland and I'd like to nominate it as one of the most underrated films ever.  The bad press and my disappointment with The Brothers Grimm   prevented me from seeing it at the theatre and now I really regret it. It might well be my favourite Gilliam film ever, I loved it!

Some people have compared it to Pan's Labyrinth because both involve a little girl escaping into a world of fantasy but I think it is superior.   I became emotionally invested in Tideland very early in the film but for some reason with PL, it was the opposite, I lost the connection early on.

I'd love to hear what others thought of it.
I need to see this, especially since I watched "Lost in La Mancha" last nite about how Don Quixote didn't get made by Gilliam, so I need to see a movie of his that did get made!!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on June 02, 2007, 12:46:20 pm
Anybody seen Waitress? I'm thinking of going this weekend. It's either that or Pirates, and I have a feeling I'll have a much longer opportunity to see the latter.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on June 02, 2007, 03:14:51 pm
I've seen Waitress and LOVED it.  Best time I've had at the movie theater in...  I don't know how long.  It's beautifully-written - the dialogue is so natural and perfect.  Adrienne Shelly totally got how people really talk.  It's such a crying shame that we won't get to see any more films from her.  She was a wonderful director and a very good actor, too.  But Keri Russell is the star here, and she is absolutely adorable in every way.  What a talent.

DON'T miss this one.  I do believe I'd rather see it again, to be honest, than see Pirates for the first time.  It was just so much fun on so many levels.  Even the tough stuff (like watching Jenna struggle through an emotionally abusive marriage) was interesting to watch because Shelly never goes over the top with her dialogue, situations, or actors.

DON'T miss it.  Did I say that already?  ;)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: mvansand76 on June 02, 2007, 04:30:51 pm
Has anybody seen Black Snake Moan? It's getting mixed reviews here, so I am not sure if we should go and see it.... :-\

And... I am gonna see Zodiac on the 12th of June! Believe it or not, but it only just came out 2 days ago.... no Jake at the premiere here in Amsterdam though, I wonder why? I wonder why actors hardly ever come to premieres in Holland. Amsterdam is a pretty cool city, right?  :-\

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on June 02, 2007, 07:10:51 pm
Zodiac opened in Madrid a few weeks ago but i haven't had the chance to see it yet. I also thought Jake was going to be here to promote it but he was in Cannes, instead. He came when Jarhead opened, along with Peter Sarsgaard, but as far as I am concerned hasn't been back since. Kirsten Dunst, however, came to Spidey's opening.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on June 03, 2007, 07:04:39 pm
I just saw Zodiac. When Jake delivers his first line I immediately thought of Jack Twist. That lasted about one second.

Well, the movie is good and interesting but not thought provoking. Jake is good in it but i was more impressed with Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr. I thought Downey Jr. was superb in his role.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on June 03, 2007, 07:29:48 pm
I've seen Waitress and LOVED it.  Best time I've had at the movie theater in...  I don't know how long.  It's beautifully-written - the dialogue is so natural and perfect.  Adrienne Shelly totally got how people really talk.  It's such a crying shame that we won't get to see any more films from her.  She was a wonderful director and a very good actor, too.  But Keri Russell is the star here, and she is absolutely adorable in every way.  What a talent.

... Even the tough stuff (like watching Jenna struggle through an emotionally abusive marriage) was interesting to watch because Shelly never goes over the top with her dialogue, situations, or actors.

You are so right, Barb! I saw it this afternoon and loved it, too. Cute, touching, restrained, ambiguous, sad. Keri Russell was good, and so were the other waitresses, including Adrienne Shelly  :'(. Lots of nice little details, like the way the writing on Andy Griffith's card looked shaky (thought he was excellent too, BTW). And the way the marriage was portrayed -- terrible, yes, but without descending into the melodramatic horrors that a lesser writer might be tempted to show. The guy who played the loathesome husband was good, too.

And I loved hearing the dialogue with its nonagreeing pronouns and verbs ("you was ..." "we was ..." etc.) -- reminded me of you-know-who!

Funny; the reviews I read were sort of mixed. I'm going to rottentomatoes to see if women reviewers liked it better. It's a bit of a chick flick, but in the good sense of the term.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on June 03, 2007, 08:58:14 pm
Yeah - I don't get that it gets any mixed reviews at all.  I thought it was damn near perfect.

Meanwhile, against my better judgment, I saw "Knocked Up" today, which the nimrod MALE reviewer in our local paper gave FOUR FUCKING STARS.  (That's out of four.)

I walked out of it thinking, "Yeah, that was certainly a solid 2 1/2 stars, bordering on 3, but FOUR FUCKING STARS?"

Men writing for men (and really young and/or immature ones at that).  Gag.

I think I'll go watch "Waitress" again and be cleansed.

 :P
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: memento on June 04, 2007, 08:26:39 pm
I loved how Waitress  used pies as a metaphor for Jenna's life - I Hate My Husband pie, I Don't Want Earl's Baby pie, Baby Screaming Its Head Off in the Middle of the Night and Ruining My Life pie. I really enjoyed its quirkiness and its message, which was in Andy Griffith's words: "Start fresh. It’s never too late."
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on June 04, 2007, 09:15:14 pm
I loved how Waitress  used pies as a metaphor for Jenna's life - I Hate My Husband pie, I Don't Want Earl's Baby pie, Baby Screaming Its Head Off in the Middle of the Night and Ruining My Life pie. I really enjoyed its quirkiness and its message, which was in Andy Griffith's words: "Start fresh. It’s never too late."

Excellently put.  I couldn't agree more.  :)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on June 15, 2007, 09:04:49 pm
Has anybody seen Black Snake Moan? It's getting mixed reviews here, so I am not sure if we should go and see it.... :-\ 

My best friend is a feminist and she loved it considering its strange premise.

Quote
I wonder why? I wonder why actors hardly ever come to premieres in Holland. Amsterdam is a pretty cool city, right?  :-\

Dunno, too small an audience I suppose.  Doing promotion junkets is tiring for the actors, so they just hit the bigger markets.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on July 10, 2007, 04:26:37 pm
I got to see a preview of "Hairspray" last night and had the best time!  I haven't seen the stage show, so I was not familiar with the music, which is a spot on recreation of those 1960's tunes popular when I was in junior high and high school.  The adorable cast simply kept singing and dancing practically nonstop, and although the plot deals with serious stuff like racism and stereotypes, it was handled so adroitly and with such a light touch that it didn't get bogged down like it might have.

The girl they found to play Tracey, Nikki Blonsky, is just right--irrepressibly good-natured, full of life and of course plump, and she sings and dances beautifully.  As her parents, John Travolta and Christopher Walken are an utter hoot.  Michelle Pfeiffer does a great job as the villainous ex-beauty queen, and the small roles are perfect cameos: Jerry Stiller as the cheesy owner of a shop for big girls, Queen Latifah as a soulful record shop owner, and Allison Janney as an evangelical terror of a mom.  John Waters and Ricki Lake, the writer and star of the original movie, made quick (and appropriate) appearances, too.

It was so energizing, what with one catchy number after another, that I went in feeling tired and sleepy and came out wanting to dance down the street!  Go see it when you need a pick-me-up.  ;D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...Factory Girl
Post by: oilgun on July 30, 2007, 12:28:52 pm
I just bought the uncut version of  Factory Girl, and really enjoyed it.  I didn't see the theatrical version so I can't compare the two but I thought this one was quite good. 

Sienna Miller, who really didn't impress me in Casanova, was a revelation as poor little rich girl Edie Sedgwick but I absolutely LOVED Guy Pearce as a child-like petulant Warhol.  He completely disappears in the role and is a joy to watch.  His performance rivals that of PSH's as Capote, it's that good.  A lot of people didn't like Hayden Christiansen as "the folk singer" but I thought it was uncanny how much he looked and sounded like Dylan.

Anyway, I pronounce it an underrated gem, lol!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...Factory Girl
Post by: delalluvia on July 30, 2007, 09:14:47 pm
I just bought the uncut version of  Factory Girl, and really enjoyed it.  I didn't see the theatrical version so I can't compare the two but I thought this one was quite good. 

Sienna Miller, who really didn't impress me in Casanova, was a revelation as poor little rich girl Edie Sedgwick but I absolutely LOVED Guy Pearce as a child-like petulant Warhol.  He completely disappears in the role and is a joy to watch.  His performance rivals that of PSH's as Capote, it's that good.  A lot of people didn't like Hayden Christiansen as "the folk singer" but I thought it was uncanny how much he looked and sounded like Dylan.

Anyway, I pronounce it an underrated gem, lol!

I want to see both "Factory Girl" and "Casanova" as I seemed to have missed both in the theaters.  Guy Pearce disappears so much in the character that I didn't recognize him.  At first, I thought Warhol was being placed by James Marsden!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: shortfiction on July 31, 2007, 01:14:23 am
I'm off to Blockbuster tomorrow to see what I can find, but mostly I watch Netflix movies.  I'm going through the Black Adder series and I also bought all four seasons of A Bit of Fry and Laurie, as I am a fan of eccentric, absurdist, wacky British humor.   
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on July 31, 2007, 07:19:13 pm
I *love* Black Adder.  "Now's about the time the conversation turns to picking weevils out of biscuits and drinking urine."

:)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: shortfiction on July 31, 2007, 07:26:24 pm
Oh man...I just finished watching Perfume and it is very disturbing and grotesque.   Beautifully shot, though, and the 18th century French set design is very authentic looking.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on July 31, 2007, 08:56:34 pm
I just got finished watching Transformers.  And I must say, it is very disturbing and grotesque, too.  (But what did I expect from Michael Bay, anyway?)

I feel I must cleanse my movie soul with something - worth watching.  Something that redeems my faith in the movie-making gods.

Fargo, it is.  :)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on August 01, 2007, 07:36:48 am
Oh man...I just finished watching Perfume and it is very disturbing and grotesque.   Beautifully shot, though, and the 18th century French set design is very authentic looking.


You should read the novel. It is much, much better. The way the odors are described is amazing. You'll think you are acutally smelling them. Author is Patrick Süskind.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: shortfiction on August 01, 2007, 01:47:36 pm
You should read the novel. It is much, much better. The way the odors are described is amazing. You'll think you are acutally smelling them. Author is Patrick Süskind.

Wow.  That sounds like powerful writing.  I'll go see if I can find it.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: JCinNYC2006 on August 01, 2007, 03:52:04 pm
I agree with everyone who loved Waitress, it was one of the best surprises of the year so far.  I never watched Felicity but I thought Keri Russell was totally engaging in this film.  Plus the assortment of kooky characters (hmmm, reminds me of a certain trip I just took  ;) ) and especially Andy Griffith was hilarious and very touching.

Another unexpected gem was La Vie en Rose, about French icon Edith Piaf.  While I'm the first to admit I'm over actors playing real people and doing great imitations (PHS, feh!) I was blown away by Marion Cotillard.  She plays Piaf from late teenage years to early 40s, and she's a freaking dynamo.  The direction of the movie is interesting in how it travels back and forth in time.  I like that style but I found myself confused as to who certain characters were.  It was very interesting to see more of what Piaf's life was like and how she came to be such a legend, not having known much about her before the film.  It's a challenging movie but rewarding in the end.

Juan
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Casey Cornelius on August 02, 2007, 11:48:46 pm
The latest film which has provided me multiple joyful viewings is The History Boys.  Wonderful script by Alan Bennett from his incredibly witty Tony and Olivier award winning play, directed by Nicholas Hytner [Madness of King George (also from an Alan Bennet play), The Crucible. The Object of My Affection - but, more than a film director he is one of Britain's greatest theater and opera directors]
-- with an unbelievable cohesive ensemble cast of eight wonderful young British actors, Richard Griffiths [who was in the recent controversial London production of Equus with that Harry Potter actor dropping his kit - come to think of it Richard Griffiths was also in a Harry Potter film !] and the subtley stunning Frances de la Tour.  Makes me upset that I did not make more of an effort to see the original National Theatre production in London or the tour to New York last year.
If you watch the film and enjoy it, make an effort to get a hold of the original play-script [not just the film script]
and read the rest of the play, as about 3/4 of an hour of material had to be excised in the film adaption.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: SFEnnisSF on August 03, 2007, 02:21:48 am
I saw Sunshine tonight.  Awesome film.  I loved it.  

...And Chris Evans is a hottie!   :P   :D

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/

http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sunshine/
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on August 03, 2007, 10:04:35 am

...And Chris Evans is a hottie!   :P   :D



Then you'd like him in Cellular.  It's actually an fun little thriller and he was just adorable in it!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: shortfiction on August 03, 2007, 05:25:06 pm
Valley of the Dolls---is there a more camptastic movie than this one?   
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on August 04, 2007, 02:29:35 pm
Sunshine sounds/reads pretty spooky.  Something I'd like to see.

Anyone seen Goya's Ghost?  The cast and direction is stellar (well maybe except for Randy Quaid).  8)

A biographical tale told through the eyes of celebrated Spanish painter Francisco Goya, whose paintings are best known for their brutality and the colorful depictions of life during the Spanish Inquisition. The drama unfolds as Brother Lorenzo, an enigmatic member of the powerful Spanish clergy, becomes infatuated with Goya⿿s beautiful teenage muse, Ines.

Cast and Credits
Starring:    Javier Bardem, Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, Randy Quaid, Jose Luis Gomez
Directed by:    Milos Forman


Or, since I'm on a French kick for my Paris trip La Vie en Rose?

From the slums of Paris to the limelight of New York, Edith Piaf's life was a battle to sing and survive, live and love. Raised in poverty, Edith's magical voice and her passionate romances and friendships with the greatest names of the period - Yves Montand, Jean Cocteau, Charles Aznavour, Marlene Dietrich, Marcel Cerdan and others - made her a star all around the world. But in her audacious attempt to tame her tragic destiny, the Little Sparrow - her nickname - flew so high she could not fail to burn her wings.

Both look amazing.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on August 04, 2007, 05:39:33 pm
I loved how Waitress  used pies as a metaphor for Jenna's life - I Hate My Husband pie, I Don't Want Earl's Baby pie, Baby Screaming Its Head Off in the Middle of the Night and Ruining My Life pie. I really enjoyed its quirkiness and its message, which was in Andy Griffith's words: "Start fresh. It’s never too late."

I haven't seen Waitress but my mother and sister have. There is a potato masher that makes an appearance during the credits and one or two other times in the movie. It is called "My Mother's Potato Masher" and is really made by my mother. You can read about it here:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DEED91F39F932A15752C1A962948260

Unfortunately, you can't order the potato masher from Mom anymore (address that is in the article) as she sold the business a few years ago. I searched for a place to order it online but didn't find anything. I am not sure of the current status of the business.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on August 11, 2007, 05:30:40 pm
Just came from seeing the The Bourne Ultimatum.

For what it is, an action-packed thriller?  Excellent.  Very good.  I recommend it if you've been following the series.

Pacing and action is breathtaking and I appreciate how the fighting is not really focused on as it was the two previous movies, story is excellent, even though they have the inevitable plot holes.  Nice sense of symmetry to the movie with its choices of echoing images and dialogue and dovetailing one movie from the last.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on August 11, 2007, 07:35:27 pm
Then you'd like him in Cellular.  It's actually an fun little thriller and he was just adorable in it!

I love Cellular. I've seen it three times, which prior to BBM was as often as I ever saw a movie. I like it better than Speed, which it sort of resembles. I like Speed, too, but Cellular is wittier. And Chris Evans is great!

Just after I saw it the first time, in the theater, a friend called me and said she was urging everyone she knew to go out and see What the (bleep) do we know? I told her I was urging everyone to see Cellular ( :laugh: -- it wasn't exactly parallel; she had gone all spiritual about WTBDWK). I did go see WTBDWK finally, and discovered that my recommendation was much, much better.

I saw Bourne on opening night with my 11-year-old son. Very enjoyable! My son hadn't seen the first two, but he loved this one anyway. Now we are trying to rent the first two, but of course it's impossible to find them in the video stores.

Oh, and Barb, I kind of liked Transformers. Or at least I didn't hate it. But then, I'm a sucker for anything with Shia LaBoeuf.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on August 12, 2007, 12:02:19 am
I really liked the first two Bourne movies, so I'm looking forward to seeing the new one.  8)

Just got back from seeing the French film Moliere, which was very enjoyable.  My friend compared it to Shakespeare in Love, which I can agree with.  It also reminded me a bit of Tom Jones, one of my favorite movies.  It's a serio/comic imagining of what might have happened to Moliere to inspire him to write his comedies, particularly Tartuffe.  The original music is quite nice, and the sets and costumes are beautiful.  If you saw Paris, je t'aime, the actor who plays Moliere, Romain Duris, was the student who had an affair with his friend's wife in Barcelona.
Title: Re: Best Movie of 2006?
Post by: Front-Ranger on August 13, 2007, 12:42:23 am
THE FOUNTAIN directed by the guy who did REQUIEM FOR THE DREAM had beautiful imagery, good score, but very, very confusing narrative.

The Fountain is now out on DVD. I watched it tonite and enjoyed it very much. It reminded me a little of the movie What Dreams May Come with Robin Williams. I don't pretend to understand it, but I'm glad there is a movie tackling the subjects of death, creation in destruction, and everlasting life. Some of the images were stunningly beautiful, and Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weitz are a delight for the eyes.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on August 14, 2007, 09:37:56 am
I loved The Fountain!  I thought Hugh Jackman was amazing in it.

I watched two excellent films on the weekend. My apologies if they have already been discussed here:

1- Infamous - The other movie about Capote writing In Cold BloodCapote was very stylish and compelling but I found PSH's performance rather distracting.  In this version however, I could focus more on the story.  Toby Jones, who actually resembles Capote physically,  is pitch-perfect.  Daniel Craig, who plays killer Perry Smith,  is in his best rough trade mode since Love is the Devil.  It seems that the relationship between the two is explored a bit more deeply.  It's unfortunate that it was released after PSH's vanity project because it's a very enjoyable film that deserves more attention.

2-  Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus - I've always been a big fan of Diane Arbus' photographs so I was excited about this film, even though it is a fictional exploration.  It's a very strange and audacious film that is part Alice in Wonderland, part Beauty & the Beast, complete with surreal touches.  Nicole Kidman and Robert Downy Jr. are excellent as the leads.  I absolutely loved it! I think Diane would be pleased. 


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: JCinNYC2006 on August 14, 2007, 03:06:15 pm
The music in The Fountain is fantastic, a very good score if you're into movie music.  The narrative is non-sequential so a little harder to follow, but I'm used to films like that.  La Vie en Rose used a similar style, and again, Marian Cotillard is phenomenal as Edith Piaf.

I also agree that Infamous was a more satisfying film in that it varied more from scene to scene.  And the relationship b/w Capote and Perry Smith is definitely more intense.  I'm about ready to cancel my Netflix account because I am so far behind in new movies that I've rented that I want to see.....

Juan
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kelda on August 20, 2007, 08:08:19 am
I actually quite liked James McAvoy in that role.  But then again, I'm an American, and we don't get to hear nearly enough of that particular accent, IMO.  Or at least I don't.

:)

Okay so I finally saw last king of scotland last night. and did a little search on here to see if anyone had talked about it.

Loved the film, even if grusome, and thought Jaames McAvoy was great in it too! I wonder if Ewan McGregor was just too expensive for this project so they chose James instead? He is a Scot, so perhaps its not surprising he had the typical scots reactions down to a tee. I wonder who wrote the screenplay as they had the Scots/English bias just right. The way he immediately corrects Abi when he says hes British, the football loving guy, the way he slags of the english civil servant, little things like that.

Favouite line is probably..

Girl on Bus: Do you have monkeys in Scotland?
Nicholas Garrigan: No, but if we did we'd probably deep fry them!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on September 03, 2007, 08:18:29 am
La Vie en Rose used a similar style, and again, Marian Cotillard is phenomenal as Edith Piaf.


Like I said in my blog I totally recommend La Vie en Rose. What a wonderful movie. I agree with Juan, Marion Cotillard does an outstanding job playing Edith. I posted a video of the real Edith singing La Vie en Rose in my blog as a tribute. She was gifted with a beautiful voice.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: shortfiction on September 06, 2007, 08:50:19 pm
The Missouri Breaks is by far the most unconventional, unpredictable "Western" I have ever seen.  Just watched it today, via Netflix delivery.    And hey, it's got Nicholson and Brando and Harry Dean Stanton!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 06, 2007, 09:09:40 pm
Anybody have a report on 3:30 to Yuma? It's on at my local theater this weekend, and I've seen a couple of decent reviews. Shoot 'Em Up is there, too, but I haven't seen a thing about that -- except an interview with Clive Owen on TV yesterday. It's not my usual type of movie, I don't think, but you never know. So if anybody has recommendations on either of these, yay or nay, I'm all ears.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on September 06, 2007, 10:57:43 pm
I saw a good review of 3:10 to Yuma on CBS Sunday Morning.  I'm looking forward to it, especially because I like Russell Crowe.  Looks like a good old-fashioned Western with some very good performances.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on September 07, 2007, 01:57:54 pm
I'm gonna see that one tomorrow.  Russell Crowe is one of those guys I like as an actor, but not so much as a person.  That's OK - I'm never gonna meet him, most likely, let alone marry him.  ;)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 07, 2007, 02:10:24 pm
I'm gonna see that one tomorrow.  Russell Crowe is one of those guys I like as an actor, but not so much as a person.  That's OK - I'm never gonna meet him, most likely, let alone marry him.  ;)

Me too. It takes a lot for me to dislike a talented actor onscreen, regardless of his offscreen persona. For example, I like Tom Cruise onscreen -- and he's not even all that talented!  :laugh: I like John Travolta, too.

Exceptions include Mel Gibson -- I'll never feel the same way about him again. Tony Curtis, Ernest Borgnine and that guy from Grey's Anatomy are also off my list (not that they were really on it in the first place). I have a hard time watching Michael Richards on Seinfeld now. And Sarah Jessica Parker is on thin ice, though I've always found her kind of annoying anyway.

I just read on another thread about Jerry Lewis using the F-word (not the four-letter one) in the Telethon, so my opinion of him has dropped, but it couldn't get much lower in the first place.



Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: shortfiction on September 07, 2007, 04:59:27 pm
Crowe is a tremendously gifted actor.  He becomes the character he plays and inhabits that person.


I would like to see the original 1957 version of 3:10 to Yuma as well as the new one.   
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 08, 2007, 09:01:27 pm
OK, I saw 3:10 to Yuma this afternoon and loved it.

It's about these two handsome men in the West -- one outgoing and confident, one troubled and taciturn -- who get thrown together by circumstances and, as they spend time together, grow to form an unexpected bond ...

Guess it's obvious why I liked it, hunh?  :laugh:

Actually, to like it you'd probably have to be at least open-minded toward Westerns, and you certainly have to not mind a lot of shooting and killing (non-gory, though), but if you pass those tests I bet you'd really enjoy it. It's what a Western should be, IMO, character study combined with morality play against a colorful backdrop.

Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are both really good. Really good.

I didn't take my sons with me, because of its R rating, but I wound up wishing I had, because they would have liked it and it contained nothing they haven't seen before. The rating is almost perplexing -- it must have been right on the line for PG-13. There's very little swearing. No real sex or nudity. Nothing vulgar or icky. Lots and lots of deaths, it's true. But probably not more than you'd see in, say, a special two-hour episode of 24.



Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Shasta542 on September 08, 2007, 10:39:16 pm
Oh--I'm so glad to hear that it's good from a real person, ineedcrayons! I've read good reviews. This is the one Eric and the hot Alabama cowboy are seeing tonite--sounds like they'll like it!!  
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on September 08, 2007, 11:35:04 pm
OK, I saw 3:10 to Yuma this afternoon and loved it.

It's about these two handsome men in the West -- one outgoing and confident, one troubled and taciturn -- who get thrown together by circumstances and, as they spend time together, grow to form an unexpected bond ...

Guess it's obvious why I liked it, hunh?  :laugh:

 Lots and lots of deaths, it's true. But probably not more than you'd see in, say, a special two-hour episode of 24.

 :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

That's great news, Katherine!  I can't wait to plop down with some popcorn and enjoy it!  8)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on September 11, 2007, 08:59:55 pm
I loved it, too, Katherine.

It's a testament to the performances these two turned in that I went into it not at all into any of their previous stuff (I have always thought they are both grossly over-rated) and came out of it a fan.

They played the relationship beautifully.  And Crowe was tremendous.  He never once raised his voice, even when he was killing someone.  His character reminded me a lot of Dexter on the show (that I also love) of the same name - in fact, I have to wonder if the creator of "Dexter" fashioned him directly after Ben Wade.  The similarities in their childhood stories and the morality at their core are astonishing.

But as thrilling as it was to watch both of them (and it really was - so much so that I think I'll watch both of them again this weekend), the one who stole the thing was Ben Foster as Charlie Prince.  I read one review that nailed it:  "Prince's loyalty to his boss goes beyond propriety, sexuality, and sanity.  The kid (meaning Foster) is mesmerizing."

I tell ya, for my money, there was more exquisite homoerotic tension in this movie than in "Jarhead" ten times over.  Between Charlie Prince's passionate, unblinking devotion to Ben Wade and the way Wade damn near seduced Dan Evans just by talking to him, I was in heaven.

This same reviewer, by the way, said that the actors in this one were "an improvement" over the original ones, and that's saying a lot when Ben Wade was originally played by Glenn Ford.

Some reviewers didn't like the bit of a twist (so to speak) in the ending.  I loved it.  I thought it made perfect sense.  But then, I love "Dexter" (and for those uninitiated, Dexter is a serial killer who only kills people that are even nastier than he is - people who kill for fun, and he believes he is cursed, just like the "Hand of God" gun :).)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on September 11, 2007, 09:32:29 pm
The Missouri Breaks is by far the most unconventional, unpredictable "Western" I have ever seen.  Just watched it today, via Netflix delivery.    And hey, it's got Nicholson and Brando and Harry Dean Stanton!


Little Big Man, also from the same director, is in the same vein.

Sounds like 3:10 to Yuma is a must-see!!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 12, 2007, 01:47:28 am
But as thrilling as it was to watch both of them (and it really was - so much so that I think I'll watch both of them again this weekend)

I'm thinking of seeing it again, too. I wished I had taken my sons. It's rated R, so I thought I'd better vet it first, but it's probably the most PG-13ish R I've ever seen. True, there's a high body count and a little swearing, but neither seemed quite enough to warrant that rating.

I told my husband, who I later learned had also wanted to see it, that he should take the boys. But maybe I'll go, too!

Quote
Some reviewers didn't like the bit of a twist (so to speak) in the ending.  I loved it.  I thought it made perfect sense.

Me too. The ending couldn't have been more fitting. I saw a reviewer on Rotten Tomatoes criticize it, I figured he must have just been looking for something to complain about.

Sounds like 3:10 to Yuma is a must-see!!

You bet! I don't want to oversell it to the point that people come out disappointed, but FRiend, I'm pretty sure you'd like it.



Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on September 12, 2007, 11:33:08 am
3:10 to Yuma. Should I stay away from this film.? I'm not that thin skin, but I thought society was evolving beyond this. Stereotypical gay acting villians are popping up everywhere in Hollywood film.   Interesting quote in the review by the director of  the 300 as well.   

After all, as Zack Snyder, director of 300, said about his movie's version of the villainous god-king Xerxes, “'What's more scary to a 20-year-old boy than a giant god-king who wants to have his way with you?''


I'm just posting an excerpt as the review as it had quite a few spoilers.  For the full review, see http://www.afterelton.com/movies/2007/9/310toyuma

========================================================================================
The new film 3:10 to Yuma delivers yet another coded gay villain to add to the already crowded pantheon. A remake of the 1957 film starring Glenn Ford, Russell Crowe plays the role of outlaw Ben Wade. Christian Bale co-stars as Dan Evans, the down on his luck Civil War veteran desperate enough to try to bring Wade to justice despite the near certainty he’ll die trying. And Ben Foster stars as Charlie Prince, Wade’s villainous henchman and second in command who oozes gay subtext.

To be perfectly clear, Foster’s part is actually rather small, so don’t expect GLAAD to issue a press release taking director James Mangold to task for denigrating the gay community. That being said, there is also no mistaking that Foster’s character is indeed coded as gay and is done so to make him even more unsettling to filmgoers since being a murderous sociopath apparently isn't bad enough.

When we first see Charlie Prince, he is astride his horse, one hand draped delicately over the other with the limpest wrist this side of the Mississippi river. He is by far the nattiest dresser in the entire cast, and if that isn’t mascara he’s wearing when we first meet him then I’m Buffalo Bill.

Foster’s casting tells us a great deal about what Mangold intended for the character. He is a slight man, probably best known as Angel in X-Men: The Last Stand and as Russell, Claire’s sexually ambiguous boyfriend in Six Feet Under. Macho isn’t a word likely to often be used in describing Foster.



Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 12, 2007, 12:30:43 pm
First, I want to say: Anyone wanting to see this film without pretty big spoilers should skip the second page of this review. The first page seems OK.

The essay is interesting. As a straight person, I'm no doubt more oblivious, but to be perfectly honest it didn't cross my mind that the character seemed gay -- except for the fact that his devotion to Russell Crowe's character is so intense. That I did wonder about a bit. But I didn't catch any of the supposedly stereotypical gay acting or any of the other subtle signals the writer mentions.

And maybe I'm out of it, but I don't necessarily think of a sterotypical gay character as an outlaw who goes around brutally killing people. And even if this character IS supposed to be gay, I'd be tempted to argue that the vast majority of outlaws and brutal killers in movies are straight, so if we occasionally see a gay brutal killer, isn't that just sort of giving equal time in a way that could be seen as normalizing gayness?

The essay makes some interesting points, but it also seems a bit hypersensitive. But again, maybe that's just me. Barb and anyone else who's seen it, what do you think?




Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on September 12, 2007, 02:34:39 pm
I didn't find the character stereotypically gay at all.  I agree that the reviewer is being hypersensitive.  I do think there is some serious homoerotic tension between Wade and Prince, but I liken it to the homoerotic tension I feel, in a way, between Jack and Sawyer on "Lost."  They're both indeed straight, but the intensity of their emotion toward each other (in their case, it's an intense hatred rather than devotion) is super-charged and makes someone like me REALLY want to see them make out.

I think the homoeroticism in 3:10 was intentional, but I didn't think Mangold/Foster were making the Prince character seem stereotypically gay.  Like Katherine, maybe I'm out of it, but I didn't see anything the least little bit limp-wristed about him.  In fact, he kind of scared the crap outta me, and no overtly gay character has ever done that before.  I do think his sexuality is meant to be ambiguous, though.  And I think the sense I got watching him and Wade interact that Wade knows this and plays on it in his own favor (i.e., plays Prince a little to get that dogged devotion out of him) was intended.

I also think this is a love story.  An unconventional one, and one about platonic, filial love and not sexual love.  I think Wade and Evans come to love one another - they come to respect the decency and morality they each find in the other and come to realize they're really very much alike, and that if one event in either's lives had gone the other way, they would be exactly like the other.  It's really lovely to watch their respect and ultimately love for each other grow over the course of the film.  Without giving too much away, I think Ben does what he does in the end more out of love for Dan than because it is his nature (but both are true).
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 12, 2007, 02:57:24 pm
Well put, Barb!

I noticed no limp-wristedness whatsoever. There is, however, something extreme and fanatical about Prince's devotion to Wade. It did cross my mind that Prince could be in love with Wade.

But, to take an analogy from an entirely different genre, it's also a little like the over-the-top devotion the character Dwight has for his boss, Michael, on The Office. Dwight is not gay (although at times Michael seems uncomfortable with those undertones). Though it's also a little like the devotion Smithers, who apparently IS gay, has for Mr. Burns on The Simpsons.

But so what if Prince IS supposed to be gay, and that he loves Wade in a romantic way? Would that, in and of itself, be so wrong for the movie to depict?

I think Wade and Evans come to love one another - they come to respect the decency and morality they each find in the other and come to realize they're really very much alike, and that if one event in either's lives had gone the other way, they would be exactly like the other.  It's really lovely to watch their respect and ultimately love for each other grow over the course of the film.  Without giving too much away, I think Ben does what he does in the end more out of love for Dan than because it is his nature (but both are true).

Interesting take, Barb. I don't know that I would have thought to describe their feelings for each other as "love," exactly, though certainly there's deep respect. And they come to see what they have in common. I think one of the most important moments in the film is in the hotel, when Dan's son says Wade won't (whisper whisper) because deep down he's really (whisper whisper), and then Wade responds by saying (whisper whisper) -- but actually (whisper whisper). Don't you?

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on September 13, 2007, 12:48:15 pm
Yes, I do.  :)

And I do think it's love - platonic love.  I have a couple of long-time female friends - one of them is my sister-in-law - with whom I can talk on the phone for hours (they both live far away).  And whenever we do that, which is only a few times a year, and get to the end of the conversation, one of us always says "I love you," and the other one says, "I love you, too."  And we mean it.  Maybe men look at it differently, but to me, deep, abiding mutual respect and understanding is love.  It's not the only kind of love there is, but it is love.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 13, 2007, 01:21:55 pm
Maybe men look at it differently, but to me, deep, abiding mutual respect and understanding is love.  It's not the only kind of love there is, but it is love.

Sure! I'm not saying men (and women) can't love each other platonically. And I agree that mutual respect and understanding are among the prerequisites, which Wade and Evans certainly share.

The only reason I would hesitate to call it "love" between them is that they've only known each other a couple of days. When I think of love, especially the platonic kind as opposed to the romantic kind, I think of emotions that need a bit longer to develop.

To me, they've barely gotten past the point where they're supposed to be mortal enemies (especially in the case of Evans, who is more resistant to Wade's appeal than Wade is to his). By then, maybe seeds have been planted of something I might imagine conceivably developing into love, under the right circumstances (which these aren't).

So I might say they reach something like ... an unexpected closeness. You see that particularly in the scenes where Evans tells Wade about his war experience and his reason for staying on his farm. And certainly in Wade's behavior. But I, personally, think of the feelings as stopping short of out-and-out love.

But that's just me!  :)  :-*

It's a really interesting movie, you all! And BTW, there are a couple of discussions of the homophobia issue on imdb's 3:10 to Yuma message board. I only glanced at a few of the posts, but it looks like most people don't think it's homophobic (either because they don't see Foster as gay, or they don't see a gay Foster as offensive). Not that imdb posters are necessarily the most sensitive analysts.  ::)






Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on September 13, 2007, 06:23:30 pm
I saw 3:10 to Yuma today and thought it was terrific.  I felt like I was watching an old-fashioned Western, like the ones with Jimmy Stewart or Henry Fonda.  Very good performances, and worth a second look to pick up on the subtleties of character.  The gay thing?  Would not have picked up on it at all without having read some of the comments here.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on September 14, 2007, 12:31:09 pm
I concur on all counts, Meryl.  Well-said (and so much more briefly and succinctly than I ever could)!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on September 14, 2007, 03:06:30 pm
I concur on all counts, Meryl.  Well-said (and so much more briefly and succinctly than I ever could)!

Yeah, but I like your lack of brevity!  ;D

I just remembered that in the first scene someone tells Ben Foster's character that he's known in some circles as Charlie Princess instead of Charlie Prince.  That's really the only overt tip-off that I could see to why he's so "devoted" to Ben Wade.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on September 14, 2007, 07:44:26 pm

Speaking of homo-erotic sub-text and gay villains, I just got back from seeing Cronenberg's Eastern Promises.  I really enjoyed it,  Viggo's performance is excellent and it was great seeing him in a movie with Vincent Cassel who's another favourite of mine.    Early on in the film it becomes very evident that Vincent's character is in love with Viggo's and at times their relationship is oddly touching.  Despite all the psychotic goings on, lol! 

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on September 15, 2007, 07:09:28 pm
I just saw 3:10 to Yuma and then read the afterelton commentary. Frankly, I think the guy is grasping at straws to say this had a homophobic subtext. It is sort of like he had a certain idea and was going to make the movie fit that context, no matter what.

The movie was a little more shoot-'em-up than I expected but I found it absorbing. It will go on my "glad I saw it, once is enough" list. Sort of like The Departed and Munich.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on September 17, 2007, 10:13:29 pm
Good to know, oilgun!

I saw another wonderful one yesterday:  "Across the Universe."  A must-see for Beatles and/or Julie Taymor fans.  (She's the one who did tremendous things with color and Salma Hayek in "Frida" and who made the very interesting "Titus" with Anthony Hopkins.)

It maybe helped that I went into this with low-ish expectations.  Some of the critics have been very harsh, calling it things like "a spectacular failure."  I didn't see it that way at all.  In fact, I found the plot remarkably absorbing.

It's basically a musical made up entirely of Beatles songs, and set during the time that each of the songs it uses came to be.  One review I read said that the Vietnam War was to this movie what AIDS was to "Rent."  I didn't much care for "Rent."  Never saw the stage version, but I thought the movie largely sucked.  So this was way better, IMO.

Here's the most pleasant surprise of all, in a movie, to me, full of surprises:  Evan Rachel Wood can sing.  Like an angel.  I cried three times during this movie, and two of those were when she was singing, just at the beauty of her voice and the underlying emotion.  This is the first movie since "Brokeback" after which a complete stranger singled me out to talk about it.  It was a woman about my age waiting for her husband/partner to come out of the rest room.  She goes "Great film, huh?"  I said "Wasn't that wonderful?"  She goes, "Oh, yes.  And what a tremendous amount of talent, there."

The harmonies were GORGEOUS.

It didn't hurt that Jim Sturgess, who plays Jude (the Paul counterpart) is a dead ringer for my first longtime boyfriend and probably the love of my life.  And man, what a sweet, but powerful, voice.  Joe Anderson, who plays Maxwell (Max), the John prototype, had the perfect voice for his songs, too, and was adorable in every other way.

Hell, I want to see it again just to catch some of the Beatles in-jokes I missed.  And to figure out some more of the cameos.  One of Jakey's faves does a neat rendition of "I Am the Walrus."  ;)

One part got a little too Sgt. Pepper-ish for my taste, as much as I like the actor who did the bit (not gonna tell ya who he is - you'll all figure it out).  But once that passed, I was right back in it.  Lovely.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on September 18, 2007, 10:11:40 am
Wow, there are several must-see movies this fall!!

Regarding 3:10 to Yuma, my husband, who's seen it and I haven't, says that the 3:10 refers to a verse in the Bible. Did any of you others pick up on that? The Bible verse, John 3:10, refers to the concept of original sin.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 18, 2007, 10:32:08 am
Regarding 3:10 to Yuma, my husband, who's seen it and I haven't, says that the 3:10 refers to a verse in the Bible. Did any of you others pick up on that? The Bible verse, John 3:10, refers to the concept of original sin.

Interesting idea. No, I didn't pick up on it. Here's the verse:

Quote
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

There is a Bible in the movie that becomes significant. Maybe there are other Biblical allusions ...? Biblical and religious allusions aren't really my forte.

C'mon, the rest of you! Go see it and add your views!

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on September 18, 2007, 10:51:38 am
I think there must be a connection, given that Ben Wade is a bit of a Biblical scholar and regular quotes Bible verses in the movie.  VERY interesting.  Thanks for that one, Lee.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 18, 2007, 10:56:05 am
Oh, and at one point Ben Wade (Russell Crowe's bad-guy character) says he read the Bible in three days while waiting for his mother, who had abandoned him.

I found this a little implausible. About the three days, I mean.



Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on September 18, 2007, 11:09:28 am
He draws the picture of Dan Evans on the front page of the Bible, and Dan's son Will sees it (near the end).

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 18, 2007, 12:11:58 pm
He draws the picture of Dan Evans on the front page of the Bible, and Dan's son Will sees it (near the end).

Right. That's what I meant when I referred above to a Bible that becomes significant. I didn't get more specific because I'm sort of hypersensitive about discussing things that happen near the end.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on September 18, 2007, 03:49:32 pm
Right. That's what I meant when I referred above to a Bible that becomes significant. I didn't get more specific because I'm sort of hypersensitive about discussing things that happen near the end.


Ooops, oh well...

I guess I was sort of assuming that people on this thread had seen the movie. My bad!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on September 18, 2007, 04:17:42 pm
I don't think you've given too much away, there, Leslie.  And I think you're right on about that scene and the Biblical reference.  Nice job!  :)

Now, everyone knows Bruce Willis is really dead the whole time, right?  ;)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on September 18, 2007, 04:22:18 pm
I haven't seen it yet, so I appreciate y'all being obtuse! Tho I'm not too good at putting two and two together anyway!!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 18, 2007, 04:47:54 pm
Now, everyone knows Bruce Willis is really dead the whole time, right?  ;)

I actually figured that out long before seeing the movie, just by everyone talking about a big surprise, and seeing the trailer with the kid going, "I see dead people." Oh well, I enjoyed it anyway.

Leslie, that's OK. I'm probably just extra-sensitive in this case because I went into this one with an unusual degree of ignorance about what was going to happen (usually I've read so many reviews I already know the entire plot), so I wasn't sure who was going to live or die or what. But on this thread we've discussed the plot in general terms anyway.

Just don't anybody mention what happens at the very very end!  >:(  ;)



Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on September 18, 2007, 09:24:49 pm
I actually figured that out long before seeing the movie, just by everyone talking about a big surprise, and seeing the trailer with the kid going, "I see dead people." Oh well, I enjoyed it anyway.


Maybe we should start a thread of "movies that were given away by the trailer and/or reviews." High on my list would be Million Dollar Baby and The Crying Game.

Quote

Leslie, that's OK. I'm probably just extra-sensitive in this case because I went into this one with an unusual degree of ignorance about what was going to happen (usually I've read so many reviews I already know the entire plot), so I wasn't sure who was going to live or die or what. But on this thread we've discussed the plot in general terms anyway.

Just don't anybody mention what happens at the very very end!  >:(  ;)


Actually, I had read quite a reviews about this and they were, all in all, very unspoilerish. I knew it was 2 guys going to get the prison train but beyond that, reviewers managed to keep their lips zipped.

The only movie I can think of that I went to see without reading a single review and knowing nothing about was Titanic. Well, okay, I knew the boat was going to sink but that's about it! We saw it on opening night because we had a suddenly "free" night when both children were invited to play dates or parties (they were 9 and 6 at the time). A night by ourselves to go to the movies? Wow! I was blown away by Titanic and I still think it's great, even though it seems to have become the movie that "everybody loves to hate." Oh well, I am a sucker for romance and I still enjoy it. (And I am of the mind there are a few Titanic references in BBM that are intentional.)

The other one I saw "cold" was Fatal Attraction. Yikes!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on September 18, 2007, 09:30:31 pm
I am of the mind there are a few Titanic references in BBM that are intentional
L
Oh, that's interesting! What are they??
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on September 18, 2007, 09:36:25 pm
Oh, that's interesting! What are they??


The graphic designers had admitted that the "iconic" poster of image of Jack and Ennis was meant to evoke an image of Titanic. If I can find an image of the two posters comparing them side by side I'll post them (I am too tired right now to go hunting on the Internet).

Old Rose whiskey is another.

If I think of more, I'll post them.  Others?

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 19, 2007, 12:59:21 am
Others?

Well, one person in both is named Jack!  :laugh:

Just kidding. I don't think Annie Proulx got her inspiration from Titanic.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on September 19, 2007, 07:20:23 am
Well, one person in both is named Jack!  :laugh:

Just kidding. I don't think Annie Proulx got her inspiration from Titanic.


No. I never said Annie Proulx. This is a totally a movie depiction. I think there are things in the movie that are subconscious aids to evoke reminders of another romantic movie. As I said, the graphic designers have said their poster picture was deliberate in their reference to Titanic.

Because Titanic has become "the movie everyone loves to hate" and BBM is the movie that "everyone loves to love" they vehemently disagree with me on this point. That's fine, but I think the references are there.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 19, 2007, 10:11:09 am
No. I never said Annie Proulx. This is a totally a movie depiction.

Oh, I know, Leslie. I was just being silly. It was the only other similarity I could think of offhand, but of course the name "Jack" predated the movie.

I think the two are often compared because Titanic is a traditional love story -- and famous and recent, so most people are familiar with the details. So it's often useful as a comparative example: "In Titanic blah blah blah, whereas in Brokeback blah blah blah." Like, in Titanic the love scenes aren't very sexy, whereas in Brokeback they are. Or whatever.

So as a result, it might seem as if people "hate" Titanic. I don't; I think it's entertaining if not great.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on September 19, 2007, 10:57:59 am

So as a result, it might seem as if people "hate" Titanic. I don't; I think it's entertaining if not great.


Personally, I think it's great.

People seem to forget that Titanic was number one at the box office for how many months? Six? And it won a slew of Oscars. Now I hear people saying, "Oh, Titanic...it should never have won best picture! It is such a soap opera...the dialog is trite, the characters two-dimensional, Kate Winslet was fat..." blah, blah, blah. That's their opinion...I still love it.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 19, 2007, 02:58:47 pm
Personally, I think it's great.

People seem to forget that Titanic was number one at the box office for how many months? Six? And it won a slew of Oscars. Now I hear people saying, "Oh, Titanic...it should never have won best picture! It is such a soap opera...the dialog is trite, the characters two-dimensional, Kate Winslet was fat..." blah, blah, blah. That's their opinion...I still love it.

You have every right to!  :) Leonardo DiCaprio is one of my favorite actors, generally. And anyone who calls Kate Winslet fat deserves ... well, I can't think of a bad enough punishment but it would probably involve brown rice and low-fat tofu.

Personally, I was very sorry that the fabulous LA Confidential didn't win that year. But Titanic was entertaining, moving and had amazing special effects. In any case, to each her own!  :D

Also, I bet the people who dis Titanic and the people who kept it No. 1 at the box office aren't necessarily the same people. Lots of moviegoers probably still do love Titanic, even if most of them aren't Brokies. Though somewhere along the way I recall seeing posts by this very intelligent, insightful woman who loved Brokeback and was writing a college thesis on the psychological-something-or-other in Titanic! So it's not that the two can't ever go hand in hand.




Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on September 19, 2007, 03:10:24 pm
Actually, I never meant to imply that the Titanic-bashers were BBM-lovers. I was speaking more in general...for a long time, everyone loved Titanic and then, it came out on DVD. And when they watched it on DVD (probably endlessly), people could suddenly see the mistakes in the sets, and when they listened carefully to the dialog, they said it all sounded so trite, and they never realized just how cardboardy all the characters were, etc. etc.

It was sort of like, "Oh, Titanic...that's so 90s."

And it just irritated me because the movie hadn't changed. It was more like it became fashionable to bash Titanic.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on September 19, 2007, 03:38:18 pm
Actually, I never meant to imply that the Titanic-bashers were BBM-lovers. I was speaking more in general...for a long time, everyone loved Titanic and then, it came out on DVD. And when they watched it on DVD (probably endlessly), people could suddenly see the mistakes in the sets, and when they listened carefully to the dialog, they said it all sounded so trite, and they never realized just how cardboardy all the characters were, etc. etc.

It was sort of like, "Oh, Titanic...that's so 90s."

And it just irritated me because the movie hadn't changed. It was more like it became fashionable to bash Titanic.

L

You're right that following it's huge success Titanic became the movie 'everyone' loved to hate.  Lately though, I've noticed that several movie/dvd sites are calling it under-rated so the backlash seems to be abating, lol!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 19, 2007, 04:13:38 pm
Actually, I never meant to imply that the Titanic-bashers were BBM-lovers. I was speaking more in general...It was more like it became fashionable to bash Titanic.

Oh, OK. I haven't talked or read anything about Titanic one way or the other in years -- except on Brokie boards -- I guess I'm just out of the loop.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on September 21, 2007, 01:15:50 pm
This is for Barb...Barb, your favorite director (NOT!) has a new movie out. Read this review and weep...tears of joy, maybe. LOL. From www.pajiba.com. For anyone who is interested, you might want to dance over there and read the comments. They are funny.



Oh, Haggis. Why Do You Torture Me So?

In the Valley of Elah / Dustin Rowles

Before I begin, let me set the record straight on my feelings toward Crash and Paul Haggis, the director of In the Valley of Elah, who has been a regular whipping boy on this site for the last couple of years. See, there were two Crashs: There was the moderately popular Crash — a ponderous, kind of dumb film, slightly offensive in its simplification of race relations in America, but as a piece of throwaway entertainment, certainly not the worst movie in the world, just another film like Breach or 16 Blocks that no one remembers a year after it leaves the theaters. And then there was Crash, the Oscar Winner for Best Picture — a schlocky, cretinous ham-fisted pseudo-profound film that violently curbed its message into a viewer’s jawbone like he’d hit on Tony Soprano’s daughter.

It’s easy to dismiss a director who attains modest box-office success and the right to make another, hopefully better, film. However, when that subpar effort is not only lumped into the same category as four infinitely superior movies, but is then declared the best, you begin to see why we’ve developed an unhealthy sense of hatred toward the man. On the spectrum of achievements and just desserts, Haggis lands so far off the charts that not even Phil Keoghan would await his return. It’s tantamount to Jimmy Kimmell — a reasonably affable, somewhat offensive talk-show host with the IQ of a dirty jockstrap — not only being nominated for a late-night talk show Emmy, but beating out the likes of Conan O’Brien (Capote), Stephen Colbert (Good Night, and Good Luck, David Letterman (Munich), and Jon Stewart (Brokeback Mountain). It’s untenable, and for those in the business of judging the qualitative merits of film, seeing a criminally undeserving Haggis win an Oscar for Crash rightly inspired some borderline homicidal resentment in many of us. (That said, there was only one The Last Kiss, and it was incorrigibly unwatchable.)

In the Valley of Elah is a similarly ponderous, slow-moving Haggisian effort that may even be modestly better than Crash. In fact, I even reluctantly admire the courage it must have taken for Haggis to direct this film. To be sure, there’s nothing new about the themes of Elah — the dehumanizing effects of combat, the way killing can rob you of your soul, and the difficulties of transitioning from solider to civilian life — but as far as I know, Haggis is the first non-documentarian to transpose them into the context of the current war, and he was even brave enough (or stupid enough) to do it while the war was ongoing. Indeed, depending on just how literally you interpret “inspired by true events” — whether the soldiers depicted were based on actual people or meant to be stand-ins for a larger segment of the military population — you might even find Elah mildly uncomfortable to watch, in the way that learning truths you don’t want to learn can be uncomfortable. Others may simply find the movie aggressively unpatriotic in the way it questions the Iraq war effort and characterizes soldiers after they come home, though I came away with the impression — given the toll that battle takes on the human condition — that it was questioning the value of any war, though perhaps especially one fought to “bring democracy to a shithole.”

I just find it a shame that, given the intended complexities of Elah, Haggis was given the right to adapt the story for the screen and direct it. Because, in more capable hands (I understand that Fred Savage is directing films these days), In the Valley of the Elah might have deserved the accolades and award nominations it will inevitably receive. It is, at times, a powerful film; unfortunately, much of the power comes by way of cheap manipulation and overwrought, in-your-face symbolism. A man with any sense of nuance whatsoever might have been able to create, with Mark Boal’s source material (a piece originally published in Playboy), the definitive movie of this war. As it stands, Haggis has created another more-or-less forgettable film that the Academy is likely to fall all over itself praising.

But, there is nothing forgettable about Tommy Lee Jones’ performance in Elah — it may be the best I’ve seen since Ryan Gosling in Half Nelson or Heath Ledger in Brokeback, a simmering, mournful performance that clings to you like melancholy cologne long after you leave the theater. Jones has always been reliably capable of playing his typical Jonesian cowboy: Full of piss and vinegar, a cocksure shitkicker with or without a gun. But as Hank Deerfield, he turns that bluster and bravado inwards — that same arrogant machismo is an agonizing weakness. He recognizes it as such when he realizes that it’s more or less responsible for the death of his two sons: The first 10 years before in a military helicopter accident, and the second (the subject of this movie) a peach-fuzzed kid (Jonathan Tucker) sent off to fight in Iraq, only to turn up missing, then dead, a week after returning to his base in New Mexico.

Deerfield, a former military policeman, travels from his home in Tennessee to New Mexico overnight (not before pulling over to instruct an El Salvadorian on flag-flying etiquette) to investigate his son’s disappearance. When his son’s body is found burned and in pieces, Elah quickly becomes an old-fashioned genre film — a police procedural, only the lead crime scene investigator, detective, and pathologist is a grieving father. Deerfield pieces together clues from the crime scene, from questioning witnesses, and from videos from Iraq that he discovers on his son’s phone. As one might expect, his son’s time in Iraq plays into his homicide.

He’s aided in this effort by Det. Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron). Theron does an admirable job with what she has to work with, but her character’s involvement in the story is a clear and extraneous nod to conventions of the genre, and her plotline, unfortunately, is where Haggis dumps all his ham-handedness. She’s there so that Haggis can introduce the jurisdictional pissing match between the cops and the military, who seem to be hiding something; so that he can follow the tale of the rookie lady cop who slept her way to a promotion to its logical conclusion; and so he can shoehorn a single-mom who has a kid that likes bedtime stories all into one character (and the title, which comes from a bedtime story Deerfield tells Sanders’ son about David and Goliath, has absolutely nothing to do with anything else in the film, there being no legitimately metaphorical Davids or Goliaths anywhere in the narrative). Additionally, the plot strand involving the dog-abusing husband is particularly preposterous, completely unnecessary, and distracts from the overall message in Elah — but it does allow Haggis to develop a scene so heavy-handed that you can hear knuckles burst from violently dragging on the ground.

But, while In the Valley of Elah begins as a movie about a father investigating his son’s death, it evolves slowly (but not quietly, thanks to Haggis) into a movie about the broader implications of war, ultimately hitting where it hurts the most: The disillusionment of families who have lost sons and daughters in the conflict, seemingly stripping from them the one notion they could cling to — that their loved ones fought and died for a worthy cause. And it could’ve been a great film, if only Haggis had not learned lessons in subtlety from colicky newborns. As it is, however, Elah is a mediocre movie with a strong message and perhaps the best performance by a lead actor you will see all year. And that alone, actually, is reason enough to see it.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba. He lives with his wife and son in Ithaca, New York.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on September 21, 2007, 02:59:16 pm
Here's another similar review from the Globe & Mail:

Quote
Okay, we see the Davids. But where's Goliath?

RICK GROEN

From Friday's Globe and Mail

September 21, 2007 at 12:14 AM EDT

In the Valley of Elah

Directed and written by Paul Haggis

Starring Tommy Lee Jones and Charlize Theron

Classification: 14A

Rating: ** ½ [out of 4]

Buoyed by the boast that it's “inspired by actual events,” In the Valley of Elah dearly wants to be the Iraq war's counterpart to Coming Home, documenting the tragic domestic legacy of a misguided foreign conflict. Wants to be, but isn't. In his first solo outing since the Oscar-winning Crash, writer-director Paul Haggis falls into a familiar trap, where his lofty social theme fights its own battle against the forces of artifice and contrivance. Once again, there are victories en route – at least one gripping scene and a quietly evocative performance from Tommy Lee Jones – but the broader mission is never accomplished. Blame defeat on a script that charts a steady course along schematic channels – it's way too post-traumatic predictable.

Part of the trouble is that a complex issue is packaged in the marketable form of a whodunit. The iconically named Hank Deerfield (Jones) is a father, a proud American, a Vietnam vet and, on a late November day in 2004, the recipient of the sad news that his soldier son met a violent death, not on the grim streets of Baghdad where he recently served but on his home army base where he just landed. Pausing just long enough to introduce the first half of the clumsy flag symbolism that frames the movie, Haggis takes his protagonist to the scene of the murder, where Hank is made to encounter a further metaphorically charged moment – the authorities of military and civilian justice have reached a Guantanamo-like impasse, the former covering up and the latter absenting themselves.

Luckily, Emily, the local cop (Charlize Theron in another de-glamorized outing), soon offers to assist, even while contending with her chauvinist colleagues (one of several quickly inserted, and often abandoned, subplots). What's more, she's a single mom with a little boy who should never, never have to fight in such an untenable war. Yep, the pat in the picture is starting to emerge.

Proving to be a crack investigator all by his lonesome, Hank appropriates his son's cellphone, which contains grainy video images of a truth that many don't want to face – that once-decent American men, placed in a bewildering urban battlefield, are killing innocent Iraqi civilians. Of course, you know where this is heading: These same men have come home in a state of psychotic rage and confusion. They're loose cannons abandoned even by the military that primed them.

The soldiers, then, are painted as domestic victims of the very carnage they unleashed upon their foreign victims. This could be a sound psychological interpretation but, within the context of the film, it creates problems. Not wanting to erode our sympathy for the troops, Haggis refuses to dramatize the stateside murder (it occurs off-screen) and confines the brutality in Iraq to that grainy cellphone imagery – he literally blurs the atrocities and, in that sense, behaves much like the mass media he's implicitly criticizing.

Also, with no guilty party here, the whodunit stalls, and the additional symbolism embedded in the title – Elah is the valley where David had his Biblical set-to with Goliath – gets twisted and blunted. If the soldiers are manipulated Davids, then who is Goliath? The obvious answer is the war machine and its architects, but surely the warriors are a part of that machine. To exculpate them completely may be politically correct, yet it's dramatically muddled and morally dubious, at least from the perspective of the other victims, those unnamed and countless thousands of Iraqis lying dead in their own soil.

No doubt, Haggis's rationale is that the perspective is deliberately narrowed here, that the tale is designed to unfold exclusively from Hank's all-American point of view. To his credit, he's cast wisely. Jones's near-silent gravitas helps to anchor a film inclined to float away on its liberal sentiment, and his portrayal of Hank's conversion, from committed patriot to perplexed mourner, has real poignancy. So does a sequence that sees the father and the mother (a touching cameo by Susan Sarandon) obliged to stand behind a sheet of plate glass to view their son's guarded remains – it's a potent tableau of grief suffered from an enforced distance.

But these genuine moments are the exception. Too often, artifice rules; too often, the script drops dialogue like the clunker delivered to Hank by a psychically wounded trooper: “We shouldn't send heroes to places like Iraq.” However laudable the intention of that line – and Haggis is nothing if not sincere – its effect is to summon the cynic in me, who promptly calls up a different line, from Elvis Costello, that has more post-9/11 resonance than anything in this well-meaning movie: “They're making heroes out of fall guys/They say it's good for business.”

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on September 21, 2007, 03:16:41 pm
Another scathing review can be found here:

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3106

from the concluding paragraph:

...The mind boggles trying to rationalize how this scenario could ever transpire outside a privileged screenwriter's computer screen (or one of Fred Armisen's "I'm just keeeeeeding" SNL sketches), but this wouldn't be the first time Haggis has crapped on common sense (and decency) in the name of cheap bathos. Still, nothing—not even multiple viewings of Crash—can prepare one for the ludicrous bookend this racist sequence receives. It's so predictable you'd think Haggis would have avoided visualizing it—but there it is, stinking up the screen and further confirming Haggis's warped sense of reality.
 
Yowza!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on September 21, 2007, 03:52:23 pm
I'm sorry I'll be having to miss Jones' performance.  As a salve, I'll just re-watch "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada."  Jones directed that one himself, and did a fine job of it.

Thanks for that, Leslie.

(Did you know that whenever I see a preview to this movie in the theaters, which has been several times now, I say out loud, "Screw you, Haggis"?  Once, someone even laughed like they shared in my disgruntlement.)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 21, 2007, 04:00:00 pm
Another scathing review can be found here:

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3106

Ooh -- that one gives Elah one star -- same rating the site gave Good Luck Chuck! Ouch!!  :-X

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on September 21, 2007, 04:07:11 pm
I am making my prediction here and now...Sept 21, 2007. In The Valley of Elah will be nominated for Best Picture for the Academy Awards.

And people will howl.

It won't win though.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 21, 2007, 04:13:44 pm
It won't win though.

Maybe Lust, Caution will win in a vain attempt to right an old wrong.  :-\

All the reviews I've seen for Elah have been mixed, at best. But then, the same was true of Crash.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on September 21, 2007, 04:18:48 pm
Maybe Lust, Caution will win in a vain attempt to right an old wrong.  :-\


Lust, Caution will be nominated for best foreign film, and will win. (Boy, I am full of predictions today, aren't I?)

Quote

All the reviews I've seen for Elah have been mixed, at best. But then, the same was true of Crash.


Exactly. Crash was something like 72% at rottentomatoes. Right now Elah is 64%.

Since I am in the mood for predictions today (who knows what has gotten into me!) I predict that 3:10 to Yuma will be nominated for Best Picture, and win. I'm Not There will also be nominated--won't win--but Todd Haynes will for Best Director.

Since all the reviews are raving about Tommy Lee Jones, I bet he will get a best actor nom. Maybe even win, since the movie itself will be shut out. Russell Crowe will be nominated for 3:10 to Yuma. Maybe Christian Bale, too, which is why neither of them will win (since they are in the same movie).

Cate Blanchett will be nominated for best actress for I'm Not There. Maybe she'll win.

Is it going too far out on a limb to predict Ben Foster getting  best supporting actor nom for 3:10 to Yuma?

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on September 21, 2007, 04:32:34 pm
Cate Blanchett is reprising a role she performed earlier.  She should have won for Elizabeth.  I wonder if this time, they might get it right and she will have another Oscar.   She's a good actress. The trailer looks very very impressive.  Oh, I wonder if Elizabeth the Golden Age will strike a chord with the Hillary Clinton backers.  Hillary is our Elizabeth.  ;)

Ang Lee won't win best director, but BP, let's hope so. 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 21, 2007, 04:59:25 pm
Leslie, I think your predictions sound very possible!

I was going to say they could nominate Christian Bale for BA and Russell Crowe for BSA, but then where would they put poor Ben Foster? Though he might be hurt by what I consider to be a faux-homophobia (homofauxbia!  :laugh:) backlash.

I think 3:10 to Yuma certainly deserves to win BP, and Crowe and Bale both deserve BA nominations. But there are so many good-sounding movies coming out in the next few months -- I can't remember what any of them are at the moment, but I know I've heard of some -- that I think I'll wait to put any money on it.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on September 21, 2007, 06:30:28 pm
Russell Crowe will be nominated for 3:10 to Yuma. Maybe Christian Bale, too, which is why neither of them will win (since they are in the same movie).

Is it going too far out on a limb to predict Ben Foster getting  best supporting actor nom for 3:10 to Yuma?

L

Wow, you really liked 3:10 to Yuma didn't you,lol!  Actors from the same movie are never nominated for the same award because of vote splitting so you have to pick either Russell or Christian for BP ;)  I haven't seen the movie but I'm planning to go this weekend.

I think Viggo will get a nomination for BP for Eastern Promises

Perhaps Ryan Gosling for Lars and the Real Girl - I just have a gut feeling about this one.

And definitely Tommy Lee Jones for  In the Valley of Elah.  He'll probably win too.






Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 21, 2007, 08:03:58 pm
I think Viggo will get a nomination for BP for Eastern Promises

Perhaps Ryan Gosling for Lars and the Real Girl - I just have a gut feeling about this one.

And definitely Tommy Lee Jones for  In the Valley of Elah.  He'll probably win too.

These predictions sound right, too, oilgun! I haven't seen Lars, but I loved Ryan Gosling so much in Half Nelson that I wouldn't be surprised if he deserves a BP nomination for something else. And I haven't seen Eastern either, but from everything I've read it sounds like Viggo was great.

Quote
Wow, you really liked 3:10 to Yuma didn't you,lol!  Actors from the same movie are never nominated for the same award because of vote splitting so you have to pick either Russell or Christian for BP ;)  I haven't seen the movie but I'm planning to go this weekend.

Let us know what you think!

I guess if I were forced to pick, I'd go with Christian for BA. They were both great, so it would be tough. But I think Christian may have had the more complex role; his character grows in ways that are a little less expected than what happens with Russell's character. But again, they'd both fully deserve the nomination.

So we've already got five good choices, and there's three more months left of the year! But that's so often the case with BAs, an embarrassment of riches.

Whereas for Best Actress, it's the opposite. It always seem like they're kind of casting about for nominees -- which actress found new angles on the adoring wife role? Which played the most convincing hooker?

Needless to say, the problem is not a dearth of good actresses.




Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on September 21, 2007, 08:48:04 pm
There has never been a dual-nominee from the same movie? Ie, best actor with 2 actors from the same film. I thought there were a few of those...guess I need to do some research.

Meanwhile...I didn't think 3:10 to Yuma was great, I thought it was good, but it is the kind of good that might win an Academy Award (when better films don't).

For the best actor thing: maybe Christian Bale for BA for Yuma, and Russell Crowe for American Gangster (not yet released). Could happen!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 22, 2007, 12:09:39 am
There has never been a dual-nominee from the same movie? Ie, best actor with 2 actors from the same film. I thought there were a few of those...guess I need to do some research.

There probably has been, but the studios have learned not to do that because the actors wind up canceling each other out. That is, say that among the X number of people who loved Yuma, half vote for Bale and half vote for Crowe. Meanwhile, 100 percent of the people who loved Eastern Promises vote for Viggo. So the other two lose.

For example, that's probably why, with Brokeback, Jake was nominated for BSA and Heath for BA.



Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on September 22, 2007, 07:25:05 am

For example, that's probably why, with Brokeback, Jake was nominated for BSA and Heath for BA.


That may be true, but in my mind, Jake was very definitely a supporting actor in BBM. In Yuma, I don't think either Crowe or Bale was in a supporting role.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on September 23, 2007, 02:57:09 pm
Ooh.  Speaking of rottentomatoes.com, I just checked Eastern Promises' rating.  It's got an 89 after 122 reviews.  That's the highest I've seen in a long time.  (Brokeback ended up with an 86, but that was after 222 reviews.)

And I'm going to see it at 4:30 today.  Woo-eeeeeee!  Yeah!

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on September 23, 2007, 04:59:01 pm

Can't wait to hear what you think, Barb!  :D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on September 23, 2007, 11:16:45 pm
I thought it was excellent.  Viggo Mortensen is really something else.  Just as he did in "A History of Violence," he makes you believe at once that his character is at heart a good man, and at heart a monster.  There aren't too many other actors out there who can pull that off.  I think Jake is one of them.  But then, I'm a tad biased.

It slays me how undereducated so many filmgoers still are.  I mean, here I am, in Boca Raton, FL, sometimes referred to as Manhattan South, and where we get the most sophisticated, sometimes cutting-edge, films going.  And here's this David Cronenberg film.  And people - otherwise seemingly mature, sophisticated people, walk out of it going, "But it was so VIOLENT."  Hel-LO!  Never heard of David Cronenberg, I take it?  Never seen or heard of "Naked Lunch," "Dead Ringers," or "A History of Violence" (not to mention my personal favorite, "Spider")?

I can understand the beauty of knowing zero about a movie before going to see it, and this one got a four-star rating in my local paper.  So I can see someone going, "Hey it got four stars, and it's got that Viggo something-or-other guy in it.  Let's go."  But COME ON.

The only more stupid response I heard coming out of a movie in recent times was after "The Brave One," when one woman said to another, "Well, what did you think?" and her companion replied, "I dunno.  I guess I was just expecting a FASTER movie."  It was all Ed and I could do to keep from laughing out loud.  Once we were out of her earshot, Ed goes, "What?  The killings didn't start soon enough for ya?" and "Not nearly enough explosions?"

Gawd.

Anyway, excellent, haunting performances.  Really something special.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on September 23, 2007, 11:26:09 pm
Here's a bit from the Boston Globe's Ty Burr about Mortensen's performance:

"Mortensen plays this role as if he had different blood chemistry than the rest of us. Nikolai remains eerily still until he's moved to act; then he glides forth with reptilian grace. Yet something still glows at the bottom of those half-lidded eyes - enough to suggest the cobra has a soul."

I bet he lost some sleep coming up with that one.  ;)

I agree, though.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Mikaela on September 29, 2007, 06:18:28 pm
I saw "Eastern Promises" in NYC with Meryl last week, and posted the following in my LJ. Meryl suggested I post it here too - and well, here I am and here it is.  :) Don't think there are very specific spoilers in this, but hints at what's going on, yes - surely.

(I should perhaps also mention first that I am and remain a serious Lord of the Rings fan and I'm also very impressed with "History of Violence". Viggo was the big draw for me in wanting to see EP.)

 

I hate movie violence, but in Eastern Promises the sinister tension level always let you knew what was coming so it was possible to avert your gaze if you needed to. And while the physical violence *was* extremely graphic, it wasn't gratuitous, drawn-out, lingering, sadistic nor motivated by the pleasure of describing the giving of pain and suffering for its own sake. Any such instances *would* have made it a no-no for me. The violence also was very contained. That is, the graphically violent scenes were actually few and far between.  (I had my hands firmly over my eyes each time.  ::)  ) That is, except for the already justly-famous nude bathhouse fight. One review I just read on Rottentomatos described how the lady next to the reviewer kept alternating between covering her eyes and looking up despite herself to check out Viggo's "kibbles and bits". I suppose that pretty much describe my viewing of it too.  ::) He's a courageous guy, doing that scene - because he has to know it'll be screencapped to exhaustion by every fanperson in sight. And the number of those *must* now be increasing.

Apart from that, it was an incredibly *acted* scene. You believed every second of it - so intense, real, life-or-death desperate - not seeming choreographed at all. Viggo did an incredible acting job all throughout this film - like a cobra, so poised and still most times. Oozing danger and self-assurance and self-confidence but with a completely controlled and contained body language, and then suddenly exploding into impressive movement and deliberate action. And those tattoos he was covered in! I've always seen the tattoos that people like David Beckham and Angelina Jolie and Heath Ledger cover themselves with as so much unpleasant visual noise, but on Viggo it actually looked great and adding to the personality. (Helps to know he washed it all off at the end, though.)

And the film keeps me thinking about it. All the actors were *very* good. (Though I'll be interested in reading opinions on Naomi Watt's spoken english.) The film's colour language was fitting and very noticable -  dark and murky, bleak, approximating black-and-white film language, almost... but with splashes of intensely bright colour (many times red, though not always blood) ever so often.

The story was gripping, very tense, a believable and frightening world of unscrupulous mafia - grabbing hold and keeping me on the edge all the while. Its focus on the dreadful plight of poor Eastern girls who get lured west and end up in a miserable hopeless life of forced prostitution was told with a lot of compassion and a hint of sentimentality too. The more films that show this for what it is, - inhuman cruel slavery - the better it is.

And it seems being "queer" is no more an option in today's "macho" Russian mafia than in 1963 Wyoming, and that the denial takes just the same toll on a person's psyche..... Not that the character in question managed to elicit much sympathy from me in any case. Nevertheless  - a multilayered portrayal, all the more interesting.

There was a twist at the end I totally didn't see coming, in addition to several twists that I did see might be coming. Some elements of the story's plot I found completely unrealistic (relating to the mother and the newborn child and what happened to them) - but only in hindsight, and even those events I keep thinking about, whether there might not be a reasonable explanation for them after all, just that the film didn't use up precious time spelling those explanations out.

The short of this? I think I'm turning into a serious Viggo fangirl. And "Eastern Promises" despite its violence level was fascinating, interesting, haunting and very, very good. I'll watch it again soon as it premieres in my neck of the woods.  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on September 29, 2007, 06:49:42 pm
Thanks for posting that, Mika!  You bring up lots of things, like the use of the color red, that remind me of our discussions of BBM.  I want to see EP again, too, but I think I'll wait a few weeks to let it sink in first.  8)

Tomorrow, I'm seeing Lust Caution with Lynne, John Gallagher and maybe Jenny and Juan.  Will let you know what we thought!  8)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Mikaela on September 29, 2007, 07:03:56 pm
Oh, yes please!   :) :)


*small gripe warning*

Just checked the premiere dates for upcoming movies here and to my chagrin discovered the following:

Rendition - February 1
Lust, Caution - February 29
I'm not there - end of February, exact date undecided


Hello, this is totally unacceptable! I think I need to move to NYC on permanent basis!

*grump*
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on September 29, 2007, 10:20:33 pm
Meryl, you lucky, LUCKY girl.  On several levels.  Please let us know how my dear John is doing.  I think about him so often and miss his presence here terribly.  Can't wait to read your thoughts on the movie as well.  It doesn't start here until next week...

And Mikaela, my heart goes out to you.  It's been difficult enough to wait for these movies this long, let alone another few to several months.  Reminds me of how the premiere of the second season of "Dexter" got postponed from last June to - TOMORROW NIGHT.  Woo-hoo!  (Sorry.)  And how it'll be April before I get to see new episodes of "Lost."  I used to be such a TV whore.  But these two shows (and a couple others before them, like "Six Feet Under") have ruined it for me.  They're just too damned good, and nothing else compares.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on September 30, 2007, 12:29:14 am
Oh yes indeed, I know I am lucky!  It rocks to see Eastern Promises with Mikaela, then in less than a week be able to see Ang Lee's new movie with a clutch of Brokies, then the very next weekend get to see Annie Proulx at a book signing!  Living in NYC is the greatest.  8)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on September 30, 2007, 11:36:43 pm
Well, we saw Lust, Caution tonight, and it was really good.  John Gallagher, Jenny newyearsday, Juan (JCinNYC2006) and Lynne were there.  If it hadn't been for Lynne, I would have forgotten to even go!  But she was in Connecticut at a wedding this weekend and made the effort to get down here to see the movie.  What a Brokie!  ;D

The movie is beautiful to look at, thanks to Rodrigo Prieto, and has an authentic period feel, like the better Merchant-Ivory productions.  It takes place in Hong Kong and Shanghai during World War II, when the Japanese occupied parts of China.  A group of idealistic young students decide to serve the cause of patriotism by targeting an infamous Japanese collaborator for assassination.  Throughout the film they become more hardened and sophisticated by the experience and have some harrowing ordeals.  One young girl becomes the mistress of the villainous collaborator, and it is the story of what she goes through emotionally that is the core of the film.

We noticed several things that made us think of Brokeback, particularly a couple of shots of the full moon, Ang Lee's attention to colors (the heroine wore mostly shades of blue) and an elegiac last shot that made us think of the last shot in Brokeback.  As reviewers mentioned, the sex scenes were indeed explicit and powerful.  Those were brave actors!   :P

I do want to see this film again because it's very layered and rich, as you might expect from Ang.  But I agree with Jenny, who commented "I'm certainly not going to see this one 13 times!" as we left the theater.  ;D

We had a fun dinner at a Chinese place (of course!) afterwards and got caught up on each others' doings.  Then Lynne and I said goodbye to Juan, Jenny and John and picked up her rental car at the parking garage nearby.  She's probably arriving at her digs in Hartford about now.  Thanks for a great time, Lynne!  :-*
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on September 30, 2007, 11:51:07 pm
Great report, Meryl! Thank you for being our front line!! I'm so glad you went with Lynne, Jenny, John, and Juan!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Mikaela on October 01, 2007, 12:02:24 pm
Thanks so much for posting the review, Meryl.

Did you lot truly feel for the heroine and her (I assume) plight as the plot progressed?

Do you think this one was Oscar-material in line with Ang Lee's previous win in Venize? 
(Heh - that would be in the foreign language film category if so,  - which means those voting would actually have to watch the film! That could make all the difference....)  ::) >:(
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on October 01, 2007, 01:20:17 pm
Did you lot truly feel for the heroine and her (I assume) plight as the plot progressed?

Do you think this one was Oscar-material in line with Ang Lee's previous win in Venize? 
(Heh - that would be in the foreign language film category if so,  - which means those voting would actually have to watch the film! That could make all the difference....)  ::) >:(

I pretty much kept the review sketchy so as to not spoil it for others, but I did feel for the heroine.  She was so young and determined to be worthy of her friends (especially the man she was in love with) and her country.  She shut out her own needs and really focussed on her task.  Inevitably, she was unable to really keep her own feelings at bay and had a desperate struggle.  Tang Wei did a great job with the role, never overplaying it, as did Tony Leung.  Ang was the perfect director to catch the subtleties of their thoughts.

I can totally see why it won the Golden Lion.  It's beautifully crafted and acted.  I think it's definitely Oscar-worthy, and probably fortunate that it will be nominated in the foreign-language category.  The puritanical nature of film audiences here would make it unlikely the Academy would have the nerve to put it up for Best Picture with those explicit sex scenes.  ::)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 01, 2007, 01:35:07 pm
Well, I was going to say something about Midnight Cowboy winning BP, but from what you're saying, it sounds like LC was more explicit. And I bet audiences here are more puritanical now than they were in 1969, anyway.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ifyoucantfixit on October 01, 2007, 02:32:37 pm

          I saw the previews of that at the theatre yesterday.  We went and saw Eastern Promises.
Wow that was a powerful film.  Very violent but it had a kind of 40s feel to it.  I thought it was rather stylized in relation to the blood and gore.  The blood seemed to be particularly placed to make it contrast with the darkness of the rest of the movie.  Rather like the movie.  Sin City. Viggo Mortenson and Naomi Watts were great, as was the guy that played his friend, I dont know his name.  He was wonderful.  The rest of the cast were stellar as well...If you cant take blood, this is not for you..If you can watch it or turn your head and still see the movie..Its worth the look.  When the movie is over.  I defy you not to say wow!!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Mikaela on October 01, 2007, 02:47:33 pm
Thank you for responding, Meryl. Sounds good.  :)

I pretty much kept the review sketchy so as to not spoil it for others....
I figured as much, but perhaps we could/should allow ourselves some slightly spoilerish reviews here and mark them clearly as such?

I know, I know, I'm probably thinking of my own good here :blush: as I won't get to see the film till another half year has passed. And I don't mind some spoilers if they help illuminate the points made in the review and opinion stated about the film, - that goes for this film or others.    :)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lynne on October 02, 2007, 10:17:33 am
Well, we saw Lust, Caution tonight, and it was really good.  John Gallagher, Jenny newyearsday, Juan (JCinNYC2006) and Lynne were there.  If it hadn't been for Lynne, I would have forgotten to even go!  But she was in Connecticut at a wedding this weekend and made the effort to get down here to see the movie.  What a Brokie!  ;D

The movie is beautiful to look at, thanks to Rodrigo Prieto, and has an authentic period feel, like the better Merchant-Ivory productions.  It takes place in Hong Kong and Shanghai during World War II, when the Japanese occupied parts of China.  A group of idealistic young students decide to serve the cause of patriotism by targeting an infamous Japanese collaborator for assassination.  Throughout the film they become more hardened and sophisticated by the experience and have some harrowing ordeals.  One young girl becomes the mistress of the villainous collaborator, and it is the story of what she goes through emotionally that is the core of the film.

We noticed several things that made us think of Brokeback, particularly a couple of shots of the full moon, Ang Lee's attention to colors (the heroine wore mostly shades of blue) and an elegiac last shot that made us think of the last shot in Brokeback.  As reviewers mentioned, the sex scenes were indeed explicit and powerful.  Those were brave actors!   :P

I do want to see this film again because it's very layered and rich, as you might expect from Ang.  But I agree with Jenny, who commented "I'm certainly not going to see this one 13 times!" as we left the theater.  ;D

We had a fun dinner at a Chinese place (of course!) afterwards and got caught up on each others' doings.  Then Lynne and I said goodbye to Juan, Jenny and John and picked up her rental car at the parking garage nearby.  She's probably arriving at her digs in Hartford about now.  Thanks for a great time, Lynne!  :-*

Thanks for a great review, Meryl!  I posted stuff over in the 'Lust, Caution' thread in The Culture Tent, including some pics!

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,1955.msg260666.html#msg260666

I'd love to have a deeper discussion about this one after more people have had a chance to see it.  Like Jenny, I doubt I'll need to join another support group (a la Bettermost  8)) over this one, but it was completely worthy, IMO.  Like you say, very brave actors and what we're coming to think of as trademark Ang Lee and Rodrigo Prieto!

Hugs,
Lynne
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on October 03, 2007, 12:02:48 pm
In case folks haven't figured it out yet, I am a fan of Pajiba (www.pajiba.com). Now they have an article, "Eight Films That Shouldn't Have Won Best Picture." I won't post the whole article here, you can read it at

http://www.pajiba.com/eight-films-that-shouldnt-have-won-best-picture.htm

but I will post the entry for 2005. By and large I agree with the conclusions although as folks on this thread know, I am a fan of Titanic. Even so, it makes for could reading. Enjoy!



2005
Crash beats Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Munich, and Good Night, and Good Luck
Scratch that; this is the year I stopped trusting the Academy. This is the year I realized that they will still continue to award quality work in filmmaking, but only serendipitously, out of sheer happy coincidence. Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain was a tender, doomed love story, and became a cultural event larger than the film itself. Bennett Miller’s Capote was a stunning feature debut that revolved around Philip Seymour Hoffman’s amazing lead performance, which won the Best Actor award. Steven Spielberg’s Munich was the director’s most politically charged film in years, and showed he was still at the top of his class of film-school revolutionaries. George Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck was an equally thought-provoking film, one where Clooney took a back seat to the story at hand and David Strathairn’s gripping turn as Edward R. Murrow. All of these films are good films, smart, strong, well-made films that deserve to be praised. But Paul Haggis’ Crash is just the kind of pseudo-intellectual dreck that finds itself atop the awards heap when all is said and done. It attacks the issue of modern-day racism with all the sophistication of a college freshman, never stopping to wonder if people fight each other because they’re lonely, or frustrated, or just plain assholes. If someone cuts you off in traffic, and you get upset, maybe it’s not because the driver’s a different race; maybe you just don’t like being cut off on the highway, you know? Haggis’ film soars past the usual level of manipulation filmmakers employ when telling a story and becomes something cheap, and unclever, and almost offensive in the haphazard way it pretends to talk about real issues. It’s not merely that Haggis made a clunky film about race; it’s that, in the midst of a turbulent war and with the memory of Sept. 11 still lingering over a generation, he abused the power he has a filmmaker to create something complex and tough and challenging and good and instead funneled into something tawdry and exaggerated and stereotypical and embarrassing. Movies can show us who we are, and what we want to be, and how far we sometimes have to go make up the difference, and Crash is the antithesis of all of that. Of the other four films nominated this particular year — and they’re all masterful films — perhaps Munich comes closest to dealing with the terrors we visit on each other and the price we pay for what we think is justice. But Spielberg’s film is a tough one, unwilling to compromise in its search for answers to the big questions, and that ultimately disqualified it from winning. Crash is slick, dumb, and full of answers, but no one seemed to care that they were the wrong ones.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on October 03, 2007, 11:35:50 pm
          I saw the previews of that at the theatre yesterday.  We went and saw Eastern Promises.
Wow that was a powerful film.  Very violent but it had a kind of 40s feel to it.  I thought it was rather stylized in relation to the blood and gore.  The blood seemed to be particularly placed to make it contrast with the darkness of the rest of the movie.  Rather like the movie.  Sin City. Viggo Mortenson and Naomi Watts were great, as was the guy that played his friend, I dont know his name.  He was wonderful.  The rest of the cast were stellar as well...If you cant take blood, this is not for you..If you can watch it or turn your head and still see the movie..Its worth the look.  When the movie is over.  I defy you not to say wow!!

Vincent Cassel (as Kirill).  And I didn't even have to look that up on imdb.com because he impressed me so much.  And because I have a freakish sponge memory for names and faces.

And that was very well-said, especially "If you can watch it or turn your head and still see the movie, it's worth the look."  I turned my head but still saw the movie.  And it was magnificent.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on October 19, 2007, 12:38:51 am

Saw Elizabeth, the Golden Age.

2.5 out of 5

Cast was flawless in their acting, but the story let them down.  Amazing that it could considering what events of Elizabeth's reign they chose to portray.

They had such opportunities for greatness in the movie - a cast completely capable of handling it - but everything was half-assed.

It's like they didn't have the budget they did for the first Elizabeth.  The sets, costumes, extras and CGI were much simpler, reused over and over again and ineffective/badly used.

The historical liberties I can understand, but it was just disjointed and heavy-handed in some parts. 

Had a chance to go see a sneak peek at Rendition for my birthday Tuesday, but got violently sick and was unable to go.  I hope to catch it when it opens.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 19, 2007, 12:58:38 am
Happy birthday, Del! Good to see you back. How was Paris?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on October 19, 2007, 01:01:43 am
Happy birthday, Del! Good to see you back. How was Paris?

Thanks!  Paris was nice.  I'll be updating my 'American Girl in Paris' thread shortly.  Stay tuned.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on October 19, 2007, 12:04:34 pm
I just received my copy of Gus Van Sant's first film, Mala Noche, which Criterion recently released on DVD for the first time.  I'm pretty excited and hope to watch it on the weekend.  It's supposed to be pretty good, has anyone here seen it?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089537/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089537/)


(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/Mala_Noche.jpg)


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 20, 2007, 03:37:48 am
Anyone seen "Michael Clayton"? I've heard generally good things about it, but nothing very specific. It's on at my local cinema this weekend.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on October 20, 2007, 01:25:05 pm
Anyone seen "Michael Clayton"? I've heard generally good things about it, but nothing very specific. It's on at my local cinema this weekend.



I've not seen it, but 3 friends of mine have, and none were impressed by it.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: moremojo on October 24, 2007, 10:04:10 am
Los Angeles-based film critic David Ehrenstein, who loathes Brokeback Mountain, has nothing but the highest praise for the new film I'm Not There, which features Heath Ledger as Bob Dylan:

http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/46589 (http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/46589)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on October 24, 2007, 04:51:51 pm
Anyone seen "Michael Clayton"? I've heard generally good things about it, but nothing very specific. It's on at my local cinema this weekend.

I saw it a couple weeks ago and really liked it, myself.  And I am not a George Clooney fan.  So, for what it's worth...

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: shortfiction on October 28, 2007, 04:14:33 pm
I just saw Into the Wild and found it quite well done, with great performances from Emile Hirsch, Hal Holbrook, and Catherine Keener in particular.   Sean Penn did a great job of directing.   You might have read the book of the same name by Jon Krakauer. 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lynne on October 28, 2007, 04:28:43 pm
I saw it a couple weeks ago and really liked it, myself.  And I am not a George Clooney fan.  So, for what it's worth...

I liked Michael Clayton too.  I give it 3.5/5 stars.  I've seen quite a few movies the past couple of weeks.  I had high expectations for We Own the Night - but 3/5 I guess - it was good, but when you've seen Joaquin Phoenix and Mark Wahlberg at their best (say Walk the Line, The Departed), it seemed like they were phoning it in.

The best by far I thought was Gone Baby Gone, directed by Ben Affleck and starring Casey Affleck, Michelle Monaghan, Ed Harris, and Morgan Freeman.  It's based on a novel by Dennis Lehane (Mystic River) and set in Boston.  I loved the book, so I went into it with a great deal of trepidation.  The adaptation was extremely well-done and Casey becomes Patrick Kenzie.  The rough character of the Dorchester neighborhood was completely convincing for me.  5/5 for me.

30 Days of Night 2/5 - could have been good (Josh Hartnett was) but the villains were one-dimensional and not very scary.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 28, 2007, 04:40:24 pm
I'm going to a movie in about an hour: either Michael Clayton or Dan in Real Life. Those are the two best choices at my local theater. I'm leaning toward the latter, simply because it seems light and I could really use some lightness right now.

This is similar to a dilemma I had about a year and a half ago: Brokeback Mountain or Munich or The New World? I chose BBM almost by chance. The rest is history.

Whatever I pick, I'll report back here afterward. That is, unless I have become an obsessive devotee of the Michael Clayton or Dan in Real Life message boards  ;D (highly doubtful)!

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lynne on October 28, 2007, 04:45:03 pm
Whatever I pick, I'll report back here afterward. That is, unless I have become an obsessive devotee of the Michael Clayton or Dan in Real Life message boards  ;D (highly doubtful)!

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Have fun!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 29, 2007, 01:00:48 am
I wound up going to Dan in Real Life, and I can report that it was cute, light, mildly funny, gently touching. It's what The Family Stone would have been if TFS hadn't sucked (the two have almost identical plots, only from different characters' POV).

Steve Carrel isn't my idea of a romantic lead, but he's very likable and, as called for in this role, very much a regular-guy type. And he has interesting ways of reading lines, some unexpected rhythms in his speech. The only problem is that from time to time I get a disconcerting flash of Michael Scott. Which I suppose is just an indication of how good he is in that role.

Juliet Binoche, for some reason, got on my nerves. Maybe because she was playing The Most Perfect Woman of All Time. Couldn't Dan have fallen for someone who was just pretty cool, instead of unbelievably amazingly fantastic? Dane Cook was actually fairly appealing.

OK, that's the latest from the critic's corner.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on October 29, 2007, 07:03:29 am
I hated The Family Stone. Did Dan in Real Life have the "horrible nasty mother who was dying from cancer and everyone thought she was wonderful character" (ie, Diane Keaton in TFS)? I hope not. How about the obligatory perfect gay couple with their adopted child?

What an awful movie that was. Ugh. It gives me creeps just thinking about it. And I wasted money to see this in a theater! Ack!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 29, 2007, 09:59:54 am
I hated The Family Stone. Did Dan in Real Life have the "horrible nasty mother who was dying from cancer and everyone thought she was wonderful character" (ie, Diane Keaton in TFS)? I hope not. How about the obligatory perfect gay couple with their adopted child?

Yes, TFS was really, really awful. I wouldn't feel so bad about having wasted money on it -- God knows I've wasted money on other bad movies -- but I dragged my SONS to it with me. They wouldn't even have liked Dan in Real Life, let alone TFS. Poor kids. We had just moved -- no wonder they hate it here! Plus, I wasted money on three tickets, and it wasn't even a matinee!

Whenever I think of how much I hated TFS, I remember the very worst scene in that terrible movie, the one where Sarah Jessica Parker asks Diane Keaton, "Don't you wish your son had been normal?" No high-powered Manhattan career gal, as she was supposed to be, would say something that stupid. Even if she thought it, she wouldn't say it, especially right in front of the son.

Anyway, no. DiRL didn't have an obnoxious, horrible, much-beloved, tragically dying Diane Keaton. Just a sweetly authoritative Diane Wiest. No gay couple at all, I'm afraid. And instead of screechy irritating SJP, there's beatific saintly Juliet Binoche. And instead of Dermot Mulroney there's Dane Cook who -- in this particular role, anyway -- is an improvement.

But if you imagine TFS told through the eyes of Luke Wilson, only instead of a stoned slacker he's a regular guy with three daughters, that's DiRL. Both feature a big, close-knit, rollicking, matriarch-headed, upper-middle-class family that plays games together and gets into each other's business. Both feature a new girlfriend brought to the party by one son who winds up with another. And so on.




Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on October 29, 2007, 10:11:43 am
I remember some critic--maybe Roger Ebert--said TFS is going to become "the next Christmas tradition, like 'A Wonderful Life'." Yeah, in which dysfunctional universe?

Speaking of the Wilson brothers, my husband and daughter saw "The Darjeeling Limited" yesterday (I had a prior commitment). They both gave it two thumbs up and my husband said, unlike other Wes Anderson movies, this one actually had an ending.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 29, 2007, 10:47:34 am
I remember some critic--maybe Roger Ebert--said TFS is going to become "the next Christmas tradition, like 'A Wonderful Life'." Yeah, in which dysfunctional universe?

Ooohh, I just remembered another thing I hated about that one scene in TFS. It was worse than what SJP said. Diane Keaton said she was always glad her son was gay because, something like, "then he'd always live with me."

How f'ed up is that? Especially because the son was IN a relationship (and didn't live with her, I don't think?).

And Diane Keaton was supposed to be the GOOD character.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on October 29, 2007, 11:26:07 am

And Diane Keaton was supposed to be the GOOD character.


Diane Keaton was a first class bitch. While I could understand the premise of the daughter not liking her brother's fiancee, to turn mom totally against her (the fiancee) before mom ever laid eyes on her...and they call this a wonderful mother? Ugh. She makes my stomach turn.

Supposedly Diane Keaton played another bitch mom in a movie that came out recently...can't remember the name but she spends the whole movie trying to fix up her younger daughter or something. I don't get it, Diane...what's up? Just because you are playing "older" women in movies now, you have to be a bitch?

Come to think of it, she wasn't all that pleasant a character in "Something's Gotta Give," either. Dumping the good looking doctor in the middle of dinner in Paris. But she got stuck with Jack Nicholson, a former philanderer, who I have NEVER found attractive. Never, ever, ever!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: moremojo on October 29, 2007, 11:53:21 am
Keaton may be taking the only roles that are being offered to her. It's well-known that an American movie actress's options become much more limited as she grows into middle age and beyond, and Keaton may simply be falling into this pattern.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on October 29, 2007, 11:57:44 am
Keaton may be taking the only roles that are being offered to her. It's well-known that an American movie actress's options become much more limited as she grows into middle age and beyond, and Keaton may simply be falling into this pattern.

Yes, this is true. And maybe being a bitch appeals to her, who knows?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: notBastet on October 30, 2007, 02:24:26 pm
I saw The Aviator last night.  It was totally not what I was expecting, but I still thought it was pretty good.  One thing I didn't like was Kate Beckinsale (sp?) in her role as Ava Gardner.  I haven't yet been on wikipedia to try to verify how accurate the movie was.  One pseudo complaint about the movie I read was that it didn't necessarily give you an ending...  That was okay with me.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on October 30, 2007, 04:18:04 pm
Yes, this is true. And maybe being a bitch appeals to her, who knows?

Maybe, but she could play the bitch in a GOOD movie.  I think she should explore roles in smaller independent films.  I mean it's not like she needs the the big paychecks anymore.  I'm at the point where I feel some of these "older" stars should just retire rather than coast through tired roles in mediocre movies. 

For example, when's the last time Nicholson, Deniro and Pacino have done something they can be proud of?  Are they that greedy that they'll do anything to keep working?  Maybe they just feel that they've paid their dues and now they can just do crap and watch the money roll in?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on October 30, 2007, 04:32:17 pm
Very good points, oilgun. We are in the 1977 round in the movie game and have posted "Annie Hall" and "Looking for Mr. Goodbar." Remember Diane Keaton in those?

Jack Nicholson in The Departed (2006) was good. I didn't see DeNiro in The Good Shepherd so I can't comment on that, but Meet The Fockers? Please.


L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: notBastet on October 30, 2007, 04:38:29 pm
Maybe, but she could play the bitch in a GOOD movie.  I think she should explore roles in smaller independent films.  I mean it's not like she needs the the big paychecks anymore.  I'm at the point where I feel some of these "older" stars should just retire rather than coast through tired roles in mediocre movies. 

For example, when's the last time Nicholson, Deniro and Pacino have done something they can be proud of?  Are they that greedy that they'll do anything to keep working?  Maybe they just feel that they've paid their dues and now they can just do crap and watch the money roll in?

what did you think of The Departed?

(whoops - I see Leslie beat me to the question!)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on October 30, 2007, 04:41:35 pm
Very good points, oilgun. We are in the 1977 round in the movie game and have posted "Annie Hall" and "Looking for Mr. Goodbar." Remember Diane Keaton in those?

Jack Nicholson in The Departed (2006) was good. I didn't see DeNiro in The Good Shepherd so I can't comment on that, but Meet The Fockers? Please.


L

To be honest, I didn't think much of Nicholson in The Departed, lol!  I think I saw The Good Shepherd, that's the one with Matt Damon right? For some reason I don't even remember DeNiro being in it, lol!  Must be the early onset thing, plus I really didn't like that film.  Anyway Meryl Streep & Sigourney Weaver still manage to find interesting roles.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on October 30, 2007, 04:50:05 pm
what did you think of The Departed?

(whoops - I see Leslie beat me to the question!)


I really enjoyed the film but although I wasn't impressed with Nicholson's performance at least it's in a good film so I'll give him that one, lol!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 30, 2007, 05:14:05 pm
I really enjoyed the film but although I wasn't impressed with Nicholson's performance at least it's in a good film so I'll give him that one, lol!

I agree. Nicholson's performance was no more than third best in that film, after Leonard DiCaprio and Matt Damon, and some might argue he was also below Alec Baldwin and Mark Wahlberg and Vera Farmiga and maybe even Martin Sheen. He was a caricature of himself.

"About Schmidt" was pretty good, though.

I think good roles are few and far between for older men and even fewer and far betweener for older women. What good roles there are all seem to go to Streep and Weaver.

The new trend, I guess, is for older actresses to take roles as gritty, interesting characters in TV dramas. Glen Close and  Holly Hunter and Kyra Sedgewick (and is there another one?) have all done this. I haven't seen any of those programs, but I've heard the characters are more interesting than most movie characters.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on October 30, 2007, 09:44:01 pm
I hated The Family Stone. Did Dan in Real Life have the "horrible nasty mother who was dying from cancer and everyone thought she was wonderful character" (ie, Diane Keaton in TFS)? I hope not. How about the obligatory perfect gay couple with their adopted child?

What an awful movie that was. Ugh. It gives me creeps just thinking about it. And I wasted money to see this in a theater! Ack!

L


DITTO!!!!!!!!!!! 
I despised this movie for all the reasons you guys say and for more - fucked up mother, the 'won't leave me' attitude was extremely creepy, and a cast of characters with fucked up ethical values - a sister who has no compunctions whatsoever about seducing her sister's fiance.  Which would be bad enough if it weren't for the fact that the fiance is a loser, about as trustworthy as low-life crack addict and faithful as a bull in rut, apt to stray the moment a new blonde walks into view, the fiancee is one of those women who plays drunk when upset so she can fall into bed with the nearest man who listens to her whiny bitching and excuse herself with "But I was drunk!"

Gods this movie was so bad.  The only reason I had to sit through it to the end was because a friend had treated me.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on October 30, 2007, 09:58:03 pm
Mark Wahlberg was the best thing in The Departed, IMO. And he did get nominated for an Academy Award.

Changing the subject completely, over on the movie game we just played "Days of Heaven" which reminded me of this fabulous movie. I saw it in the theater....oh my god....30 years ago! Yikes! But it has just been re-released on DVD, all remastered and beautiful.

Any other Days of Heaven fans around here?

L

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 30, 2007, 11:09:24 pm
Changing the subject completely, over on the movie game we just played "Days of Heaven" which reminded me of this fabulous movie. I saw it in the theater....oh my god....30 years ago! Yikes! But it has just been re-released on DVD, all remastered and beautiful.

Any other Days of Heaven fans around here?

Me! I saw it twice, so long ago it was still in theaters (though the second time was a college-town revival, I think). The second time I knew it was going to be such a beautiful visual experience that I brought in a sprig of lilac with me so it would be beautiful smell-wise, too.

(OT, isn't there a better word than "smell-wise"? What's the smell equivalent of aural, visual, tactile?)

Back for just a moment to The Departed, personally I loved Leo. And Matt was pretty good, too. But Mark Wahlberg ... well, I used to like him and I thought he was good in it, but I've never felt quite the same about him since reading his homophobic comments in an interview a few months ago.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on October 30, 2007, 11:09:59 pm
Mark Wahlberg was the best thing in The Departed, IMO. And he did get nominated for an Academy Award.

Changing the subject completely, over on the movie game we just played "Days of Heaven" which reminded me of this fabulous movie. I saw it in the theater....oh my god....30 years ago! Yikes! But it has just been re-released on DVD, all remastered and beautiful.

Any other Days of Heaven fans around here?

L


As you know from HHH,  I just bought the DVD today!  I saw it i guess thirty years ago and never since so I'm looking forward to getting re-aquainted with it.  I love the cover of the DVD, is Criterion the only company that actually hires a graphic designer for their dvd covers?  Everyone else seems to slap on Big Floating Heads on the cover. I guess they are appealing to the lowest common denominator (*Cough* Walmart *cough*)

Ugly DVD covers are a pet peeve of mine.  I'll actually NOT buy some DVDs if I find the cover too repulsive.  For example, I loved Little Children but I can't bring myself to buy the dvd with that god-awful cover, especially since the movie poster was so great.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: notBastet on October 31, 2007, 12:19:40 am
Me! I saw it twice, so long ago it was still in theaters (though the second time was a college-town revival, I think). The second time I knew it was going to be such a beautiful visual experience that I brought in a sprig of lilac with me so it would be beautiful smell-wise, too.

(OT, isn't there a better word than "smell-wise"? What's the smell equivalent of aural, visual, tactile?)

Back for just a moment to The Departed, personally I loved Leo. And Matt was pretty good, too. But Mark Wahlberg ... well, I used to like him and I thought he was good in it, but I've never felt quite the same about him since reading his homophobic comments in an interview a few months ago.



I loved Leo, too...  Sigh.  I was dumbfounded by the ending (I tend just go along for the ride with movies, rather than try to guess what is going to happen.)

Is the word you want scent?  Yeah, there's probably something better than scent - my guess is leslie or Louise will know.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on October 31, 2007, 07:48:10 am

(OT, isn't there a better word than "smell-wise"? What's the smell equivalent of aural, visual, tactile?)


olfactory
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on October 31, 2007, 07:55:37 am

Back for just a moment to The Departed, personally I loved Leo. And Matt was pretty good, too. But Mark Wahlberg ... well, I used to like him and I thought he was good in it, but I've never felt quite the same about him since reading his homophobic comments in an interview a few months ago.



I never paid much attention to Mark Wahlberg after seeing him in Boogie Nights, a movie I did not care for. I guess that's one of the reasons I was so surprised by his performance in The Departed.

Apparently, he has replaced Ryan Gosling in "The Lovely Bones." Ryan got the ax the day before filming began. Depending on which gossip mag you want to believe, he left because of "creative differences" or because director Peter Jackson wasn't happy with his 20 lb weight gain.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 31, 2007, 09:45:49 am
Neither "scent" nor "olfactory" can be substituted for "smell-wise" in the sentence, "I brought in a sprig of lilac with me so it would be beautiful smell-wise, too" and make scents sense. Olifactorily would work, though a bit awkward-wise. I guess it doesn't slide off the tongue quite the way "visually" or "aurally" do.

Too bad for The Lovely Bones. Ryan Gosling has become one of my favorite actors on the basis of two movies: Half Nelson, during which I fell asleep but up until then was blown away by his performance, and Fracture, in which I liked him better than Anthony Hopkins.

I read the book The Lovely Bones years ago, and my reaction was, ehhh ...






Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on October 31, 2007, 09:49:01 am
I saw ELIZABETH THE GOLDEN AGE this past Sunday.  There was much to recommend about the film, if you know something about history.  The costumes and sets were quite good as was Blanchett's performance.  However, the dialog wasn't well written and they tried to cover every historical story going on at the time in a matter of minutes.  A bit of dehumanization of Phillip II, the king of Spain.  He was shown as very dark skinned and oily, bad hair (very unattractive) and walked with a bad limp. In real life, he was tal and fair skin, blond hair and quite tall.  He did walk with a limp on account of gout.  

There are too many serious R rated films out right now.  I did see RENDITION which I liked. Much has been made about Clooney not being much of  a draw as Michael Clayton isn't doing well.  I believe it was on SLATE.com that posted an essay that the era when a major movie star  (it's not just Clooney, but Brad Pitt's film isn't doing well) could pull in a crowd was now over.  
I think that's been the case for awhile.  :o
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on October 31, 2007, 10:56:56 am
Neither "scent" nor "olfactory" can be substituted for "smell-wise" in the sentence, "I brought in a sprig of lilac with me so it would be beautiful smell-wise, too" and make scents sense. Olifactorily would work, though a bit awkward-wise. I guess it doesn't slide off the tongue quite the way "visually" or "aurally" do.

Too bad for The Lovely Bones. Ryan Gosling has become one of my favorite actors on the basis of two movies: Half Nelson, during which I fell asleep but up until then was blown away by his performance, and Fracture, in which I liked him better than Anthony Hopkins.

I read the book The Lovely Bones years ago, and my reaction was, ehhh ...


I haven't paid too much attention to Ryan, myself. However, Lars and The Real Girl is getting interesting reviews and might be worth seeing.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on October 31, 2007, 10:58:56 am

There are too many serious R rated films out right now.  I did see RENDITION which I liked. Much has been made about Clooney not being much of  a draw as Michael Clayton isn't doing well.  I believe it was on SLATE.com that posted an essay that the era when a major movie star  (it's not just Clooney, but Brad Pitt's film isn't doing well) could pull in a crowd was now over. 
I think that's been the case for awhile.  :o

I think it was the same article on Slate that said people ask for serious, adult movies but then they don't go to them. Are they being marketed incorrectly or is it a myth that people want serious adult movies?

And frankly, the whole "fabulous George Clooney" thing is lost on me. He'd never be a reason for me to see a movie.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: notBastet on October 31, 2007, 11:05:11 am
Neither "scent" nor "olfactory" can be substituted for "smell-wise" in the sentence, "I brought in a sprig of lilac with me so it would be beautiful smell-wise, too" and make scents sense. Olifactorily would work, though a bit awkward-wise. I guess it doesn't slide off the tongue quite the way "visually" or "aurally" do.

Too bad for The Lovely Bones. Ryan Gosling has become one of my favorite actors on the basis of two movies: Half Nelson, during which I fell asleep but up until then was blown away by his performance, and Fracture, in which I liked him better than Anthony Hopkins.

I read the book The Lovely Bones years ago, and my reaction was, ehhh ...



How about: I brought in a sprig of lilac with me so there would a beautiful aroma...?



Spoiler (sort of)...



I read the Lovely Bones awhile back, as well.  I only remember a little.  I can't exactly guess what part Ryan Gosling or his replacement would be playing....  the bad guy?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: notBastet on October 31, 2007, 11:07:45 am
I loved Ryan Gosling in The Notebook.


I had thought about seeing the 2nd Elizabeth movie last week, but decided against it because Clive Owen does not always strike me the right way... (in fact, he may never have done so).  I opted for Into the Wild instead.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 31, 2007, 12:30:07 pm
I think it was the same article on Slate that said people ask for serious, adult movies but then they don't go to them. Are they being marketed incorrectly or is it a myth that people want serious adult movies?

I read that, too. I think the answer is that this particular movie is being marketed incorrectly. I almost went to it on Sunday, though even then I really didn't know what it's about.

Serious adult movies, IMO, are still in too short supply. I think the problem financially is that serious adults rarely see a movie more than once or twice (BBM aside  ;D), whereas kids are more likely to see movies several times.

I read the Lovely Bones awhile back, as well.  I only remember a little.  I can't exactly guess what part Ryan Gosling or his replacement would be playing....  the bad guy?

Oh yeah, the bad guy. I was wondering about that, too, and for some reason I'd forgotten all about the bad guy. I think Ryan Gosling, talented though he is, seems too sympathetic an actor to play a guy that evil. Even Mark Wahlberg might not be abhorrent enough. I was thinking the cop.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on October 31, 2007, 12:38:07 pm
I read that, too. I think the answer is that this particular movie is being marketed incorrectly. I almost went to it on Sunday, though even then I really didn't know what it's about.
I don't know what it's about, either. My children (ages 19 and 16) saw it and couldn't tell me what it was about! LOL

Quote
Serious adult movies, IMO, are still in too short supply. I think the problem financially is that serious adults rarely see a movie more than once or twice (BBM aside  ;D), whereas kids are more likely to see movies several times.

True. But we do rush out and buy the DVDs!

Quote
Oh yeah, the bad guy. I was wondering about that, too, and for some reason I'd forgotten all about the bad guy. I think Ryan Gosling, talented though he is, seems too sympathetic an actor to play a guy that evil. Even Mark Wahlberg might not be abhorrent enough. I was thinking the cop.

I haven't read the book but apparently he plays "the father" of (I think) the girl who is murdered. There was some thought that Ryan Gosling wouldn't look old enough to play the father which is why he gained weight and grew a beard but Peter Jackson didn't like the beard and weight. Probably Wahlberg is more age appropriate, in general.

L


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: notBastet on October 31, 2007, 12:45:05 pm
I haven't read the book but apparently he plays "the father" of (I think) the girl who is murdered. There was some thought that Ryan Gosling wouldn't look old enough to play the father which is why he gained weight and grew a beard but Peter Jackson didn't like the beard and weight. Probably Wahlberg is more age appropriate, in general.

Hmmnnn.  I don't really remember the role of a cop, but I think I can (sort of) remember a role for the father.  But I do think you're right about Wahlberg being more age appropriate... on the other hand - sometimes make up can do a lot for age-appropriateness (thinking of older Jack/Ennis Jake/Heath), but I guess for an entire movie of this genre you'd rather not have to make someone look older...

(maybe I'll like the movie since I don't seem to remember much about the book!  I went to see The English Patient right after I finished reading the novel, as in same day.  Was completely unimpressed with the movie at that juncture... though I did eventually come to appreciate the movie on its own accord.)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 31, 2007, 01:44:48 pm
I haven't read the book but apparently he plays "the father" of (I think) the girl who is murdered. There was some thought that Ryan Gosling wouldn't look old enough to play the father which is why he gained weight and grew a beard but Peter Jackson didn't like the beard and weight. Probably Wahlberg is more age appropriate, in general.

Ryan Gosling, according to imdb, is 27, so it is a stretch to see him as father of a 15-year-old. It makes more sense to cast someone closer in age.

Then again, Heath Ledger at 24 convincingly played the father of a 19-year-old, even without the beard and weight!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on October 31, 2007, 01:56:20 pm

Then again, Heath Ledger at 24 convincingly played the father of a 19-year-old, even without the beard and weight!

Yes. Another one that comes to mind is Anne Bancroft in "The Graduate." She and Dustin Hoffman were less than 6 years apart in age but look how much older her character was supposed to be, compared to Benjamin Braddock.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 31, 2007, 02:33:50 pm
Right! It probably didn't hurt that Dustin Hoffman was 30. At 36, Ann Bancroft's age was probably closer to her character's than his was (Benjamin Braddock would be about 22, right? And Mrs. Robinson, mother of a girl still in college, who told Ben she "had" to get married, could plausibly have been under 40).

BTW, in fact-checking this on imdb, I noticed that Dustin Hoffman appeared on an episode of "The Match Game" in 1968!!



Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on October 31, 2007, 07:24:49 pm
I think the problem financially is that serious adults rarely see a movie more than once or twice (BBM aside  ;D), whereas kids are more likely to see movies several times.

 ??? ??? ???

So if I like a movie so much I'll take every friend I have to go see it, I"m not a serious adult?

Last, I saw, I have a full time job that I treat as important, I still vote, pay my taxes and involve myself in enviro-socio-political issues but I'm not a serious adult because I like to watch a movie more than twice?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 31, 2007, 07:56:55 pm
??? ??? ???

So if I like a movie so much I'll take every friend I have to go see it, I"m not a serious adult?

Last, I saw, I have a full time job that I treat as important, I still vote, pay my taxes and involve myself in enviro-socio-political issues but I'm not a serious adult because I like to watch a movie more than twice?

I hope you're teasing, Del. Obviously I didn't mean that no serious adult on the face of the earth ever sees a movie more than twice. I meant in general, compared to kids.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on October 31, 2007, 08:36:16 pm
I hope you're teasing, Del. Obviously I didn't mean that no serious adult on the face of the earth ever sees a movie more than twice. I meant in general, compared to kids.



Heh, I know lots of serious adults who see movies more than once.  They're usually fans of a series - Harry Potter any one? - so I think in genera' is not so much a true statement any more.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on October 31, 2007, 10:24:46 pm
Heh, I know lots of serious adults who see movies more than once.  They're usually fans of a series - Harry Potter any one? - so I think in genera' is not so much a true statement any more.

I don't know any adults who see movies more than once or, rarely, twice. My kids, now older, limit most viewings to three or four times, but used to watch the same movies 15 times. But obviously both your and my experiences are anecdotal, and I don't have any hard data readily available, nor am I willing to scour the web for statistics. So I'll admit my earlier statement was my impression based on observation and things I've read in the past, not on recent extensive research.

And to clarify my earlier statement, the phrase "serious adults" in the sentence "... serious adults rarely see movies more than once or twice ..." stemmed from the fact that we were talking about "serious adult movies" (movies like Michael Clayton, apparently, as opposed to Harry Potter). It wasn't a judgment of gravitas, not did it imply anything about the employment history, political involvement, etc., of specific moviegoers.




Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on November 01, 2007, 12:58:02 am
I don't know any adults who see movies more than once or, rarely, twice. My kids, now older, limit most viewings to three or four times, but used to watch the same movies 15 times. But obviously both your and my experiences are anecdotal, and I don't have any hard data readily available, nor am I willing to scour the web for statistics. So I'll admit my earlier statement was my impression based on observation and things I've read in the past, not on recent extensive research.

Is multiple viewings something that would normally come up in a conversation?  It's not something people normally talk about at work or at most places people gather.  But it's a lot more common than one would think.  Take a poll on this board.  How many have seen BBM more than once?  How many told their friends/family each and every time they went to go see it?  I'm willing to bet - not many.  That's likely one reason why we're here.  We've found someone else with whom we can talk about this movie and our fandom worship of it without fear of being thought of as wierd.

So I'm quite sure that happens with other movies as well.

After all, people buy DVDs in droves.  Why do they if they're not going to watch them again?

Why do people buy CDs or books?  Why listen to a CD or read a book more than once? 

Ask someone if they've seen a certain Xmas movie more than once.  You'll find people who've watched the same Xmas movies every single year since they were kids.

[shrug]

Quote
And to clarify my earlier statement, the phrase "serious adults" in the sentence "... serious adults rarely see movies more than once or twice ..." stemmed from the fact that we were talking about "serious adult movies" (movies like Michael Clayton, apparently, as opposed to Harry Potter). It wasn't a judgment of gravitas, not did it imply anything about the employment history, political involvement, etc., of specific moviegoers.

I was thinking perhaps you might have meant "Adults rarely see serious movies more than once."

But I don't know what you meant, I can only read what you put down. 

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: SFEnnisSF on November 01, 2007, 01:13:38 am
I saw RESERVATION ROAD (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831884/) tonight.  Mmmmmm, Joaquin Phoenix sportin' a beard.  :P

Ohhh, seeing that FOCUS FEATURES logo before a movie always does somethin' to me...

So, this movie opened on one screen in San Francisco two Friday's ago.  Last Friday it was completely removed from that theatre, and it opened at a theatre in the East Bay, a theatre in San Jose, and the theatre in Mountain View, where I saw the movie tonight.  None of these theatres are playing the movie past Thursday night.  (Meaning it played at all these theatres for only one week.)

The movie itself seems to play like a made for TV movie, but it was REALLY good.  Either that or I'm still swoonin on Joaquin and his beard.  Mark Ruffalo ain't to bad to look at either, especially in some shirtless shots, but still Joaquin wins the eye candy.  Jennifer Conley is good at being sad and depressed as she always is.  The story and suspense builds up to a final confrontation at the end that was inaudiable.  Some really bad directing or sound mixing.  Probably coulda done the shots again.  However the acting in the confrontation scene was incredible.  Just couldn't understand or hear what they said.

Now, this movie carried an R rating.  There was NOTHING in the movie IMO to make it carry the R rating.  Maybe a few cuss words.  Ok, losing your child is some tough subject matter.  Yes, it has adult themes.  There was no nudity or grotesque violence or mangled kid shots or anything.  However, I just watched the RED BAND TRAILER  for BEOWULF (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2s5O-c4U0k) and somehow this has gotten an official PG-13 rating?  WHAT THE FUCK?  It just doesn't compute!  What, are they adding violence and gore and Angelina Jolie naked to the trailer only?  Just really pisses me off!  Did they cut out a few things to get a PG-13 rating?  You know, fuck that.  Just release the damn thing as an R and stop being pussies.  Even as a PG-13, this is way more violent and upsetting as RESERVATION ROAD could have ever been.  Why was RESERVATION ROAD rated R?  

Over on the Beowulf boards on IMDB there's posts saying Robert Zemeckis can take his PG-13 rating and shove it.  LOL  :laugh:  Lotsa folks no longer interested in seeing the move no more.  Time for the film industry to stop being politically correct pussies and just release the damn movies as their intended.  Oooooh, this whole subject makes my blood boil.  Ok, /rant.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: SFEnnisSF on November 01, 2007, 01:48:19 am
Next movie I want to see is No Country for Old Men (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477348/).

See the trailer here on You-Tube :


[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBqmKSAHc6w[/youtube]

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on November 01, 2007, 08:54:31 am
Is multiple viewings something that would normally come up in a conversation?  It's not something people normally talk about at work or at most places people gather.  But it's a lot more common than one would think.  Take a poll on this board.  How many have seen BBM more than once?  How many told their friends/family each and every time they went to go see it?  I'm willing to bet - not many.  That's likely one reason why we're here.  We've found someone else with whom we can talk about this movie and our fandom worship of it without fear of being thought of as wierd.

So I'm quite sure that happens with other movies as well.

After all, people buy DVDs in droves.  Why do they if they're not going to watch them again?

Why do people buy CDs or books?  Why listen to a CD or read a book more than once? 

Again, Delalluvia, what I said about kids watching movies multiple times more often than adults do (and I explicitly excluded BBM for obvious reasons) was not meant as an insult. It's simply my impression, based on what people have told me about their own viewing habits -- and yes, the subject does occasionally come up in conversation -- and things I've read, which cite it as one reason why cartoon-based, special-effects-laden blockbusters tend to make more money than critically acclaimed, character-driven Oscar contenders (another being that action flicks fare better overseas because language is not as crucial to their appeal).

You disagree. But tracking down real statistics or a Variety story about this is more trouble than I care to take. So unless someone has some figures handy, we'll just have to leave it at that. To drag this debate out based on our personal impressions does not seem worth it.

Quote
I was thinking perhaps you might have meant "Adults rarely see serious movies more than once."

But I don't know what you meant, I can only read what you put down. 

I was playing around with words. We were talking about "serious adult movies." Reusing the same words, I said something like "Serious adults rarely see movies more than once or twice ... blah blah blah."

I didn't mean anything particular by it, and I'm very sorry if it came off as an insult of you and your viewing habits, or those of people you know.




Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on November 03, 2007, 06:55:06 pm
I saw Lars and the Real Girl today and I absolutely LOVED it!  I wasn't prepared for how heart-breaking it turned out to be though, it's not exactly the light comedy that its marketing leads us to believe.  Gosling's character's anxiety and loneliness is palpable and I was brought to tears (literally) in many scenes.  One of the most moving and ultimately life-affirming film I've seen in a long while! 
Run, don't walk, to see it!

Move over Heath, Ryan's in town, lol!  Just kidding, I have room for both of them.  ;-)

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/lars2.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on November 03, 2007, 08:02:30 pm
I just got back from Michael Clayton, and I liked it a lot. I can see why they're having trouble marketing it. It's one of those movies that unfolds gradually, so everything's a little fuzzy at first but becomes clearer and clearer as the movie progresses. So if an ad came right out and said what the movie's about, it might conceivably spoil some of the suspense.

The closest I can come to describing it is it's like Erin Brokovich, but with George Clooney playing the Julia Roberts role (sans cleavage). It's not as cute and sprightly and upbeat as EB, it's grimmer. But the gist of the plot is vaguely similar.

Oilgun, glad to hear you enjoyed Lars. The one review I read made me feel kind of iffy about it. But with your endorsement I'll be sure to see it as soon as it reaches my local theater. As I've probably mentioned numerous times on this thread already, I love Ryan Gosling.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on November 04, 2007, 06:45:34 pm

Oilgun, glad to hear you enjoyed Lars. The one review I read made me feel kind of iffy about it. But with your endorsement I'll be sure to see it as soon as it reaches my local theater. As I've probably mentioned numerous times on this thread already, I love Ryan Gosling.


Ineedcrayons:  Apparently, Richard Roeper didn't like Lars so that says it all as far as I'm concerned, LOL!  Definitely see it!

I just got back from seeing Gone, Baby, Gone and it was a real shock to the system after just seeing Lars yesterday.  Come to think of it, it was like the antithesis of Lars.
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/GBG.jpg)

I even loath the title.  It was probably the most unpleasant movie-going experiences I've had since, I don't know, Ted Bundy?  I actually felt like taking a shower afterwards.  I only went to see it because I quite like Casey Affleck and boy, do I regret it.  It seemed that every character was scuzzier than the next (In Boston, the greeting of choice seems to be "f*ck you, mudderf*ckin' c*cks*cka".  And that's just the kids!) and as for the story, it was disjointed, predictable and worst of all, about a third of the way through I started feeling really manipulated and once that happens they've lost me as a viewer. 

I'd love to hear other opinions.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on November 04, 2007, 06:54:43 pm
Well, you won't hear my opinion of Gone, Baby, Gone because your comments above are enough to convince me that there's no way I would see it!  :-X

I decided some time ago that my mental instability is such that I can't see movies that are depressing and bleak, no matter how well made they are. A sad movie is OK, obviously, since I loved BBM. But depressing, no way. BTW, I made this resolution after seeing Affliction, a good movie starring an actor I like, Nick Nolte, but one that ended on a very grim note. No more, I told myself afterward.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on November 04, 2007, 08:01:04 pm
Well, you won't hear my opinion of Gone, Baby, Gone because your comments above are enough to convince me that there's no way I would see it!  :-X

I decided some time ago that my mental instability is such that I can't see movies that are depressing and bleak, no matter how well made they are. A sad movie is OK, obviously, since I loved BBM. But depressing, no way. BTW, I made this resolution after seeing Affliction, a good movie starring an actor I like, Nick Nolte, but one that ended on a very grim note. No more, I told myself afterward.



Then you should definitely stay away. Calling Gone, Baby, Gone bleak would actually be an understatement, it makes Mystic River, a movie it's been compared to because of themes and location, feel positively Capra-esque, LOL!  Oh and I take back that comment about Ted Bundy.  At least that movie doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is, a gore-filled B horror fest.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on November 05, 2007, 12:12:39 pm
I saw INTO THE WILD last night. The breathtaking scenery reminded me of Brokeback Mountain.  The film is based on the nonfiction bestseller of a young man who gave away his life savings to embrace nature. He also left his family behind without a note or explanation. As far as they were concerned, he had just vanished.

He journeys all over America, (staying away from cities) and the film is a recollection of his adventures and some of the ppl he met along the way.  He ended up in Alaska, living in a bus, wanting to live in the wild.  Well you can't get a place with more wilderness then Alaska.  It had been his lifelong ambition, the great trek to Alaska

The film was quite well acted, directed by Sean Penn.  I'm not going to spoil the ending, though everyone I know seems to know how it turns out.  He kept a journal referencing Tolstoy and Thoreau.  He had many interesting philosophical insights.

I'm surprised the film has not been released in more theaters (only 600) as it should be a box office hit. The book and his story are quite well know.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on November 05, 2007, 12:22:28 pm
Ineedcrayons:  Apparently, Richard Roeper didn't like Lars so that says it all as far as I'm concerned, LOL!  Definitely see it!

I just got back from seeing Gone, Baby, Gone and it was a real shock to the system after just seeing Lars yesterday.  Come to think of it, it was like the antithesis of Lars.

I even loath the title.  It was probably the most unpleasant movie-going experiences I've had since, I don't know, Ted Bundy?  I actually felt like taking a shower afterwards.  I only went to see it because I quite like Casey Affleck and boy, do I regret it.  It seemed that every character was scuzzier than the next (In Boston, the greeting of choice seems to be "f*ck you, mudderf*ckin' c*cks*cka".  And that's just the kids!) and as for the story, it was disjointed, predictable and worst of all, about a third of the way through I started feeling really manipulated and once that happens they've lost me as a viewer. 

I'd love to hear other opinions.



Your reaction is interesting because it is at 92% on rottentomatoes and it appears that most of the critics are raving about it.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on November 05, 2007, 12:41:38 pm
Your reaction is interesting because it is at 92% on rottentomatoes and it appears that most of the critics are raving about it.

One explanation might be that critics rarely seem to see bleakness as a fault. Sometimes I think they even see it as a virtue. Most of the bleak movies that led me to swear off bleak movies were critically acclaimed -- and rightly so, because bleakness aside they were very well-made movies (other examples that come to mind include Platoon, Blue Velvet and the bleakest movie I've seen, Leaving Las Vegas.).

I can think of others that critics liked but that I avoided because I could tell just by the reviews they'd be too bleak for me (The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover, any movie directed by Todd Solondz ...).

(Oh, reading back just now I see that oilgun also called the movie other things you'd think critics would object to, such as disjointed, predictable and manipulative. Well, maybe it was so nice and bleak that the critics were willing to overlook these problems)


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: notBastet on November 05, 2007, 01:24:14 pm
I saw INTO THE WILD last night. The breathtaking scenery reminded me of Brokeback Mountain.  The film is based on the nonfiction bestseller of a young man who gave away his life savings to embrace nature. He also left his family behind without a note or explanation. As far as they were concerned, he had just vanished.

He journeys all over America, (staying away from cities) and the film is a recollection of his adventures and some of the ppl he met along the way.  He ended up in Alaska, living in a bus, wanting to live in the wild.  Well you can't get a place with more wilderness then Alaska.  It had been his lifelong ambition, the great trek to Alaska

The film was quite well acted, directed by Sean Penn.  I'm not going to spoil the ending, though everyone I know seems to know how it turns out.  He kept a journal referencing Tolstoy and Thoreau.  He had many interesting philosophical insights.

I'm surprised the film has not been released in more theaters (only 600) as it should be a box office hit. The book and his story are quite well know.

I saw this a week or two ago.  I was pretty impressed.  It was a good experience for me.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on November 05, 2007, 06:34:00 pm
Your reaction is interesting because it is at 92% on rottentomatoes and it appears that most of the critics are raving about it.

L

Wow, 92%!?  I think it's the first time that my opinion of a film differs so drastically from the majority of critics!  I really don't know what to say, except that I guess I just couldn't buy into the story.  It's hard to say more without revealing important plot points.  I did enjoy the story's setup and the acting was fine but then something happened, and I can't really pin-point exactly what it was, but I started losing my suspension of disbelief, and when one of the characters stormed into the bar with a Popeye mask, that really sealed the deal for me.

Oh well, you win some and you lose some.  I'm over it now, I had the day off so I went to see Ang's Lust, Caution and REALLY enjoyed it!  Although I do feel a bit cheated.  Why couldn't the sex have been as graphic in BbM? LOL!

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/LustCaution.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on November 05, 2007, 07:40:26 pm
There's a piece on Slate about Gone, Baby, Gone that's semi-critical. Here's an excerpt:

Quote
Ben Affleck's Boston
His portrait of the city is far from perfect—but at least it's not wicked bad.
By Patrick Radden Keefe

... Affleck's movie feels more grounded in the specific geography of Boston than any other major Hollywood production ever has. And more populated by real Bostonians. But in striving to capture Boston in all its sordid glory, Affleck overapplies the grit. The problem struck me in an early scene in which the camera lingers on a gaggle of daytime boozers, and I swear, more than one of them has a cleft lip. In an effort to cast aside the Hollywood airbrush, Affleck has zoomed in on the freakish underbelly of Boston and somewhat overstated the case. The result is not so much what Mean Streets did for New York as what Deliverance did for Appalachia.

"I wanted something raw and authentic and even a little scuffed up," Affleck told the New York Times recently. For much of the movie, half of Dorchester seems to be standing around outside their creaky wooden houses, just killing time. But as the camera pushes in on dozens of extras—sickly skinny women and gin-blossomed men with complexions like blood sausage—"scuffed up" begins to feel positively generous. At a certain point, the parade of uglies marches past verisimilitude and into freak-show territory. This isn't actually what the people of Dorchester look like. Yes, you can walk into a Dorchester bar and find a healthy crowd at 11 a.m. on a weekday. But give the barflies cleft lips, and you're overdoing it a bit. It's Dorchester by way of Diane Arbus. (continues ...)



Here's the whole piece:

http://www.slate.com/id/2176404/ (http://www.slate.com/id/2176404/)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lynne on November 06, 2007, 01:52:22 am
Oilgun - will you elaborate a bit on in what ways you felt manipulated by Gone, Baby, Gone?  It's interesting to me how people's opinions differ.  I liked GBG alot, but I was watching it from a couple of specific points-of-view.  I was particularly interested in how well the adaptation of Dennis Lehane's novel was done, the Boston characterization, Casey's performance, and Ben's direction.  I read the novel years ago, and it kept me guessing until the very end.  So knowing where the movie was going, assuming the original plot survives (and it does), I wasn't in a place to feel manipulated.

I'm not so sure I agree with the reviewer about Dorchester being portrayed as overly gritty.  Some of Dorchester is being revitalized and it's not as bad as it used to be, so I think this is probably a good representation of 1990's Dorcester.  However, I didn't notice let alone count cleft lips, so I may need a repeat viewing.  ;)  I do know that they really toned down the violent tendencies of Patrick Kenzie's friend, Bubba, compared to his character in the novel.

Crayons - glad you enjoyed Michael Clayton.  :)

I think American Gangster is next on my list...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: notBastet on November 06, 2007, 04:09:43 pm
I watched the Pursuit of Happyness this afternoon.  I thought Will Smith's portrayal was fine... but there were aspects of the movie (what I considered to be basic premise type issues...) that I didn't like at all...

spoilers:




I guess maybe I am too much of a "what if" person...  It all worked out for him... but what if it hadn't, then it really wasn't such a bright idea to take an unpaid internship while you had a child to feed.  And great that the guy gave him his $5 back... but is that a good message - work your ass off, do what the man wants, and if you're lucky the man will give you a job and your $5 back?  don't know.  but I was suprised to see all the good reviews.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on November 06, 2007, 05:55:31 pm
I guess maybe I am too much of a "what if" person...  It all worked out for him... but what if it hadn't, then it really wasn't such a bright idea to take an unpaid internship while you had a child to feed.  And great that the guy gave him his $5 back... but is that a good message - work your ass off, do what the man wants, and if you're lucky the man will give you a job and your $5 back?  don't know.  but I was suprised to see all the good reviews.

I see what you're saying. And probably in many or most cases it would not have ended "happyly." But the guy Will Smith plays is a real-life person. So I suppose you could say that filmmakers, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, wouldn't have wanted to make a movie about someone who tried that and failed and wound up permanently homeless. But it does make sense to make a movie about a millionaire who once was homeless and took a big risk and succeeded.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on November 06, 2007, 09:08:02 pm
Oilgun - will you elaborate a bit on in what ways you felt manipulated by Gone, Baby, Gone?  It's interesting to me how people's opinions differ.  I liked GBG alot, but I was watching it from a couple of specific points-of-view.  I was particularly interested in how well the adaptation of Dennis Lehane's novel was done, the Boston characterization, Casey's performance, and Ben's direction.  I read the novel years ago, and it kept me guessing until the very end.  So knowing where the movie was going, assuming the original plot survives (and it does), I wasn't in a place to feel manipulated.

I'm not so sure I agree with the reviewer about Dorchester being portrayed as overly gritty.  Some of Dorchester is being revitalized and it's not as bad as it used to be, so I think this is probably a good representation of 1990's Dorcester.  However, I didn't notice let alone count cleft lips, so I may need a repeat viewing.  ;)  I do know that they really toned down the violent tendencies of Patrick Kenzie's friend, Bubba, compared to his character in the novel.


Thanks for asking, Lynn.  First offl, I have to explain that I saw the film cold, as they say.  I'm not familiar with the novel, I just found out that Lehane also wrote Mystic River.  I hadn't read any reviews but knew that it had been very well received by critics.   I went to see it mainly for Casey Affleck, I've had a bit of thing for him ever since seeing him in Gerry.  (Yeah, I loved that film, go figure, lol!)

Like I said previously I started off quite enjoying it.  The "colourful" characters were a hoot and some of the dialogue was laugh-out-loud funny. But  the all-pervasive "scuzzyness" became too much, it never let up!  The characters started to feel cartoonish rather than human.  The result was that I didn't care what happened to any of the characters, so anything I had invested into the story went out the window.  It felt like I was being manipulated into hating these one dimensional characters and I found that a bit insulting (OK, I get it Ben, these people are lowlifes! Sheesh!)

I did like Bubba though, he was pretty cool.  Probably the only one who tried to help.  Him and that guy at Murphy's Law who told Patrick about Helene & Skinny Ray. Oh, I did feel bad for Cheese, the poor guy really got screwed, lol!

Maybe I was just pissed off because the movie ruined my Lars high. ;)

Edit:  I just remembered I had a similar, albeat much less intense, reaction to the movie Pan's Labyrinth.   In that film, I didn't like how the fascist step-father was so completely evil.  If he had had a dog I'm sure he would have kicked it.  I understand that it was supposed to be a fairy tale and he was the evil step-father and all that, but the fact that he was so easily despised somehow made me lose interest in the story.   It severed my emotional connection.  I was still able to enjoy the film thematically and especially visually but I didn't buy the dvd... :-\
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on November 06, 2007, 09:48:39 pm
Oilgun, you saw Gerry?? You're one of only two people in the world I know who has seen it! I thought it was both one of the most boring and one of the most interesting movies I've ever seen.

For those who haven't seen it, Gerry is directed by Gus Van Sant, stars Casey Affleck and Matt Damon, and is about two guys who get lost in the desert. They always call each other Gerry. They also use "gerry" as a verb, meaning "screw up." The whole movie is about watching them wander around trying to find their way out of the desert, as they get weaker and weaker. There are numerous long long stretches, like 10 minutes or more, where the camera just follows them as they walk silently side by side. It's sort of an endurance test for the audience, as well. Compared to Gerry, BBM is positively chatty -- and what dialogue there is is almost all mundane small talk like you might hear between two guys who've been friends for a long time -- they talk about a video game, a Jeopardy episode, etc.

So this friend insisted that I see it. I had to call several video stores to track it down. Finally I watched it, and at the end I was like, huh? What was the big deal about this arty but incredibly boring movie?

Then my friend told me something he'd figured out about it. And that changed my whole attitude toward the movie. Suddenly it became really very interesting.

Shall I say what he told me? It's not really a spoiler, but it's something not everyone would figure out (I sure didn't).

(BTW, the friend who told me this was Clancy/TFMC/ruthlesslyunsentimental -- those who know him know he's good at analyzing movies.)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on November 06, 2007, 09:57:13 pm
Oilgun, you saw Gerry?? You're one of only two people in the world I know who has seen it! I thought it was both one of the most boring and one of the most interesting movies I've ever seen.

For those who haven't seen it, Gerry is directed by Gus Van Sant, stars Casey Affleck and Matt Damon, and is about two guys who get lost in the desert. They always call each other Gerry. They also use "gerry" as a verb, meaning "screw up." The whole movie is about watching them wander around trying to find their way out of the desert, as they get weaker and weaker. There are numerous long long stretches, like 10 minutes or more, where the camera just follows them as they walk silently side by side. It's sort of an endurance test for the audience, as well. Compared to Gerry, BBM is positively chatty -- and what dialogue there is is almost all mundane small talk like you might hear between two guys who've been friends for a long time -- they talk about a video game, a Jeopardy episode, etc.

So this friend insisted that I see it. I had to call several video stores to track it down. Finally I watched it, and at the end I was like, huh? What was the big deal about this arty but incredibly boring movie?

Then my friend told me something he'd figured out about it. And that changed my whole attitude toward the movie. Suddenly it became really very interesting.

Shall I say what he told me? It's not really a spoiler, but it's something not everyone would figure out (I sure didn't).

(BTW, the friend who told me this was Clancy/TFMC/ruthlesslyunsentimental -- those who know him know he's good at analyzing movies.)



Well, you can't just tease us like that!  Tell us!!   
I actually saw Gerry at the theatre, t played here for about a week, and it was absolutely mesmerizing on the big screen.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on November 06, 2007, 11:11:07 pm
OK. Keep in mind that this is just Clancy's theory -- I couldn't find any review or interview or any other source to verify it -- but it's pretty brilliant and does make perfect sense once you think about it.




**SPOILER ALERT**









Matt Damon and Casey Affleck are the same person. That's why they're both named Gerry. That's why they talk about Jeopardy and video games in such shorthand -- their conversations are really Gerry's thoughts. When they use "gerry" as a verb, it's Gerry's self-reproach when he screws up.

Their trip into the desert is a journey into manhood. You know how Matt is the stronger and tougher one, and Casey is weaker and more passive and prone to tears? When Gerry leaves as one person, he has become a man. You know how he gets picked up by a father and son and the last (long boring 10-minute  ::)) scene is of the three driving away in silence? Well, the boy represents Gerry as a kid, the father is the future Gerry. And Gerry, in between them in age, has passed that maturation milestone.

So what d'ya think?

UPDATE with a later thought: Plus, it's interesting that when the end of the desert sojourn comes, the car is suddenly right there!








Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on November 07, 2007, 11:43:54 am
Well ...? Am I making sense? Does that theory sound plausible?

I thought so, but of course not everyone has to agree!  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: notBastet on November 07, 2007, 12:18:39 pm
it sounds quite plausible to me from your description!  I haven't seen the movie though...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on November 07, 2007, 12:34:21 pm
Well maybe now you'll want to see it. I know, I know, my talk of long boring dialogueless sequences probably doesn't make you want to move it to the top of your Netflix list. But it really is an interesting movie once you think of it that way, so that interpretation isn't necessarily a spoiler -- could be an enhancer!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: notBastet on November 07, 2007, 12:44:00 pm
Well maybe now you'll want to see it. I know, I know, my talk of long boring dialogueless sequences probably doesn't make you want to move it to the top of your Netflix list. But it really is an interesting movie once you think of it that way, so that interpretation isn't necessarily a spoiler -- could be an enhancer!


yes you are right... when I was first reading about it I was like "Hmnn... a Matt Damon movie I've never heard of..."

your friend's suggestion definitely makes it sound interesting... I will keep it in mind for when I am in the mood for "long dialogueless sequences"

 ;)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on November 07, 2007, 03:05:39 pm
I was like "Hmnn... a Matt Damon movie I've never heard of..."

You know, before this movie I was never a huge Matt Damon fan. I mean, I liked him all right, but ... and then somehow this movie, boring or not, made me appreciate him more. Now I'd be likely to see anything he's in (except maybe The Good Shepherd, which I fell asleep trying to watch).


 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on November 07, 2007, 09:05:34 pm
You know, before this movie I was never a huge Matt Damon fan. I mean, I liked him all right, but ... and then somehow this movie, boring or not, made me appreciate him more. Now I'd be likely to see anything he's in (except maybe The Good Shepherd, which I fell asleep trying to watch).


 

LOL!  I fell asleep as well!  That wasn't his best role.  I became more of a fan of his after seeing The Talented Mr. Ripley.

Anyway, back to Gerry and Clancy's analysis!  I read something similar somewhere and I think it makes a lot of sense, although that film can be interpreted in so many ways.  I do like the idea of the internal struggle though.  Gus van Sant dedicated the film to Ken Kesey, the author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and apparently a lot of what happens in that book was inspired by acid trips.  That kinda supports the theory I think.



Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on November 10, 2007, 10:49:41 pm
The Wizard of Oz is on TBS tonight.

Does anyone know how the movie came to be a "holiday movie" - associated with its original release date, maybe?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Ellemeno on November 11, 2007, 07:43:01 am
Wow, I had no idea that this has been such an active thread.  I just spent three hundred hours (give or take) catching up on it.  I'll try to remember to keep up with it from now on.

Michael Clayton - I thought Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton were each terrrific in their roles.  The Tilda Swinton role was especially interesting - she plays this awful, high-powered, tough, articulate legal counsel for the bad guy corporation, but we (the audience) are treated to her stumbling rehearsal of her phrasing while she gets dressed in the morning, her shaky lack of confidence in the office bathroom stall, it's cool.

Dan in Real Life - It's amazing how plain old likeable Steve Carell is in it, considering his likeability on "The Office" has more to do with pity at his patheticness.  He looks completely different, rather than stocky and stiff, he looks lithe and loose.  Very interesting.  I've decided he is quite a good actor.  Poor Dianne Wiest, it's fucked that she isn't carrying major movies as the star.  But no, she's a middle-aged woman...

You all ought to come by and play the ABCs at the Movies game with Leslie and oilgun and me (and others).  We're going through the years, backwards.  We started at 2007, and are now doing the movies of 1959.  The last 3 movies posted were, North by Northwest for N, Operation Petticoat for O, and Porgy and Bess for P.  Anyone want to post a good Q movie from 1959...?  We use IMDb as our source and arbiter.  The people on this thread would love it!  http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,13749.new.html#new



Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on November 11, 2007, 10:43:39 am
The Wizard of Oz is on TBS tonight.

Does anyone know how the movie came to be a "holiday movie" - associated with its original release date, maybe?

Thanks.

It was released in August, 1939, so that didn't have anything to do with it!

Back in the dark ages (ie, my youth) they showed movies once a year on TV as a "special event" and we'd all gear up for that viewing. I remember that for years, The Wizard of Oz was shown in February, to coincide with the Washington Birthday holiday. Easter always had a Biblical epic, like King of Kings and Christmas...well there has always been a ton of Christmas programming. So maybe it came from that BelAir. Who knows?

BTW, welcome to Bettermost.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on November 11, 2007, 01:34:21 pm
Back in the dark ages (ie, my youth) they showed movies once a year on TV as a "special event" and we'd all gear up for that viewing. I remember that for years, The Wizard of Oz was shown in February, to coincide with the Washington Birthday holiday. Easter always had a Biblical epic, like King of Kings and Christmas...well there has always been a ton of Christmas programming.

LOL. I get how The Ten Commandments=Easter, and It's a Wonderful Life=Christmas. But how does The Wizard of Oz=Washington's birthday?? Are they equating Washington with Oz?

Anyway, I remember those "special event" days, too. I used to look forward to TWoO for weeks. And my mom always made tomato soup and grilled-cheese sandwiches for dinner! Our own little secular family ritual.

we (the audience) are treated to her stumbling rehearsal of her phrasing while she gets dressed in the morning, her shaky lack of confidence in the office bathroom stall, it's cool.

Yeah, that was a cool scene! I hadn't seen one like that before. And it helps explain her actions later.

Quote
Dan in Real Life - It's amazing how plain old likeable Steve Carell is in it, considering his likeability on "The Office" has more to do with pity at his patheticness.  He looks completely different, rather than stocky and stiff, he looks lithe and loose.  Very interesting.  I've decided he is quite a good actor. 

I agree.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on November 11, 2007, 07:57:04 pm
Well, I just got back from seeing what is possibly the best film of the year:  Into the Wild
It's amazingly good and should garner several nominations and wins.   I predict:  A best director award for Sean Penn, Best actor for Emile Hirsh and best supporting actor for Hal Holbrook.
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/intothewild.jpg)

EDIT:  I just checked Rotten tomatoes and it rates a relatively paltry 79% Fresh while Affleck's GBG get's 91% Fresh (both Cream of the Crop) so don't quote me on the above, LOL!  Anyway, what do I know, I base my ratings on how much I've enjoyed them.  And for me ItW was a 10/10  (Gone Baby Gone 6/10)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on November 11, 2007, 08:10:22 pm
I'll put that on my list too, then.

Oilgun, this is slightly OT but, even though I'm a huge Ryan Gosling fan, I still really miss your old avatar!  :-\ 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on November 11, 2007, 10:09:34 pm
I'll put that on my list too, then.

Oilgun, this is slightly OT but, even though I'm a huge Ryan Gosling fan, I still really miss your old avatar!  :-\ 

I changed it back for you!  To be honest I missed it too, it's such a great pic of Heath and it makes me smile.  Sadly,  Lars was probably more fitting  :-\
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on November 12, 2007, 12:51:27 am
I changed it back for you!  To be honest I missed it too, it's such a great pic of Heath and it makes me smile.  Sadly,  Lars was probably more fitting  :-\

Thank you, oilgun! Seriously, you have the most cheerful avatar in all of Brokiedom. Who could look at it and not smile?

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on November 17, 2007, 06:52:30 pm
Man, I've been making some really good choices lately! 

Just saw the Romanian film 4 Month, 3 Weeks & 2 Days and I have to agree with the Cannes  jury who awarded it the Palme D'or.  Wow!  It's the type of realist drama that I absolutely love. If you like the work of the Dardennes brothers than this powerful and emotionally complex film is a must. Oustanding! 10/10

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/4m3w2d-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on November 18, 2007, 05:35:20 pm
Well, another good one! Control, the Ian Curtis bio-pic.  Curtis was the lead singer of Joy Division, one of my favourite bands.  He suffered from epilepsy and depression and committed suicide at the age of 23.  The film is in gorgeous black & white with great performances by Sam Riley (as Ian) & Samantha Morton as his wife, whose book the movie is based on.  Might make a good double-bill with Brothers of the Head.

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/control_big.jpg)
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/control-banner.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on November 18, 2007, 05:37:59 pm
oilgun, I hope you will keep your fave film list going (or at least post it somewhere else) - so I can refer to it when trying to decide which movie to go see!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ifyoucantfixit on November 18, 2007, 05:54:46 pm
LOL. I get how The Ten Commandments=Easter, and It's a Wonderful Life=Christmas. But how does The Wizard of Oz=Washington's birthday?? Are they equating Washington with Oz?

Anyway, I remember those "special event" days, too. I used to look forward to TWoO for weeks. And my mom always made tomato soup and grilled-cheese sandwiches for dinner! Our own little secular family ritual.

Yeah, that was a cool scene! I hadn't seen one like that before. And it helps explain her actions later.

I agree.
                 DONT LOOK TOO CLOSLY AT THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN?

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on November 18, 2007, 06:06:54 pm
oilgun, I hope you will keep your fave film list going (or at least post it somewhere else) - so I can refer to it when trying to decide which movie to go see!

Thanks, I'm honored!  I do update it as I go along and it will probably stay there up until the Oscar nominations are announced.  Do note that I'm not a critic by any means, I rate them according to my enjoyment.  ;)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on November 23, 2007, 08:41:55 pm
I saw Lars and the Real Girl today and I absolutely LOVED it!  I wasn't prepared for how heart-breaking it turned out to be though, it's not exactly the light comedy that its marketing leads us to believe.  Gosling's character's anxiety and loneliness is palpable and I was brought to tears (literally) in many scenes.  One of the most moving and ultimately life-affirming film I've seen in a long while! 
Run, don't walk, to see it!

Move over Heath, Ryan's in town, lol!  Just kidding, I have room for both of them.  ;-)

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/lars2.jpg)

My daughter and I went to see this today and I have very mixed feelings. On an acting level, I could see what a superb job Ryan Gosling and everyone else (esp. Patricia Clarkson) did. On the other hand, I struggled with the total implausibility of much of it...from the fact of Lars' mother dying in childbirth to no one seeking any sort of help for him to him falling in love with a sex toy and the entire town becoming a bunch of enablers....in one way, this story would have worked better in the 30s but then, in the 30s, they didn't have the Internet and anatomically correct sex toys...

I have very mixed feelings about this movie. I am glad I saw it but I don't want to see it again.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on November 23, 2007, 09:33:35 pm
My daughter and I went to see this today and I have very mixed feelings. On an acting level, I could see what a superb job Ryan Gosling and everyone else (esp. Patricia Clarkson) did. On the other hand, I struggled with the total implausibility of much of it...from the fact of Lars' mother dying in childbirth to no one seeking any sort of help for him to him falling in love with a sex toy and the entire town becoming a bunch of enablers....in one way, this story would have worked better in the 30s but then, in the 30s, they didn't have the Internet and anatomically correct sex toys...

I have very mixed feelings about this movie. I am glad I saw it but I don't want to see it again.

L

Aww?  I'm so disappointed you didn't like it and I feel somewhat responsible because I built it up so much!  I didn't have a problem at all suspending my disbelief.  (Obviously, since I gave it a nine, LOL!)  The movie just swept me off my feet like very few movies have.  Oh well, you probably loved Gone Baby Gone  ;)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on November 23, 2007, 11:01:20 pm
I feel so far behind all you guys, but it's nice to see my little ol' thread thriving.  :)

Michael Clayton - loved it, especially Tilda Swinton and Tom Wilkinson.  And George Clooney's nearly last line was invigorating - as Hollywoodish as it was, it made me feel good all over.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead - I'm still rather pissed off at just how often poor Marisa Tomei had to walk around with her perky boobies on display - it did nothing to further the story and was almost laughable after a while.  That said, Ethan Hawke was amazing.  Phillip Seymour Hoffman didn't do much for me.  But his upcoming role with Laura Linney in the one about placing their father into a nursing home looks promising - I much prefer him when he plays those schlubby characters than when he plays someone strait-laced and professional.

No Country for Old Men - I wish I could say I loved it.  I certainly liked it, and was very happy to see a lot of loose ends left completely to the viewers' imagination.  I'm sure it won't fare well in Peoria for that reason, though.  My problem with it wasn't that it didn't tie everything up into nice, neat little packages, but that it lacked a soul.  I think Tommy Lee Jones was supposed to be that, and he was good - I guess I'd have just liked to have seen him have a bit more to work with.  His last scene was wonderful, though.

Dan in Real Life - I didn't like most of Juliette Binoche's dialogue.  But I liked Steve Carell's.  Since I gotta figure the same person/people wrote both, I can only guess that her acting was lacking, somehow.  Dane Cook pretty much sucks, too - I found the actor who played the other brother to be much more convincing.  And I agree with you, Katherine - it turns out Steve Carell really is quite a good actor.  I discovered that in Little Miss Sunshine, really - this just sealed the deal.

Don't know why I'm not interested in seeing American Gangster - I always enjoy Denzel Washington.  I think I'm just tired of gangster flicks.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on November 24, 2007, 01:31:45 am
Hi Barb, it's great to see you back!  8)

I haven't seen much this fall other than Eastern Promises and Lust, Cauton, both of which I loved, but I went to see Elizabeth: The Golden Age last week because I didn't want to miss it on the big screen.  I knew it would be worth it just for the costumes, and I was not disappointed.

Really, it was worth the price of popcorn just to sit there and take in the utter gorgeousness of Cate Blanchett's endless parade of gowns, wigs and jewelry and the impressive settings:  castles, churches, moors, ocean vistas, all dressed and lit to perfection, fabrics draped everywhere, props that looked straight out of a museum, and eye candy for days.  It's operatic in its scope (and unfortunately in its credibility) and who cares if the history is accurate?  See Cate standing on a cliff, cape flowing out behind her while she watches the Armada burn, the sun setting over the stormy Channel; see Clive Owen clench his manly jaw and jump off a flaming ship; or see Cate reining in a prancing, pure white stallion, her red hair streaming over her shoulders, silver armor gleaming, as she delivers her address to the troops at Tilbury; or watch her, in high dudgeon, cuss the hell out of her lady-in-waiting for marrying manly Clive in secret.  That's entertainment, folks!  I heartily recommend it.  8)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on November 24, 2007, 09:34:38 am
Aww?  I'm so disappointed you didn't like it and I feel somewhat responsible because I built it up so much!  I didn't have a problem at all suspending my disbelief.  (Obviously, since I gave it a nine, LOL!)  The movie just swept me off my feet like very few movies have.  Oh well, you probably loved Gone Baby Gone  ;)


I am not even going to see Gone Baby Gone! It doesn't sound like my kind of movie, at all!

As for Lars, I wanted to be swept off my feet...I really did. And if I focused just on the acting, I could, because the acting was that good, from everyone involved. But something about the story...reality just kept nibbling at the edge of my mind and I couldn't push it away.

I also thought it was incredibly sad which probably wasn't helped by my post-Thanksgiving low mood.

Oh well. I am glad I saw it. And I watched "The Commitments" last night to try and cheer myself up and it mostly worked.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on November 26, 2007, 01:56:57 am
I posted an interesting article in the Movie Resources forum about William Pohlad, one of the producers of Brokeback.  Y'all might want to check it out: http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,15173.msg292656/topicseen.html#msg292656
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on November 27, 2007, 10:03:14 am
How did I miss this? I just read that "The Namesake," by Mira Nair, is coming out on DVD today (Nov 27). I loved "Monsoon Wedding," and read countless movie reviews and articles, but I totally missed hearing anything about this movie. I gather it was shown at the Toronto Film Festival in 2006 and also London. Was it ever in movie theaters? Did any of my fellow movie-lovers here at Bettermost see it?

Looks like a DVD rental is in store for me, but man, I would have loved to see this on the big screen! Any reviews from anyone....comments are appreciated.

Leslie
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on November 27, 2007, 10:43:22 am
How did I miss this? I just read that "The Namesake," by Mira Nair, is coming out on DVD today (Nov 27). I loved "Monsoon Wedding," and read countless movie reviews and articles, but I totally missed hearing anything about this movie. I gather it was shown at the Toronto Film Festival in 2006 and also London. Was it ever in movie theaters? Did any of my fellow movie-lovers here at Bettermost see it?

Looks like a DVD rental is in store for me, but man, I would have loved to see this on the big screen! Any reviews from anyone....comments are appreciated.

Leslie
It played in theatres here in Toronto but I skipped it for some reason, probably because of mediocre local reviews.  However, Rotten Tomatoes gives it an 86%  fresh rating.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on November 27, 2007, 10:49:58 am
It played in theatres here in Toronto but I skipped it for some reason, probably because of mediocre local reviews.  However, Rotten Tomatoes gives it an 86%  fresh rating.

Yes, and people are raving about it on IMDb, too! I am surprised that this one totally slipped by me...I try to keep abreast of this stuff.

I guess I'll just have to blame it on being in the throes of Brokeback Fever at the time. LOL!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on November 27, 2007, 11:53:24 am
I saw "The Namesake" when it came out here.  It was wonderful.

The one I'm looking forward to seeing this weekend is "The Savages" (or is it just "Savages?") with Laura Linney and Phillip Seymour Hoffman.  The subject matter looks like it'll hit especially close to home for me, having just come through the shitstorm that was my father-in-law living with us for two months while he recovered from a broken hip.  Let me put it this way:  If I ever see him or hear his voice again, it'll be too soon.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 02, 2007, 12:10:49 am
I just saw a sweet little Canadian gay film called Breakfast With Scot about a gay couple who suddenly find themselves taking care of an 11 year boy who happens to be gayer than gay.  We're talking feather boas and show tunes gay.  It has a TV movie feel to it but it's so endearing that you can't help but love it.

It caused a bit of controversy because one of the "parents" played by Tom Cavanagh (of the TV show Ed) plays a sports caster who used to play for the Maple Leafs and the NHL gave the filmmakers full support so they were able to use the team's logos etc.  Of course that upset the usual (Christian) idiots, mostly American btw.

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/breakfast.jpg)

For the trailer: http://www.caprifilms.com/breakfastwithscot/index.html (http://www.caprifilms.com/breakfastwithscot/index.html)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910847/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910847/)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on December 02, 2007, 12:19:08 am
tom cavanagh is a cutey patootie.  I liked him in Ed.  He was also in some horror movie recently that I didn't think I would be able to stomach watching... and I certainly haven't tried to do so.  I will add Breakfast with Scot to my list though!
 ;)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 02, 2007, 09:05:06 am
I think I saw a preview for that movie, oilgun, and it looked like a fun one. I'll watch out for it.

I guess I am missing the connection about why people would be upset that the NHL cooperated? The NHL isn't supposed to be supportive of movies with a gay theme or something? Huh?

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 02, 2007, 09:25:42 am
The NHL isn't supposed to be supportive of movies with a gay theme or something? Huh?

L
That's exactly it, they accuse the NHL of promoting homosexuality:

Christian Activists Campaign Against Yet-Unfinished Movie
12 February 2007 (StudioBriefing)
The upcoming indie movie Breakfast With Scot, which tells the story of two gay men -- one of whom is a member of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team -- who are raising an eccentric 11-year-old boy, is already arousing controversy even before its release, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday. Bernadette Mansur, the NHL's senior vice president for communications, indicated that the protests are being spearheaded by Christian activist James Hartline, who claims to be a former homosexual. Although he has not seen the movie, he has called it "degrading" and accused the NHL of "promoting homosexualization of small children" and "becoming a willing partner with the fringe elements of the radicalized homosexual agenda and their ultimate goal of worldwide sexual anarchy." In Canada itself, Brian Rushfeldt of Canada Family Action Coalition charged that the Maple Leafs are "underwriting homosexuality. ... I don't think it does much for the image of the NHL amongst families who may want their children involved in hockey." Mansur insisted, however, that the NHL "didn't intend to make a statement one way or another about homosexuals" and that the film merely tells "a story of a contemporary American family that exists today."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910847/news (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910847/news)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 02, 2007, 09:34:20 am
Oh, for Pete's sake. All the more reason for me to seek out this movie!

I am assuming in the last line it is is typo and should be NHL, not NFL.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 02, 2007, 09:49:02 am
Oh, for Pete's sake. All the more reason for me to seek out this movie!

I am assuming in the last line it is is typo and should be NHL, not NFL.



I corrected it.  Strangely enough I made the same typo when I wrote my original post, but then, I was always a bit like Scot myself NHL, NFL , it's all the same to me :laugh:
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on December 02, 2007, 07:26:18 pm
I corrected it.  Strangely enough I made the same typo when I wrote my original post, but then, I was always a bit like Scot myself NHL, NFL , it's all the same to me :laugh:

Yes, but you are a Canadian, no? Ordinarily I would agree with you, but as a Canadian, you are required to have hockey on the brain, at least during the winter months!!

So, where's the movie about the gay hockey players??
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 02, 2007, 08:09:16 pm
Yes, but you are a Canadian, no? Ordinarily I would agree with you, but as a Canadian, you are required to have hockey on the brain, at least during the winter months!!

So, where's the movie about the gay hockey players??


The movie with the gay hockey player is Breakfast with Scot mentioned above.
I know that not knowing or caring about ice hockey makes me a bad Canadian  :(  I can't help it.  It was probably a rebellion thing, often kids reject tghe things that are so important to their parents.  My father loved both Hockey and CFL football.  To this day the sound of a game on TV, of either sport,  brings back feelings of inadequacy and of being my father's big disappointment.  Eww!

Anyway, maybe if the uniform was a bit more revealing and hockey players had been more like Jiri of the Leafs (shown with impressive tongue, below, partying with a friend), I would have had more of an interest in the game:
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/jiritlusty.jpg)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on December 03, 2007, 02:41:24 pm
The film I had been looking forward to the most this holiday season is THERE WILL BE BLOOD.    It's loosely based on Upton Sinclair's book titled OIL.  I saw the trailer for the first time Saturday and it looked very intense.  Daniel Day Lewis performance from what I've read, may just overwhelm the movie.  He plays a ruthless oil tycoon. Some are comparing it with CITIZEN KANE. 

I really like Daniel Day Lewis.  The director is Paul Anderson who did MAGNOLIA and BOOGIE NIGHTS.  I think he's quite talented.  I do hope the film lives up to expectations. So many disappointments last holiday season.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 03, 2007, 04:03:46 pm
The film I had been looking forward to the most this holiday season is THERE WILL BE BLOOD.    It's loosely based on Upton Sinclair's book titled OIL.  I saw the trailer for the first time Saturday and it looked very intense.  Daniel Day Lewis performance from what I've read, may just overwhelm the movie.  He plays a ruthless oil tycoon. Some are comparing it with CITIZEN KANE. 

I really like Daniel Day Lewis.  The director is Paul Anderson who did MAGNOLIA and BOOGIE NIGHTS.  I think he's quite talented.  I do hope the film lives up to expectations. So many disappointments last holiday season.


That looks so amazing!  Just from the trailer I'm tempted to put my money on DDL for winning Best Actor!
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/therewillbebloodteaserposter.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on December 04, 2007, 09:17:52 pm
Please don't hate me, but I'm not the biggest DDL fan in the world.  The only thing he's ever done in which I couldn't see him acting was "In the Name of the Father."  I'll admit I've never seen "My Left Foot."  However, he looked *very* impressive in this trailer.

I'd love to see that Tom Cavanaugh movie.  I *loved* him in "Ed."  He did a guest stint on "Scrubs" recently, though, in which he looked worse for the wear.  I fear he's got some serious addiction problems.  Too bad, but I honestly don't know how as many of these folks avoid it as they do, sadly.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 04, 2007, 09:51:51 pm
Please don't hate me, but I'm not the biggest DDL fan in the world.  The only thing he's ever done in which I couldn't see him acting was "In the Name of the Father."  I'll admit I've never seen "My Left Foot."  However, he looked *very* impressive in this trailer.


DDL has had a special place in my heart ever since My Beautiful Laundrette . His kiss with his male co-star is still one of the best in the history of cinema!  ;D

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/My_Beautiful_Laundrette-4.jpg)(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/My_Beautiful_Laundrette-3.jpg)(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/My_Beautiful_Laundrette-2.jpg)(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/My_Beautiful_Laundrette-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on December 04, 2007, 11:55:26 pm
DDL has always left me a little cold, too. But I loved him in Gangs of New York.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on December 05, 2007, 12:01:49 am
What about his turn as Hawkeye in The Last of the Mohicans? I had a very stressful day today and at one point I imagined him intoning "Stay alive, no matter what occurs!"

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on December 05, 2007, 12:24:39 am
What about his turn as Hawkeye in The Last of the Mohicans? I had a very stressful day today and at one point I imagined him intoning "Stay alive, no matter what occurs!"

Oh yeah, that was his hunkiest role!  Loved it.  :P

I also loved him in A Room with a View as the prissy, self-adoring Cecil.  He was a hoot!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on December 05, 2007, 12:36:34 am
Oh yeah, that was his hunkiest role!  Loved it.  :P


abs-solutely!! And in Room With A View, he was just so precious, holding his shoes!!

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on December 05, 2007, 01:07:36 pm
After doing LAST OF THE MOHICANS (1992),  he played NEWLAND ARCHER in THE AGE OF INNOCENCE (1993).  Talk about a role switch.  I thought he and Michelle Pfeiffer were great in that film. Come to find out, he almost turned the role down as he thought it was too "English." This was reported recently and it caused a fire-storm on the other side of the Atlantic.   

From viewing the trailer THERE WILL BE BLOOD, I wouldn't have recognized Mr. Lewis if I didn't know that was him.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: southendmd on December 05, 2007, 01:55:45 pm
Ahh, DDL in My Beautiful Laundrette .  Dreamy...

***

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/breakfast.jpg)

Is it me, or do these pancakes have a, um, funny shape?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 05, 2007, 02:45:12 pm
Ahh, DDL in My Beautiful Laundrette .  Dreamy...

***

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/breakfast.jpg)

Is it me, or do these pancakes have a, um, funny shape?

It's not you  :D  It's one of the visual jokes in the film, Scot made the pancakes and they're supposed to be in the shape of the letter "T" for the single "T" in Scot, but of course they look like something else.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 05, 2007, 06:05:49 pm
As the awards season gets underway, the first news....



"No Country" wins first film award of Oscar season
Wed Dec 5, 2007 4:18 PM EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Grim crime thriller "No Country for Old Men," from brothers Joel and Ethan Coen, was named best film of 2007 by the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures on Wednesday in the first major award of the Oscar season.

George Clooney won the best actor award for "Michael Clayton" and Julie Christie won the best actress award for "Away From Her."

Tim Burton took the best director award for "Sweeney Todd," featuring his wife Helena Bonham Carter and "Pirates of the Caribbean" star Johnny Depp.

Amy Ryan won the best supporting actress award for Ben Affleck's "Gone Baby Gone," which secured the best directorial debut award for Affleck. His brother Casey Affleck won the best supporting actor award for "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford."

Julian Schnabel's "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" won the best foreign film award. "Body of War" won best documentary and "Ratatouille" was named best animated feature.

Emile Hirsch won an award for breakthrough performance by an actor for Sean Penn's "Into the Wild," and Ellen Page took the breakthrough performance by an actress award for "Juno."

"Juno" and "Lars and the Real Girl" tied for best original screenplay, and "No Country for Old Men" won awards for best adapted screenplay and best ensemble cast.

The board also presented a career achievement award to Michael Douglas, an Oscar winner for best actor for "Wall Street" in 1988. He and Saul Zaentz shared a best picture Oscar for producing "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" in 1976.

The awards can be an indicator of what to expect for the Academy Awards, the top honors of the film business, which will be presented in February.

(Reporting by Robert MacMillan, editing by Arthur Spiegelman and Eric Walsh)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 05, 2007, 06:11:18 pm
From Awards Daily (www.awardsdaily.com) the prize winners with all the nominees



No Country for Old Men Wins NBR!
By Sasha Stone
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN NAMED 2007 BEST FILM OF THE YEAR BY THE  NATIONAL BOARD OF REVIEW
***
George Clooney and Julie Christie Named Best Actor and Best Actress
 
Michael Douglas is honored with the Career Achievement Award
 
THE GREAT DEBATERS and PERSEPOLIS win the
The BVLGARI Award for NBR Freedom of Expression
 
***
 
New York, NY – December 5th, 2007 – The National Board of Review of Motion Pictures named NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN the 2007 Best Film of the Year.  Directed by Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, released by Miramax and Paramount Vantage on November 21st, the film is based on Cormac McCarthy’s novel. It simultaneously strips down the American crime drama and broadens its concerns to encompass themes as ancient as the Bible, and as bloodily contemporary as this morning’s headlines.
 
For Best Actor and Actress of 2007, the NBR honors two artists whose performances were truly outstanding. The 2007 Best Actor, GEORGE CLOONEY, was selected for his performance in the title role of Michael Clayton.  For the 2007 Best Actress honor, the NBR has selected JULIE CHRISTIE for her performance in Away From Her.
 
Below is a full list of the awards given by the National Board of Review:
 
Best Film: NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Best Director: TIM BURTON, Sweeney Todd
Best Actor: GEORGE CLOONEY, Michael Clayton
Best Actress: JULIE CHRISTIE, Away From Her
Best Supporting Actor: CASEY AFFLECK, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Best Supporting Actress: AMY RYAN, Gone Baby Gone
Best Foreign Film: THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY
Best Documentary: BODY OF WAR
Best Animated Feature: RATATOUILLE
Best Ensemble Cast: NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Breakthrough Performance by an Actor: EMILE HIRSCH, Into The Wild
Breakthrough Performance by an Actress: ELLEN PAGE, Juno
Best Directorial Debut: BEN AFFLECK, Gone Baby Gone
Best Original Screenplay (tie):
DIABLO CODY, Juno and NANCY OLIVER, Lars and the Real Girl
Best Adapted Screenplay: JOEL COEN and ETHAN COEN, No Country For Old Men
 
Top Ten Films:
(In alphabetical order)
THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD
ATONEMENT
THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM
THE BUCKET LIST
INTO THE WILD
JUNO
THE KITE RUNNER
LARS AND THE REAL GIRL
MICHAEL CLAYTON
SWEENEY TODD
 
Top Five Foreign Films:
(In alphabetical order)
4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS, 2 DAYS
THE BAND’S VISIT
THE COUNTERFEITERS
LA VIE EN ROSE
LUST, CAUTION
 
 
Top Five Documentary Films
(In alphabetical order)
DARFUR NOW
IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON
NANKING
TAXI TO THE DARKSIDE
TOOTS
 
Top Independent Films
(In alphabetical order)
AWAY FROM HER
GREAT WORLD OF SOUND
HONEYDRIPPER
IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH
A MIGHT HEART
THE NAMESAKE
ONCE
THE SAVAGES
STARTING OUT IN THE EVENING
WAITRESS
 
Career Achievement – MICHAEL DOUGLAS
William K. Everson Film History Award – ROBERT OSBORNE
Career Achievement in Cinematography – ROGER DEAKINS
The BVLGARI Award for NBR Freedom of Expression – THE GREAT DEBATERS and PERSEPOLIS
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: SFEnnisSF on December 06, 2007, 01:50:23 pm
If NCFOM wins for Best Picture at the Oscars this year, it just further shows what a joke and a charade they are.  Need I remind you that Miramax, the company behind Crash, is responsible for NCFOM!  You bet they're gonna play dirty again.  And what did the BP win for Crash do for it?  Abolutely nothing!  :laugh: 


On a lighter note, I saw BLADE RUNNER: THE FINAL CUT last Friday night at the Spectacular GRAND LAKE THEATRE (http://www.rrfilms.com/) here in Oakland, CA.  The theatre has almost ~600 seats and was near SOLD OUT!  :o  I had never seen BLADE RUNNER before and it was pretty good.  The crowd ate it up.  With the sell out conditions for it at all theatres playing it here in the Bay Area (I checked), it seems to me there's $$ to be made in touching up these older (but not too old) classics and re-releasing them on the big screen. 

Here are some pictures of the inside of the auditorium of the GRAND LAKE THEATRE:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/424193874/
and
http://www.renaissancerialto.com/images/grandmain.jpg

Yes, they do play the Wurlitzer Organ before the movie.  This theatre is also famous for the ANTI-BUSH political messages on the marquee  :D, as seen here (Barb you'll love this!):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaseo/403101378/

And another photo at night:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1914388037&size=l


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on December 06, 2007, 02:38:19 pm
Those are great pictures, Eric, thanks!  I'd love to see that new cut of Blade Runner.  I really loved that film when I saw it years ago.  8)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 08, 2007, 11:25:39 pm
I miss River Pheonix!  I finally watched The Thing Called Love and he is so adorable in it.  It's not a bad little film.  Dermott Mulroney is at his sexiest and Sandra Bullock is a delight as Linda Lou Linden.  Not crazy about Samantha Mathis though.

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/thing_called_love.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on December 09, 2007, 12:18:48 am
I'm surprised THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY didn't make it as one of the five best foreign films. I saw it at a film fest in October at a friend's insistence.  I quite enjoyed it, never had heard of the book before or the guy's story. Really amazing.  The movie is getting alot of publicity now as it's in general release.  I'm glad Johnny Depp wasn't cast in the lead role as initially reported.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on December 09, 2007, 12:21:09 am
I heard of the guy's story when it became a book. What an amazing accomplishment! Not just to do a book at all, but to do a really good one. It didn't seem filmable, but I'm looking forward to seeing it if it comes my way.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 09, 2007, 04:13:24 pm
Well, just getting back from Atonement.  I haven't read the book but I quite enjoyed the film.  Talk about your tragic love story!  I always said that children should never be believed  ;)  It's a beautiful film but I wasn't completely sucked into the story. I mean I wasn't moved to tears or anything like that.  James McAvoy and Keira Knightley are wonderful in it but I actually have to think about whether it will displace I'm Not There or Fracture from my top ten.

EDIT:  After sleeping on it, I've decided that Atonement won't make my top 10 list.  Although I loved everything about the first half, IMO the story faultered too badly in the second.  I also felt that the final revelation was anti-climactic and a bit of a relief and I don't think that was the intent.

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/Atonement.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 09, 2007, 05:42:35 pm
I'm surprised THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY didn't make it as one of the five best foreign films. I saw it at a film fest in October at a friend's insistence.  I quite enjoyed it, never had heard of the book before or the guy's story. Really amazing.  The movie is getting alot of publicity now as it's in general release.  I'm glad Johnny Depp wasn't cast in the lead role as initially reported.

Yes, I read about it in last week's Wall Street Journal and the story and movie both sound amazing. Not sure I want to see it though.

"Grace is Gone" with John Cusack got a fabulous review at Pajiba. I think John Cusack is terrific, anyway, and they say he is great in this. It is only open in New York and Los Angeles at the moment. And it sounds like you should go to the theater prepared with a big box of tissues.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 09, 2007, 08:21:59 pm
Just came from seeing "The Golden Compass" aka anti-Narnia.

Very good all the way around.  It's a fantasy movie, so I don't worry about the lapses of commonsensicalness.

Tells an interesting story and one worth telling.  Alas, not enough Daniel Craig.

Recommend.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on December 09, 2007, 09:57:45 pm
AND, Del, ... Since Christian groups are saying Christians should boycott it, I AM SO SEEING IT.  Gleefully.  (I would have anyway for Daniel Craig and the talking polar bear, but this clinches it.)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on December 09, 2007, 11:10:13 pm
I saw I'm Not There this evening.

Overall, I thought it was a very interesting film.  I expected it to play out as "chapters" with each of the different actors having the central role in each subsequent chapter.  But it wasn't like that at all really, they were all mixed in together.  I guess I spent the first half of the moving just trying to figure things out, but by the second half I could buy that I was watching different aspects of one man's life.  I could even empathize a little.  I wasn't quite prepared for the length of the movie (about 2 1/2 hours).  I was most mesmerized by Charlotte Gainsbourg's (spelling?) performance.  I also found the scenes with Ben Whishaw quite compelling.  I thought Cate Blanchett was quite good (especially her last scene with Bruce Greenwood), but some of her scenes were quite jarring in terms of the loudness of the music, and I also didn't care for the movie video-esque nature of some of her scenes.  It was nice to see Heath smiling in Robbie's early scenes, but by the end I was very sad for Robbie... 

It was definitely worth the six bucks I paid.  In fact I would have paid six bucks just to sit in the theater and listen to the musical tracks, I think.  (So, if you don't like Bob Dylan's music, I doubt you'll like the movie, lol...) 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 09, 2007, 11:36:38 pm
I saw I'm Not There this evening.

Overall, I thought it was a very interesting film.  I expected it to play out as "chapters" with each of the different actors having the central role in each subsequent chapter.  But it wasn't like that at all really, they were all mixed in together.  I guess I spent the first half of the moving just trying to figure things out, but by the second half I could buy that I was watching different aspects of one man's life.  I could even empathize a little.  I wasn't quite prepared for the length of the movie (about 2 1/2 hours).  I was most mesmerized by Charlotte Gainsbourg's (spelling?) performance.  I also found the scenes with Ben Whishaw quite compelling.  I thought Cate Blanchett was quite good (especially her last scene with Bruce Greenwood), but some of her scenes were quite jarring in terms of the loudness of the music, and I also didn't care for the movie video-esque nature of some of her scenes.  It was nice to see Heath smiling in Robbie's early scenes, but by the end I was very sad for Robbie... 

It was definitely worth the six bucks I paid.  In fact I would have paid six bucks just to sit in the theater and listen to the musical tracks, I think.  (So, if you don't like Bob Dylan's music, I doubt you'll like the movie, lol...) 

Six bucks!! That only gets me half a seat where I live and I'm talking at a matinee!   :laugh:

I loved Charlotte Gainsbourg.  I fell in love with her in The Science of Sleep and she's fast becoming my favourite actor.  I thought she was great with Heath, they had wonderful chemistry.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on December 10, 2007, 12:08:12 am
Oilgun -

I guess if I lived where you live, I'd only get to see half as many movies per year!  I can still remember when matinees were 3 bucks!

Oh - I forgot to mention that I saw a preview for No Country for Old Men.  Yikes, does not look appealing to me at all!  I MIGHT rent it on DVD to see Tommy Lee Jones.... unless someone round here convinces me otherwise.... it looked like too violent of a movie for me...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 10, 2007, 12:38:41 am
Belair:  Best you avoid No Country for Old Men because it IS quite violent.

I just watched a great documentary called Helvetica. It was a blind buy for me but I figured it was a safe bet since I've been a committed modernist since the seventies and I love the typeface.   It's chock full of interviews with famous graphic designers, some who love Helvetica and some who hate it.  One jokingly blames the Iraq war on the typeface, another equates it with a disease or fast food.  Others see it as THE perfect typeface that cannot be improved on.  I recommend it to anyone who has an interest in design.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0847817/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0847817/)

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/helvetica-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 10, 2007, 01:01:01 am
AND, Del, ... Since Christian groups are saying Christians should boycott it, I AM SO SEEING IT.  Gleefully.  (I would have anyway for Daniel Craig and the talking polar bear, but this clinches it.)

 :laugh: :laugh:

Yep, anytime the Church says don't see/read/hear something, it's almost always worth seeing/reading/hearing.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on December 10, 2007, 01:18:28 am
I just watched a great documentary called Helvetica. It was a blind buy for me but I figured it was a safe bet since I've been a committed modernist since the seventies and I love the typeface.   It's chock full of interviews with famous graphic designers, some who love Helvetica and some who hate it.

Oilgun, once again your movie recommendations have proved very useful. I've read about this film and thought it sounded interesting, but I don't know that I would have gone so far as to rent it. I will now!  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 10, 2007, 09:35:17 am
Some more awards news, this time from Los Angeles:

Paul Thomas Anderson's "There Will Be Blood," an epic tale of the oil business in early 20th-century California, won four awards from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association in their year-end voting Sunday including best picture, director and actor honors.

Anderson was selected as best director while Daniel-Day Lewis' performance as a rapacious oil man in "There Will Be Blood" won as best actor. The group also gave its production design honor to "Blood's" Jack Fisk, whose early California design won over Dante Ferretti's re-creation of late 19th century London for "Sweeney Todd."

The other multiple-award winner was Christian Mungiu's Romanian film "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days" -- the Palme d'or winner at Cannes this year -- which won both best foreign language film honors and best supporting actor in Vlad Ivanov, who played the abortionist in the film.

The film that finished runner-up in the best picture and director categories was Julian Schnabel's French-language "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly."

Best actress went to French actress Marion Cotillard, who delivered a knock-out performance as Edith Piaf in the biopic "La Vie en Rose." Runner-up was Anamaria Marinca, who played a young woman helping a friend get an abortion in "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days."

The runner-up to Lewis as best actor was Frank Langella, who played an aging novelist in "Starting out in the Evening."

Tamara Jenkins won the best screenplay citation for "The Savages," her comic drama about two quarreling siblings trying to settle their mentally failing father, beating out "There Will Be Blood," Anderson's adaptation of Upton Sinclair's novel.

The best supporting actress nod went to Amy Ryan, recognized for her work in two films, "Gone Baby Gone" and "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead." She won over Cate Blanchett, who played Bob Dylan in "I'm Not There."

Hal Holbrook, who played a retired army officer in "Into the Wild," finished second to "4 Month's" Ivanov.

The New Generation Award, which usually goes to a cinema newcomer, went to Sarah Polley, a long time Canadian actress but first time director with "Away From Her."

In animation, Brad Bird's "Ratatouille," made at Pixar, tied "Persepolis," made in France and directed by Marjane Satrapi (which Vincent Paronnaud co-directed).

In the documentary category, the critics honored Charles Ferguson's Iraqi doc, "No End in Sight." Michael Moore's indictment of health care in the U.S., "Sicko," came in second.

For cinematography, the group voted for Janusz Kaminski's work in "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly." Robert Elswit's cinematography on "There Will Be Blood" was runner-up.

For best musical score, the critics selected the score -- mostly songs written by Glen Hansard and Markita Irglova -- for the Irish musical "Once." Jonny Greenwood's score for "There Will Be Blood" was runner-up.

The Douglas E. Edwards Independent/Experimental Award went to Portuguese filmmaker Pedro Costa for his film "Colossal Youth," which played at the Redcat in Los Angeles.

The group bestowed its newly created Film Legacy Award to Milestone Films, for its efforts to release such vintage films as "Killer of Sheep" and "I am Cuba," and Outfest Legacy Project, for its restoration efforts on many gay and lesbian films.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i58cca3606862e973c28dbcc6e4b543af
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on December 10, 2007, 03:53:11 pm

I too saw The Golden Compass this past weekend.
Lovely fantasy movie, loved it, recommend it.
I will definitely check out the sequels whenever they come out.



Last night, I watched Mulholland Drive for the first time.  I had a headache by the end of the movie but must say that David Lynch's warped mind is genius.  Naomi Watts gave a phenomenal performance in it, IMO.   I have to watch it again to get a clearer understanding of Lynch's tangled web of clues and dream world vs. reality.  Great, even though, disturbing film.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 11, 2007, 09:35:48 am
From Time Magazine:

Monday, Dec. 10, 2007
Do Film Critics Know Anything?
By Richard Corliss

I sprinted down the corridors of TIME this afternoon, eager to spread the news of the New York Film Critics Circle voting for the year's best films. The winner, in the film, director, screenplay and supporting actor categories? The Coen brothers' No Country for Old Men, which three different people told me they'd been meaning to see. The runner-up, with wins for best actor and cinematographer? There Will Be Blood, an audience-punishing epic that doesn't open for another two weeks. Best actress? Julie Christie, in Away from her, which earned less than $5 million in its North American release.

I didn't even tell them that the very popular, and very good, Pixar cartoon Ratatouille lost out to a French movie about the troubles in Iran. (Though Persepolis, take my word for it, is funny.) By the time I'd got back to my office I had realized that we critics may give these awards to the winners, but we give them for ourselves. In fact, we're essentially passing notes to one another, admiring our connoisseurship at the risk of ignoring the vast audience that sees movies and the smaller one that reads us.

In the past five days, five groups — the National Board of Review, the Boston Society of Film Critics, the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the Washington. D.C. Film Critics Association and my crowd, the New Yorkers — have convened to choose the most notable movies and moviemakers. No Country was named best picture in four of the groups, There Will Be Blood in L.A. George Clooney won two best actors awards, playing a lawyer at crisis point Michael Clayton, Daniel Day-Lewis a pair for his oil mogul in There Will Be Blood and, in Boston, Frank Langella the prize for playing an aged novelist in Starting Out in the Evening. Three groups selected Julie Christie as best actress — she's an Alzheimer's patient in the Canadian film Away From Her — and two liked Marion Cotillard as Edith Piaf in La vie en rose.

You will be forgiven if, like my friends at Time, you are scratching your head and feigning interest, hoping I'll get quickly to the sexy stuff, like best non-fiction feature (the Iraq docs No End in Sight and Body of War and Michael Moore's Sicko) and distinguished achievement in production design (Jack Fisk, There Will Be Blood, L.A.) . Gee, you're wondering, did The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, the French story of a man totally immobilized by a stroke, beat out the German spy drama The Lives of Others? (Three out of five critics groups say yes.) If you're getting restless, movie lovers, too bad. You'll be hearing the same obscure names at the Golden Globes and on Oscar night.

In animation, Ratatouille won the award outright in Washington and from the National Board of Review. Boston gave the Pixar film a screenplay award, which rarely goes to a cartoon. But in L.A. it shared the L.A. prize with Persepolis, the biographic cartoon from the Iranian exile Marjane Satrapi. And the New York critics rebuffed Ratatouille — and The Simpsons Movie and Bee Movie and Beowulfand other ani-movies people have actually seen — with a first-ballot vote for Persepolis. An art-house film beat out movies that have already grossed nearly $1.5 billion dollars (or about 47 euros) worldwide.

That's the deal with critics' awards. They give prizes to whom they damn well please. No problem with that; it's their gig, and obviously they should pick their favorites. (The choices are fine with me: No Country, Persepolis and No End in sight are all on my 10 best.) But these laurels factor into publicity campaigns for the Oscars and Golden Globes; often they are the campaigns. It's the way we critics contribute to the art-industrial complex. Our prizes certainly help determine which films get nominated, setting in motion the next round of ballyhoo before the final prizes are handed out. So almost all the nominees will be from worthy obscurities that can't draw much of an audience in the theater or, when the awards shows are aired, on TV.

You might think the highest-rated Oscar telecasts are in years when there's a close contest in the major categories, as with Crash and Brokeback Mountain two years ago. Nuh-uh. It's the runaway years, when billion-dollar blockbusters like Titanic and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King get what are essentially People's Choice awards, and its makers wear a path in the rug from their seats to the stage. Moviegoers who are TV viewers don't want horse races; they want coronations — validations that somebody in Hollywood is ready to honor the movies they love.

That won't happen this year. If the Oscars follow the critics' prizes, there won't be a hit film among them — not even the hits that reviewers loved. Disney's megahit comedy Enchanted has the highest rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the critics' polling site, but I barely heard the film mentioned at the New York voting today. Dozens of scribes raved about the smash comedies Knocked Up and Superbad, but neither film has won a critics' prize. The comedy they love now is Juno, which came out last week.

Actually, it's hard to tell which if any of the critical faves will be popular, because most of the big winners (Diving Bell, No Country, Persepolis, Starting Out in the Evening, Sweeney Todd, There Will Be Blood) are November or December releases. Half of them haven't hit the commercial theaters yet. Maybe the critical establishment has A.D.D.

But the Golden Globes and the Oscars, if they follow the critics' lead, will have V.D.D. — viewer deficit disorder. Large numbers of people won't watch shows paying tribute to movies they haven't seen. In the old Golden Age days, most contenders for the top Oscars were popular movies that had a little art. Now they're art films that have a little, very little, popularity. The serious movies Hollywood gives awards to in January and February are precisely the kind it avoids making for most of the year. The Oscars are largely an affirmative action program, where the industry scratches its niche. The show is a conscience soother, but not a crowd pleaser.

And it all starts here, with critics fighting over which hardly seen movie they want to call the best of the year.

Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1693300,00.html
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 11, 2007, 10:24:55 am

 Gee, you're wondering, did The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, the French story of a man totally immobilized by a stroke, beat out the German spy drama The Lives of Others? (Three out of five critics groups say yes.)


That's strange, The Lives of Others is from last year, isn't it?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 11, 2007, 11:08:26 am
That's strange, The Lives of Others is from last year, isn't it?

According to IMDb, it is a 2006 film, yes. Maybe it has to do with when it went into limited release in the US (2007)? I really don't know, I am just speculating.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 11, 2007, 11:45:00 am
According to IMDb, it is a 2006 film, yes. Maybe it has to do with when it went into limited release in the US (2007)? I really don't know, I am just speculating.

L

I know it was in the running for the foreign language film Oscar and it may even have won.

EDIT:  Yep, it did win:  http://www.oscar.com/oscarnight/winners/?pn=detail&nominee=TheLivesOfOthersForeignLanguageNominee (http://www.oscar.com/oscarnight/winners/?pn=detail&nominee=TheLivesOfOthersForeignLanguageNominee)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 11, 2007, 10:08:49 pm
I just finished watching The Bourne Ultimatum.  I stupidly missed it at the cinema.  All I can say is Wow! 
I wish Jason Bourne was my boyfriend! :-* 

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/bourne-ultimatum-big2.jpg)




Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on December 12, 2007, 01:13:38 am
I just finished watching The Bourne Ultimatum.  I stupidly missed it at the cinema.  All I can say is Wow! 
I wish Jason Bourne was my boyfriend! :-*

I know what you mean, oilgun.  I think all three of those Bourne movies are great entertainment, and Matt Damon does a spot-on job as a no-nonsense, dangerous agent.  8)

I saw "Starting Out in the Evening" this afternoon and thought it was quite good.  It's a quiet movie, but the characters draw you in.  You watch them go through some life-changing stuff, but it all happens without big blow-ups or contrived plot devices.  Frank Langella is terrific as an aging author who's lost his writing chops.  Lauren Ambrose is a grad student who idolizes him and has a dream of bringing his works back into popularity.  Lili Taylor is his daughter, who is going through her own midlife crisis.  It was absorbing to watch them coming to terms with some hard truths about themselves, and coming out on the other side the better for it.  I liked also that it was filmed in New York, which made it feel very familiar and real.  I recommend it.

I also saw "The Golden Compass" last week and enjoyed it.  The best thing about it is the stunning art direction.  Everything looks beautiful, and they did a marvelous job creating the daemons and the polar bears.  Humans in this universe wear part of their spirit on the outside, in the form of an animal who is actually a part of them.  While they're children, the animal can morph into various forms, but when they reach puberty, the daemon "settles" into one particular animal.  The story, based on the first book of a trilogy by Philip Pullman, is rather complex, so I'm interested in knowing if those who haven't read the books will be able to follow what's going on.  I thought the performances were good, but the director was so busy getting the characters to explain the plot that there was little chance to become emotionally involved with them.  The exception to this was the polar bear Iorek, voiced by Ian McKellen.

I hope it picks up at the box office, because I'd like to see them make at least one sequel to finish the story.  However, the other two books are much darker, and IMO potentially confusing and alienating to an audience.  I mean, they actually end up making war on Heaven (Pullman models much of it on "Paradise Lost").  It's much less approachable than "Lord of the Rings," and Chris Weitz, if he directs the sequel(s), needs to make us care about the characters much more than he has in this first movie.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 12, 2007, 02:25:04 am
While I'm still in my Bourne-again mode, I think it's time for a gay action hero!  The closest we have is Private Eye Donald Strachey, played by Chad Allen, in the movies Third Man Out, Shock to the System and the upcoming Icy Blues.  Chad does a great job but the series is more like a gay version of the Nick & Nora Charles films. 

I want an edgy action hero!  I even know who to cast:  Robert Gant!

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/RobertGant.jpg)
"Who, me?"  Yes, Robert, you would be perfect!

And what a coincidence, here he is with Chad Allen:
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/ChadAllenRobertGant.jpg)

Doesn't Chad look like Quentin Tarantino's cuter little brother  :laugh:
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on December 12, 2007, 02:48:38 pm
I just finished watching The Bourne Ultimatum.  I stupidly missed it at the cinema.  All I can say is Wow! 
I wish Jason Bourne was my boyfriend! :-*

I know! I've always liked Matt Damon but never considered him anywhere near the Sexiest Man Alive. But now that I know he can jump from building to building like that ... !  :-*

Also oilgun, you're right, there SHOULD be a gay action hero. Now that we have gay cowboys, that seems like the natural next step!




Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 13, 2007, 12:21:10 am
I just watched Luchino Visconti's Ossessione(1943), which is the first adaptation of the novel The Postman Always Rings Twice. It was excellent and just dripped with sensuality! Lead actor Massimo Girotti, as Gino the handsome stranger, has unbelievable charisma.  Visconti teases us at the beginning by not showing us Gino's face, not until Giovanna (Clara Calamai), the cafe owner's sexually charged wife, sets eyes on him. The look they share is simply incendiary and we, like her, become instantly obsessed! Yikes, it's getting hot in here, I have to go take a cold shower now!

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/Ossessione.jpg) (http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/ossessione-3.jpg)
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/ossessione-gino.jpg)

From: http://cinemahighandlow.blogspot.com/2007/07/ossessione-1943.html
"Ossessione", Luchino Visconti's first film is the also the first filmed adaptation of James M. Cain's potboiler "The Postman Always Rings Twice". It is slightly different than the 1946 John Garfield/Lana Turner version or the 1981 Bob Rafaelson/Nicholson/Lange version, but the basic plot stays the same, except moved to Italy. To me it's amazing that this film survives, since it came out during strict Fascistic rule and also Cain's novel was still under copyright at the time, so it was never shown in this country until the 1960's.
[...]
Unlike the 1946 version, this version deals much more freely with sex, between the strapping leading man and his adulterous paramour. Since this was made in 1943 during the height of the war, this sexuality was contained in mainly glances, body language, and very candid sensuality.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on December 13, 2007, 12:30:22 am
I just finished watching The Bourne Ultimatum.  I stupidly missed it at the cinema.  All I can say is Wow! 
I wish Jason Bourne was my boyfriend! :-* 

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/bourne-ultimatum-big2.jpg



hah hah - me too!  once, I think I watched the first Bourne movie for three days in a row straight!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 15, 2007, 09:54:25 am
Interesting article I came across....



Globes put Focus on "Atonement" producer
Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:28am EST

By Gregg Goldstein and Steven Zeitchik

NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - Two years after "Brokeback Mountain" powered Focus Features to the top of the heap for the Golden Globe nominees, the specialty studio is back in familiar territory.

Focus and Paramount Vantage scored 11 nominations each Thursday. But Focus also could boast the dominant film, "Atonement," with its seven nominations. In addition, it fielded "Eastern Promises" (three) and "Lust, Caution" (one). And that's not counting Focus' stake in Paramount Vantage's "Into the Wild," for which the company is handling non-English international rights.

But then, who's counting?

"I'm back from Taipei and I'm on such a high," said Focus Features CEO James Schamus, who co-wrote and executive produced Ang Lee's "Lust," which just won seven Golden Horse awards in the director's homeland.

Focus came out of the awards gate slowly this year, gaining little traction with such hopefuls as "Evening," "Reservation Road" and "Talk to Me." But a careful rollout strategy for "Atonement" and a late surge for the dark-horse thriller "Eastern Promises" as well as "Lust" have put it in a pole position. "Today is a massive sweep," Schamus said.

The nominations also restore the company to its awards luster of two years ago, when it scored 12 Golden Globe nominations, including seven for "Brokeback Mountain" and two for "Pride & Prejudice," from "Atonement" director Joe Wright.

"It's a mistake to believe any one company can produce an awards-worthy lineup," Schamus said. "It's the company you keep -- great directors and great producers."

But the company also knows that a long race lies ahead of the January 13 Globes and the February 24 Oscars: Two years ago "Brokeback" was an early favorite for the best picture Oscar -- it won best drama at the Globes -- but it lost the big one to "Crash" at the Oscars.

"Atonement," which opened in limited release December 7, is now positioned to ride a Globes rush at the box office. "Lust," possibly hampered by its NC-17 rating, has grossed just $4.3 million domestically to date, but Schamus noted the rating won't pose any problem for its January DVD release. And "Promises" producer Paul Webster said that despite that film's $17 million gross since it bowed November 4, the recognition will give the film "a new lease on life."

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 19, 2007, 11:55:32 pm
I just watched Superbad and thought it was absolutely hilarious!  Actually it was a bootleg and it konked out on me 3/4 of the way through!  I liked it enough to buy  myselfa copy tomorrow!  Is Fogell the new Stifler?

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/Superbad.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on December 21, 2007, 09:30:02 pm
I just came back from seeing CHARLEY WILSON'S WAR. Very timely.  And of the course, the msg about being careful with what you sow.  Evidently, since it was covert war, (America's involvement with getting the USSR out of Afghanistan), many Afghans were unaware of what efforts the USA made. Countries seem to do a poor job of planning for victory. It's all about defeating the enemy and then everything is forgotten. 

Towards the film's end, when Charley wants to introduce bills to help rebuild Afghan schools, he's met with rebuffs as "there's Eastern Europe to worry about." OF course, the rest is history. 

A well acted film at the least.  The film does sag a few times.   
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 22, 2007, 12:35:48 pm
I just came back from seeing CHARLEY WILSON'S WAR. Very timely.  And of the course, the msg about being careful with what you sow.  Evidently, since it was covert war, (America's involvement with getting the USSR out of Afghanistan), many Afghans were unaware of what efforts the USA made. Countries seem to do a poor job of planning for victory. It's all about defeating the enemy and then everything is forgotten. 

Towards the film's end, when Charley wants to introduce bills to help rebuild Afghan schools, he's met with rebuffs as "there's Eastern Europe to worry about." OF course, the rest is history. 

A well acted film at the least.  The film does sag a few times.

My friend and I were anxious to see it, until, again, we saw the slant of the film toward the left.  I know Hollywood politics traditionally slant left a great deal and most of the time I have no problem with it since I do as well, but we wondered why can't they just tell the story the way it actually was and let the viewer make up their minds?  Otherwise, all these anti-war morality tales do not reach the people they need to.

All my right-wing friends have already turned up their noses at these movies.  They like to crow about how every single one of these left-wing war movies have failed at the box office.

I haven't seen the movie, but based on kd's review, it's another headshaker.  Yes, you reap what you sow, but if that's so, why isn't the USSR then or Russia now getting the 'great Satan' shit the US is?  THEY invaded after all, not us.  Also we did have eastern Europe to worry about at the time - or thought we did -  and if we were in Afghanistan covertly, we couldn't exactly start openly funding the infrastructure there, now could we?  Sometimes a war is about fighting a common enemy, not helping friends and what becomes of that - well, hindsight is 20/20. 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on December 22, 2007, 01:56:19 pm
Actually a conservative poster had this to say about CHARLEY WILSON's WAR at IMDB.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hollywood Finally Sticking it To Mushy-headed Liberals

Charlie Wilson was an aimless and directionless Congressman into little more than hookers and blow until he was spurred to action by a God-fearing, conservative Texan.

In uncompromising terms, the film lays out the moral failure and weak-willed incompetence of the Carter Administration in recognizing the real threat that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan posed. Here was a Carter Administration that armed Afghan resistence with pop guns.

The film makes a very good point. Once a liberal Congress lined up behind Ronald Reagan, they brought an end to a global ideology that threatened world security.

I thought it was particularly bold in the way that it endorsed the idea that covert action in such instances is very effective. The way it exposes how the Democrats in Congress weren't even willing to fund $1 million in building Afghan schools was a courageous tactic for this film to take, especially given Jack Murtha's role as chairman of that committee.

Given that Murtha has been one of the more vocal critics of the current war, I could see how easy it would be to gloss over that fact, but it made no mistake of excusing teh short-sidedness of Murtha's failings as chairman.

I know that a lot of conservatives are going to have a knee-jerk reaction to this movie and call it un-American. A lot of liberals are going to line up to look at this as a bold attack on republicans.

But, in the end, it shows that Rudy Giuliani has been fighting corruption and criminal wrong-doing since the 1970s. It shows that Carter was a weak leader and that inteh 1980s, we brought the Soviets to their knees. It shows that great things happen when Congress lines up behind these principles and has a strong Republican leader in the White House to back the expenditures and effort, we get great things.

God Bless Tom Hanks. God Bless Julia Roberts.God Bless Charlie Walker. God Bless Ronald Reagan. And God Bless a Hollywood film with the courage to show what can happen when men like Jimmy Carter are sent to the ash heap of history.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472062/board/flat/92830154
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 22, 2007, 02:02:28 pm
*sigh*

Well, let's just say politics is in the mind of the beholder.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 22, 2007, 02:29:20 pm

[...]
All my right-wing friends have already turned up their noses at these movies. 
[...]


My god!  How many have you got?!  I only have ONE and we always end up at each others throat!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 22, 2007, 03:12:44 pm
My god!  How many have you got?!  I only have ONE and we always end up at each others throat!  :laugh:

Several.  They are also either Born Again Christians or give lip-service to Christianity (e.g. they are homophobic, pro-life, pro-church and state, yet they are also fully behind the military, the death sentence, cutting social programs and have no problem sleeping around and judging others).  Yes, we tear each other to shreds over politics and religion, but somehow, we still manage to stay friends.  I've known them for years.  I abhor their politics and religious beliefs and I'm sure they do mine, but they will also give you the shirt off their backs and offer to bring chicken soup to you if you're sick.  They e-mail me right-wing political/religious things and I'm right back at them with counter stories and e-mails.

They sadden me.  :(  They're intelligent, college educated men, yet cannot or will not make logical connections or educate themselves if the conclusions they will reach are beyond their comfort levels.  I gave my favorite Carl Sagan book to one during a long operative convalescent period.  He was honest enough to admit it was interesting and well written but he just stopped reading because he grew 'uncomfortable' with Sagan's atheistic leanings.

He didn't even want to read what the man had to say.  What does that say about this man's ability to look at or listen to others' opinions objectively on any subject before making a decision?   :(
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on December 22, 2007, 03:24:45 pm
You and della are luck oilgun. I happen to actually be married to one.  :'( He won't go to a concert, movie, or play or read a book or watch a TV show that was created by a non-Republican. An...that's how come me end up here!!


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Shasta542 on December 22, 2007, 03:32:52 pm
You and della are luck oilgun. I happen to actually be married to one.  :'( He won't go to a concert, movie, or play or read a book or watch a TV show that was created by a non-Republican. An...that's how come me end up here!!


 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 22, 2007, 03:33:55 pm
You and della are luck oilgun. I happen to actually be married to one.  :'( He won't go to a concert, movie, or play or read a book or watch a TV show that was created by a non-Republican. An...that's how come me end up here!!

Now that's true love!!  ;D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on December 22, 2007, 05:10:45 pm
I have a few conservative friends.  We tend to NOT talk much about politics.  In other words, I'm not friendly with them because of their politics.  Front-Ranger, how??? Well I do know a married couple and they do an awful amount of quarreling over politics.  I guess they like to argue.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 22, 2007, 07:18:50 pm
I just watched "The Fountain" on DVD and enjoyed it very much. Of course, lots of close-ups of Hugh Jackman probably helped! Even so, I enjoyed the story. The music was great, too. Anyone else here see this?

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 22, 2007, 07:21:50 pm
I just watched "The Fountain" on DVD and enjoyed it very much. Of course, lots of close-ups of Hugh Jackman probably helped! Even so, I enjoyed the story. The music was great, too. Anyone else here see this?

L

Yes.  Saw it when it first came out.  It was marketed badly, it was not at all what we were expecting.  We went without the required box of tissue and suffered for it.  Very good, very sad.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 22, 2007, 07:25:54 pm
Yes.  Saw it when it first came out.  It was marketed badly, it was not at all what we were expecting.  We went without the required box of tissue and suffered for it.  Very good, very sad.

Interesting...I am usually a waterworks and cry at anything, but I didn't cry at this. Maybe if I had seen it on the big screen, I would have reacted differently. But I found the whole thing sort of hopeful, as if Tommy and Izzi (or Tomas and Isabel) were going to be together, forever, as she predicted/promised.

Leslie
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 22, 2007, 07:30:22 pm
Interesting...I am usually a waterworks and cry at anything, but I didn't cry at this. Maybe if I had seen it on the big screen, I would have reacted differently. But I found the whole thing sort of hopeful, as if Tommy and Izzi (or Tomas and Isabel) were going to be together, forever, as she predicted/promised.

Leslie



SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!  SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!    SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!














I didn't take it at all like that.  I took it all as allegorical.  It was all in Tommy's head.  None of the future/historical stuff was real.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 22, 2007, 07:47:07 pm
I just watched "The Fountain" on DVD and enjoyed it very much. Of course, lots of close-ups of Hugh Jackman probably helped! Even so, I enjoyed the story. The music was great, too. Anyone else here see this?

L

I LOVED the Fountain!  Hugh was amazing in it, I was really impressed with his performance.  I can't believe he's the same guy who plays Wolverine, talk about range!  I think he's very underrated.  

I was disappointed with the DVD's lack of a director commentary but have since found out that Aronofski recorded one and it's available for downloading on his website if you're interested.  It's in a Torrent format file, whatever that is,  so I haven't figured out how to play it yet. I have to download some sort of software I think, I'm not very tech-savvy unfortunately  :'(
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 22, 2007, 07:52:57 pm

I didn't take it at all like that.  I took it all as allegorical.  It was all in Tommy's head.  None of the future/historical stuff was real.


The historical stuff was her book. The future stuff was how he finished the book, at her request. But in a spiritual sense, it represented lives past, present, and future. They were going to be together, as she predicted.

That's how I see it, at least, just a few hours after watching it. I need more time to think about it.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Shasta542 on December 22, 2007, 07:56:02 pm
Have any of ya'll seen "A River Runs Through It"? I bought it at the $5.00 bin and I'm thinking about watching it tonight. Will I have to think a lot? I don't want to.  :P
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 22, 2007, 07:56:48 pm
I LOVED the Fountain!  Hugh was amazing in it, I was really impressed with his performance.  I can't believe he's the same guy who plays Wolverine, talk about range!  I think he's very underrated. 

I was disappointed with the DVD's lack of a director commentary but have since found out that Aronofski recorded one and it's available for downloading on his website if you're interested.  It's in a Torrent format file, whatever that is,  so I haven't figured out how to play it yet. I have to download some sort of software I think, I'm not very tech-savvy unfortunately  :'(

Ah, thanks for this tidbit, oilgun. I'll see if I can find it.

And I knew we had similar taste in movies, despite the Lars and The Real Girl slip up...LOL. But I might just have seen that on a bad day. (Leslie thinks). No...I don't think my opinion will change, no matter what day I see it. Oh well...

I think Hugh is terrific but then...look at my avatar. LOL. I am very worried about Australia, though. Nicole Kidman has been a flop in her last six movies. I am hoping she doesn't drag this down because it is my kind of movie...big sweeping epic. I love those. Hopefully Baz Luhrmann has been able to tease a decent performance out of her this time around.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: louisev on December 22, 2007, 08:01:07 pm
I watched 'The Fountain' too in 'simulcast' with Leslie!

as a sort of a Christmas treat!

I love love LOVED HUGH.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 22, 2007, 08:06:31 pm
Have any of ya'll seen "A River Runs Through It"? I bought it at the $5.00 bin and I'm thinking about watching it tonight. Will I have to think a lot? I don't want to.  :P

Um, the only thing I recall thinking about when I saw that movie was how young and hot Brad Pitt was...this was in his early days, circa Thelma and Louise.

There was some other story going on, something about fly fishing as I recall...LOL

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 22, 2007, 08:08:36 pm
Ah, thanks for this tidbit, oilgun. I'll see if I can find it.

And I knew we had similar taste in movies, despite the Lars and The Real Girl slip up...LOL. But I might just have seen that on a bad day. (Leslie thinks). No...I don't think my opinion will change, no matter what day I see it. Oh well...

I think Hugh is terrific but then...look at my avatar. LOL. I am very worried about Australia, though. Nicole Kidman has been a flop in her last six movies. I am hoping she doesn't drag this down because it is my kind of movie...big sweeping epic. I love those. Hopefully Baz Luhrmann has been able to tease a decent performance out of her this time around.

L

Re your Avatar.  You wouldn't believe how long it took me to figure out it was Hugh Jackman!  For the longest time I just assumed it was Jake G.!  I don't remember ever seeing Hugh with hair like that, he's gorgeous!

I haven't heard anything about Australia.  As for Nicole, I liked her a lot in Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus.  Of course few people saw it unfortunately.  What happened to Margot at the Wedding?  That looked pretty good but I haven't read any reviews or anything.  ???
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Shasta542 on December 22, 2007, 08:09:35 pm
Um, the only thing I recall thinking about when I saw that movie was how young and hot Brad Pitt was...this was in his early days, circa Thelma and Louise.

There was some other story going on, something about fly fishing as I recall...LOL

L

:laugh:  :laugh: OK -- thanks! So-watching will definitely be worth seeing a young hot Brad Pitt, huh!?

OT -- some of my friends had a Staffordshire terrier (some people call them pit bulls -- this one was friendly, tho.) and his name was Brad Pit.  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 22, 2007, 08:25:58 pm
Ah, thanks for this tidbit, oilgun. I'll see if I can find it.


Here's the link:

http://www.darrenaronofsky.com/fountain_com.html (http://www.darrenaronofsky.com/fountain_com.html)

Let me know if you figure out how to play it!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 22, 2007, 08:54:50 pm
A little commercial break for oilgun, then we'll get back to our regularly scheduled discussion....

(http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h243/lnicoll/hugh_jackman1.jpg)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 22, 2007, 09:01:45 pm
Re your Avatar.  You wouldn't believe how long it took me to figure out it was Hugh Jackman!  For the longest time I just assumed it was Jake G.!  I don't remember ever seeing Hugh with hair like that, he's gorgeous!

Yes, he is, isn't he? Please see the commercial break...
Quote
I haven't heard anything about Australia.  As for Nicole, I liked her a lot in Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus.  Of course few people saw it unfortunately. 

I didn't see it but I did read a few reviews. When I said 6 recent flops, I wasn't counting "Fur" on that list, since no one had seen it. My list: The Golden Compass, Margot at the Wedding, The Invasion, Bewitched, The Interpreter, Birth, and The Stepford Wives.

Oh wait...that's seven....well, a few people liked The Interpreter.

Quote
What happened to Margot at the Wedding?  That looked pretty good but I haven't read any reviews or anything.  ???

Reviews are mixed. Some folks say "more dysfunctional family." Others say, "Good portrayal of more dysfunctional family." However, it sounds like Nicole comes off as a bitch on wheels and doesn't do much to illuminate the role beyond that....I am only speaking from reviews, I haven't seen the movie.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 22, 2007, 09:03:24 pm
:laugh:  :laugh: OK -- thanks! So-watching will definitely be worth seeing a young hot Brad Pitt, huh!?

OT -- some of my friends had a Staffordshire terrier (some people call them pit bulls -- this one was friendly, tho.) and his name was Brad Pit.  :)


Yeah, watch it and give us a review tomorrow...

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 22, 2007, 09:04:09 pm
Bringing over a comment from the movie game, has anyone seen "Gods and Monsters"? Comments...?

Leslie
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 22, 2007, 09:06:59 pm
I watched 'The Fountain' too in 'simulcast' with Leslie!

as a sort of a Christmas treat!

I love love LOVED HUGH.

The "simulcast" thing was fun. We both rented the DVD and started watching at the same time. Because we both liked the movie, we didn't talk much (on chat). It might be fun to pick and old, campy movie with a group of people and all watch together, and chat, sort of like Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K). Anyone?

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on December 22, 2007, 09:30:21 pm
A little commercial break for oilgun, then we'll get back to our regularly scheduled discussion....

(http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h243/lnicoll/hugh_jackman1.jpg)



Now, I have to go and pleasure myself!  ;D 

Heath, I'm kidding!  Don't worry, I'm still your bitch!
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/Heathsquint.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 22, 2007, 10:15:45 pm
Bringing over a comment from the movie game, has anyone seen "Gods and Monsters"? Comments...?

Leslie


Yes.  Very good.  Excellent acting from a great cast.  Very haunting.  I bought the book it was based on as well.  Sticks with you a long time.  And Brendan Fraser was fresh from his "George of the Jungle" and his body was still showing the results of his serious workout regime. Rowr!!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on December 23, 2007, 12:32:43 am
Yes, I saw THE FOUNTAIN when it was first released. I found the narrative somewhat hard to follow.  Couldn't figure out if he found the elixir of life after Izzy had died and lived to the 25th century to be finally reunited with her in that nebula.  Silly me, I thought I was going to see a story whereby a conquistador drinks from the Fountain of Youth and lives for a thousand years.  Not that easy.  Well scored and visually interesting....
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Shasta542 on December 23, 2007, 12:53:27 am
OK. Checking back. I just finished watching "A River Runs Through It" -- (1992). I thought it was great. The cinematography was beautiful -- 1920's Montana was the setting; I guess that's where it was filmed. Wherever it was, was gorgeous. Along with a young Brad Pitt who was fantastic as the happy-go-lucky, rebellious, alcoholic, fly-fishing expert, younger brother. He was so sweet, tho troubled.

OMG -- he was cute as everything!!


(http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x221/Shasta542/SSSC16.jpg)

The theme, I think, was basically about "you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped, no matter how hard you try" and something the father says near the end....."you can love someone completely without understanding them completely".

I'd recommend it. And...I know it's bad to smoke, but there is one scene where the two brothers share a cigarette by the side of the river that is sooooo SEXY.

Oh yeah, Robert Redford's narration was wonderful too.
 ::)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 23, 2007, 09:37:23 am
I am seriously thinking I need to sign up for Netflix again. I have so many older movies I want to see these days, Netflix might be the way to go. Thanks for reminding me about "River," Shasta. That was one of those movies I saw years ago, enjoyed, and I have sort of forgotten about. It might be fun to see it again.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on December 23, 2007, 03:25:12 pm
Regarding "Charlie Wilson's War," I'm sure everyone will see just what they want to see.  And in my case that means not seeing Reagan as some sort of hero and Carter as some sort of incompetent.  ::)  It does sound like a good movie, though.  Maybe I can go with my conservative brother when I'm in Indiana over the holiday and we can have a knock-down drag-out afterwards.  ;D

I saw "Gods and Monsters" and thought it was terrific.  I'm glad to know something more about Whale and his work, and I always enjoy watching Ian McKellen's take on a character.  It was clever and telling how the screenplay drew parallels between Brendan Fraser's character and Frankenstein's monster.

John Gallagher, Jenny newyearsday and I went to see "I'm Not There" yesterday and had three differing reactions.  She loved it, John hated it and I (in addition to having to fight to stay awake) had mixed feelings about it.  It depends on what you bring to it, maybe.  I can see how it could be taken as ingenious and creative, but it can also seem pretentious and forced.  I mostly enjoyed the parts with Cate Blanchett and Christian Bale because they were most like the Dylan we are familiar with, and you could anchor yourself on that.  The other characters seemed only vaguely relevant to the whole operation.  Heath was good, but he played an actor who was known for his portrayal of a Dylan-like character; although his wife  (Charlotte Gainsbourg) resembled one of Dylan's early girlfriends, I didn't see how his personal life was all that relevant to Dylan.   The movie seemed really long because I never knew where the director was going to end it, so every time he finished one scene and started another, I was like "oh well, here we go again."  I wouldn't not recommend it, but just don't expect a clear story line!  The best thing?  The soundtrack, and a shot at the very end of the real Dylan playing the harmonica.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Shasta542 on December 23, 2007, 05:04:46 pm
Quote
She loved it, John hated it and I (in addition to having to fight to stay awake) had mixed feelings about it.  It depends on what you bring to it, maybe.


Ever since I've started reading about it, I thought it sounded boring. I think just the idea of several characters playing Dylan was off-putting. That's bad -- I need to see it before I judge it, but I probably won't until it hits CD status. This isn't exactly a glowing review that would cause me to change my mind about it. What did John hate about it?  
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on December 23, 2007, 05:15:01 pm
OK. Checking back. I just finished watching "A River Runs Through It" -- (1992). I thought it was great.

Thanks for the reminder, Shasta! I saw this when it came out and loved it. I'd forgot that I'd been thinking of renting it for my kids.

Regarding "Charlie Wilson's War," I'm sure everyone will see just what they want to see.  And in my case that means not seeing Reagan as some sort of hero and Carter as some sort of incompetent.  ::)  It does sound like a good movie, though.  Maybe I can go with my conservative brother when I'm in Indiana over the holiday and we can have a knock-down drag-out afterwards.  ;D

I think this must be true. The script was written by Aaron Sorkin, writer of "The West Wing," which reminded us on a weekly basis, often through well-reasoned argument, how honorable and honest and intelligent and noble and full of integrity liberals are. (I loved it!) But that Afghanastan thing really was/is a complicated situation. Maybe not everything falls easily into liberal vs. conservative terms.

My sons and I saw National Treasure II yesterday. Ehh ... I'd say it was a pretty good movie to take an 11- and 13-year-old to -- they both liked it -- but I did not like it was well as the first one. It was just a bit too ... facile, I guess.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on December 23, 2007, 09:07:54 pm
What did John hate about it?  

He just felt the whole thing was pretentious, fake posturing on the part of the director and screenwriters.  Nothing about it convinced him that it was exploring Dylan with insight and freshness.  :(

The script was written by Aaron Sorkin, writer of "The West Wing," which reminded us on a weekly basis, often through well-reasoned argument, how honorable and honest and intelligent and noble and full of integrity liberals are.

How refreshing to hear this description of liberals.  It makes me realize how little they stand up for themselves.  Why???  :(
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 24, 2007, 12:11:28 am

How refreshing to hear this description of liberals.  It makes me realize how little they stand up for themselves.  Why???[/size]

My theory is because we can't depend on our fellow liberals to support us.  After all, liberals are not known for being dogmatic, so we don't have a 'party line' that we all adhere to.  We expect our fellow liberals to have their own minds and own opinions and they may not necessarily mesh with our own.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 24, 2007, 12:13:07 am
Just come from seeing P.S. I love you.

It was sweet, extremely sad, felt very very long, full of fantasy poor New Yorkers and OMG full of gorgeous men.

P.S. Hilary Swank needs to eat a burger.  Many of them.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Shasta542 on December 24, 2007, 12:26:19 am
Just come from seeing P.S. I love you.

It was sweet, extremely sad, felt very very long, full of fantasy poor New Yorkers and OMG full of gorgeous men.

P.S. Hilary Swank needs to eat a burger.  Many of them.



I've had it for Jeffrey Dean Morgan since his time on "Gray's Anatomy". I think he's such a handsome hott HUNK!!! I'm dying to see this movie. I'm meeting my best friend and her daughter halfway next Friday, and I'm going to try to talk them into this one! I'll say dellaluvia recommended it!!!  :P  ;D


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 24, 2007, 02:14:10 am

I've had it for Jeffrey Dean Morgan since his time on "Gray's Anatomy". I think he's such a handsome hott HUNK!!! I'm dying to see this movie. I'm meeting my best friend and her daughter halfway next Friday, and I'm going to try to talk them into this one! I'll say dellaluvia recommended it!!!  :P  ;D




Heh, don't forget your box of tissues.  I snuffled throughout the movie and came out looking like a white rat with reddened eyes, nose and a pounding sinus headache.

Enjoy, the men were still a pleasure to watch.

EDITED TO ADD:  Sorry, but as I'm dressing for work, I remembered that one of the songs played during this movie contained a gay slur, so be warned.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 24, 2007, 09:41:26 am
My daughter and I went and saw National Treasure II yesterday and Katherine, I'd agree with you. It was fun but the first one was better. I have to say, Justin Bartha (the Riley Poole character) is as cute as a button and I could watch him for days! Since he had lots of screen time, he made the whole thing enjoyable. I did agree with one reviewer who said the long drawn out climax looked like an ad for a new attraction at Disney World. The Goofy cartoon at the beginning was fun, too.

In the evening, we did a "simulcast" with Louise of The Namesake, directed by Mira Nair. My husband really liked it. I thought it was good, but I liked Monsoon Wedding better. I'll wait for Louise to weigh in with her review.

This afternoon, we are going to "simulcast" Gods and Monsters....if anyone wants to join us. (I need to run off to the video store this morning to pick it up.)

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on December 24, 2007, 06:00:10 pm
How refreshing to hear this description of liberals.  It makes me realize how little they stand up for themselves.  Why???  :(

I think part of being a liberal, almost by definition, is being open to new ideas, which can translate into being open-minded about other people's ideas, which can translate into not standing up for one's own ideas.

Of course, there are lots of exceptions to this. I know (plenty of) liberals who are close-minded about certain things.

I have to say, Justin Bartha (the Riley Poole character) is as cute as a button and I could watch him for days! Since he had lots of screen time, he made the whole thing enjoyable.

I liked him, too, and one thing I found slightly annoying was I thought they did the "Riley is the loser who gets the short end of every stick" schtick.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lynne on December 24, 2007, 06:15:41 pm
Two words:  Avoid Hitman

I was under the mistaken impression that it was developed based on a Lawrence Block novel, which is fabulous, but no...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on December 24, 2007, 09:28:02 pm
Hilary Swank needs to eat a burger.  Many of them.

I think I've been eating all of hers.   :-\

I saw "Juno" on Saturday and "Sweeney Todd" on Sunday.  Thought both were good, but not great.

Is it just me, or are the critics more out of whack than ever in the last year or so?  My opinions used to jibe pretty closely with most of theirs - especially the most pretentious ones from the biggest N.Y. and L.A. papers.  But lately most of them are raving about movies like this, I go to see them, and go, "Hunh?"

"Juno" had some lovely moments.  Ellen Page was terrific, but who really stood out to me was Michael Cera as Paulie Bleeker.  He had some non-verbal reactions that were so deliciously subtle - if I squinted hard for a moment, I could have been looking at an extremely young Spencer Tracy.  But some of the dialog was really contrived.  All very witty, but it kept not ringing true to me as stuff these characters would actually say.  God, I hate it when that happens.

And "Sweeney Todd" - well, Johnny Depp was wonderful, though - gasp - a tad over the top towards the end.  But for my money, he's quite a decent little singer.  And Alan Rickman was great as always - he's another one who's so subtle - is there any English actor who isn't?  But there were certain directorial choices (and I love Tim Burton) that left me cold - not exhilarated like I remember being when I first saw it at 20-something many, MANY moons ago.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: louisev on December 24, 2007, 09:38:52 pm
I liked 'The Namesake' more than 'Monsoon Wedding' , probably because I thought that the father character was very well drawn and understandable.   However, I do agree with the reviewer about the 'whirlwind speed' of the sweeping plot, and it was never more noticeable than when when the Gangullis settle in New York and one minute Ashima is crying and saying she wants to go home to India and the next minute she has two kids.  That part went WAY too fast for me!  But there were some fabulous little amusing lines in it, like when Gogol decides that he wants to keep his first name at school instead of of changing to his 'good name' and his father says 'There is nothing we can do in a country where the president is named Jimmy.'

The plot went too fast but mainly because I wanted to get to know them all better, but I agree also with one of the dissenting reviewers who said the insights into the son's romantic life would be better left out, and seem oddly out of place.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 25, 2007, 12:40:34 am
I think I've been eating all of hers.   :-\

I saw "Juno" on Saturday and "Sweeney Todd" on Sunday.  Thought both were good, but not great.

Is it just me, or are the critics more out of whack than ever in the last year or so?  My opinions used to jibe pretty closely with most of theirs - especially the most pretentious ones from the biggest N.Y. and L.A. papers.  But lately most of them are raving about movies like this, I go to see them, and go, "Hunh?"

"Juno" had some lovely moments.  Ellen Page was terrific, but who really stood out to me was Michael Cera as Paulie Bleeker.  He had some non-verbal reactions that were so deliciously subtle - if I squinted hard for a moment, I could have been looking at an extremely young Spencer Tracy.  But some of the dialog was really contrived.  All very witty, but it kept not ringing true to me as stuff these characters would actually say.  God, I hate it when that happens.

And "Sweeney Todd" - well, Johnny Depp was wonderful, though - gasp - a tad over the top towards the end.  But for my money, he's quite a decent little singer.  And Alan Rickman was great as always - he's another one who's so subtle - is there any English actor who isn't?  But there were certain directorial choices (and I love Tim Burton) that left me cold - not exhilarated like I remember being when I first saw it at 20-something many, MANY moons ago.



I'm with ya, Barb.  Contrived dialogue, plotline, plot devices and movies are becoming more and more obvious to me.  That's why I seldom tolerate sitcoms or TV dramas any more.  The characters do and say things that no real person would - but you realize they do this so the plot can move forward.

I'm not surprised Johnny Depp has a singing voice, he actually came to L.A. to be in a rock band as I recall.  So he had to feel he had some kind of talent in that direction.  I"m always in awe of most A list Brit actors.  Most of them attend the Academy or whatever they call their Drama school there, and it's pretty prestigious and only the really good ones make it through, so most of the time, they're very impressive talents.

 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 26, 2007, 10:44:31 am
Louise and I had our simulcast film festival this weekend and saw The Fountain, The Namesake, Gods and Monsters, and Ed Wood. I liked them all but Gods and Monsters was definitely my favorite. There's a special "Making Of.." feature on the DVD that I would recommend, too.

Sir Ian McKellan was definitely robbed of his Oscar for best actor. So what else is new with the Academy? An openly gay man playing an openly gay movie director? Of course he'd never win, even though he deserved it.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on December 29, 2007, 12:06:54 am
Slightly off topic, but I've seen two lists today, one on CNN.com and one on MSN.com which ranked ZODIAC as one of the ten best movies of 2007.  MSN.com ranked it #2 after NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.  It was released so early in the year, it will probably be forgotten by Award season.  Do wish ZODIAC had done better at the box office.

http://movies.msn.com/movies/2007review/top10movies?photoidx=10
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on December 29, 2007, 11:08:26 am
I just watched "The Fountain" on DVD and enjoyed it very much. Of course, lots of close-ups of Hugh Jackman probably helped! Even so, I enjoyed the story. The music was great, too. Anyone else here see this?

L

I saw it Les.  I thought it was fascinating...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on December 29, 2007, 11:11:24 am
Bringing over a comment from the movie game, has anyone seen "Gods and Monsters"? Comments...?

Leslie

a while back.  I would like to see it again.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on December 29, 2007, 11:20:24 am
I finally saw Zodiac yesterday.  I thought it was a pretty good film.  I haven't seen enough of this year's movies to have a 10 best list, so can't really comment about whether it's one of the "best" films of 2007. I thought Jake did a good job in his role, and I also really enjoyed Mark Ruffalo's performance.

 :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 29, 2007, 11:33:55 am
For this weekend's simulcast movie fest, Louise and I have Transamerica and Big Fish. If anyone wants to join us, we'll be watching one today and the other tomorrow. We usually watch the movie in the afternoon, around 2 pm EST.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on December 29, 2007, 11:48:43 am
Got dragged to go see "Sweeney Todd".

It was good.  Solid piece of work, but it's not something I would have ever gone to see by myself.

Only reason I went is because a friend is a Johnny Depp fanatic and even she wasn't sure after it was over if she liked it or not.  The cast was solid, singing good - one singer was so irritating though, you finally understood what dogs must feel when they hear a dog whistle - very funny parts, lots and lots of gore.  My friend thought it campy in some parts, but I reminded her this was a movie about a singing serial killer, so camp was to be expected.  ;D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread... (SPOILERS)
Post by: Shasta542 on December 29, 2007, 03:31:43 pm
Heh, don't forget your box of tissues.  I snuffled throughout the movie and came out looking like a white rat with reddened eyes, nose and a pounding sinus headache.

Enjoy, the men were still a pleasure to watch.

EDITED TO ADD:  Sorry, but as I'm dressing for work, I remembered that one of the songs played during this movie contained a gay slur, so be warned.

SPOILERS FOR "P.S. I LOVE YOU" SKIP IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.  





We loved it, Delalluvia!! Later, as we talked about it, one of my friends said she did not think she'd like it at first because of the way the funeral was held. I told her that was a traditional Irish wake and that's the way they would do it. She'd never been exposed to that type of rite. Anyway -- all three of us enjoyed it immensely. We mixed laughter and tears throughout the whole thing. H.C. Jr. was great in his part -- they have pills for being rude. hahaha And I just sat and lusted after Jeffrey Dean Morgan -- OMG. He is so MMMMMM!!!!!! The only thing --I thought it was odd how Gerry was out in the national park and she was out in the national park (1st meeting) and they were all alone. I would have been terrified if a man showed up like that out of nowhere.  :o  lol.  Course -- it helped that he was yummy looking. Thanks for the review, Del. It was all that and more! (I missed the song you are talking about I guess) (2 bathroom visits and 1 choking episode)  :P  I want to see it again anyway.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Luvlylittlewing on December 29, 2007, 03:43:15 pm
Got dragged to go see "Sweeney Todd".

It was good.  Solid piece of work, but it's not something I would have ever gone to see by myself.

Only reason I went is because a friend is a Johnny Depp fanatic and even she wasn't sure after it was over if she liked it or not.  The cast was solid, singing good - one singer was so irritating though, you finally understood what dogs must feel when they hear a dog whistle - very funny parts, lots and lots of gore.  My friend thought it campy in some parts, but I reminded her this was a movie about a singing serial killer, so camp was to be expected.  ;D

I saw sweeney Todd with my daughter last week.  I'm not sure how I feel about it!  I mean, I love the look of the film, and was surprised that Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham(sp?) Carter can actually carry a tune.  But I was turned off by all of the gore.  I realize the movie is about a serial killer, but, the entire thing seemed rather pointless to me.  My daughter was disappointed, no end.  In fact, she was sullen once the film ended.  I suppose she thought the movie would have more depth, or something.  But given the subject matter, I don't know what she expected!

Some of my favorite movies:


Ed Wood
Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Sunset Blvd.
Whatever Happened to Baby Jane
House on Haunted Hill (what can I say?)  :laugh:
Laura
Psycho

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on December 29, 2007, 04:04:28 pm
I saw Walk Hard on Christmas Day. It's very silly, a bit over-the-top in parts, kind of cheesy for my taste -- but often absolutely hilarious. John C. Riley is great, and almost everybody else in it some famous comedy character actor from SNL, 30 Rock, The Office, Judd Apatow (who co-wrote) movies, etc. Who would cast Jack Black as Paul McCartney and Paul Rudd as John Lennon? But they're great.

I probably shouldn't have taken my 11- and 13-year-old sons to it, though. Luckily, they sat separately from my husband and me, so we could loudly complain in shocked tones about what kind of parents would take children to a movie like that.

I saw Sweeney Todd last night. Yuck. I love Johnny Depp, and Helena Bonham-Carter was very cute, and Alan Rickman was as usual a brilliant villain. My 16-year-old niece loved it -- she was seeing it for at least the second time and owns the soundtrack. But I agreed totally with my 11-year-old son's review: "It's boring, it's bleak and Johnny Depp does all the killings the same way." Oh, and it's gross.

Set design was fantastic, though. Tim Burton is a genius at that. And only a slight exaggeration of what I imagine  19th-century London probably was like. If only they hadn't done so much singing and killing, the movie would have been good. Unfortunately, that was 90 percent of it.










Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on December 29, 2007, 06:22:07 pm
If only they hadn't done so much singing and killing, the movie would have been good.

Best review-in-a-nutshell ever.  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 29, 2007, 07:34:42 pm
This afternoon I watched "Transamerica" and I would highly recommend it. I can see why Felicity Huffman was nominated for an Oscar, she was great. At first I thought the ending was a little weak, but thinking about it, perhaps it was supposed to show what real life is...things just go on, without alot of fireworks or drama. Life is.

This came out in 2005, the same year as BBM. Thinking about the two of them together (and the Academy Award nominations, and how the Academy voted) is interesting.

If someone is looking for a good movie to add to their Netflix queue, or pick up at Blockbuster, I would suggest this.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on December 29, 2007, 07:50:07 pm
I saw THE GOLDEN COMPASS today and wasn't really into it.  Of course, the guy with the picket sign outside the theater (with some Catholic group) was what enticed me.  If someone says don't go to see this film, I go.   Of course, it would have been annoying if ppl had disrupted the film shouting out off handed comments.  I heard much of this occurred for Fahrenheit 9/11 in the suburbs around America.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 29, 2007, 07:52:50 pm
I saw THE GOLDEN COMPASS today and wasn't really into it.  Of course, the guy with the picket sign outside the theater (with some Catholic group) was what enticed me.  If someone says don't go to see this film, I go.   Of course, it would have been annoying if ppl had disrupted the film shouting out off handed comments.  I heard much of this occurred for Fahrenheit 9/11 in the suburbs around America.

My husband and daughter saw it, and liked it. I wasn't interested. It has landed on a few "worst movies of 2007" lists. It seems to definitely be a movie that people react to differently.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Luvlylittlewing on December 30, 2007, 09:41:34 pm
I saw Walk Hard on Christmas Day. It's very silly, a bit over-the-top in parts, kind of cheesy for my taste -- but often absolutely hilarious. John C. Riley is great, and almost everybody else in it some famous comedy character actor from SNL, 30 Rock, The Office, Judd Apatow (who co-wrote) movies, etc. Who would cast Jack Black as Paul McCartney and Paul Rudd as John Lennon? But they're great.

I probably shouldn't have taken my 11- and 13-year-old sons to it, though. Luckily, they sat separately from my husband and me, so we could loudly complain in shocked tones about what kind of parents would take children to a movie like that.

I saw Sweeney Todd last night. Yuck. I love Johnny Depp, and Helena Bonham-Carter was very cute, and Alan Rickman was as usual a brilliant villain. My 16-year-old niece loved it -- she was seeing it for at least the second time and owns the soundtrack. But I agreed totally with my 11-year-old son's review: "It's boring, it's bleak and Johnny Depp does all the killings the same way." Oh, and it's gross.

Set design was fantastic, though. Tim Burton is a genius at that. And only a slight exaggeration of what I imagine  19th-century London probably was like. If only they hadn't done so much singing and killing, the movie would have been good. Unfortunately, that was 90 percent of it.












I did love the overall "feel" of Sweeney Todd, but the killing was just ridiculous.   I like the look of the movie.  It seems impossible to hide Johnny Depp's beauty.  My daughter thinks Sweeney Todd would have been better if we were shown some of what his life was like in prison.  It would have made more sense if we saw what actually turned him into a throat slashing monster.

I was all ready to see Walk Hard this morning.  I was turning the car into the theatre parking lot when my daughter asked to have breakfast instead.  We'll probably see it next week.  The first show of the day in Emeryville is only $6.00.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on December 31, 2007, 05:14:13 pm
I saw Last King of Scotland yesterday.  Anyone want to comment on that?

I haven't really formed an opinion yet.

(Leslie - I'm glad you liked Transamerica.  I thought it was very good, and I think you're right about the ending...)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Shasta542 on December 31, 2007, 05:36:02 pm
I saw Last King of Scotland yesterday.  Anyone want to comment on that?

I haven't really formed an opinion yet.

(Leslie - I'm glad you liked Transamerica.  I thought it was very good, and I think you're right about the ending...)

Hello BelAir.

I watched it not long ago. It was intense and brutal. I know it was based on fact, but it was fictionalized inasmuch as the Jame McAvoy character was not a real person -- was he? I had to turn my head several times. It shows how the masses don't have all the info they probably need to have!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 31, 2007, 05:40:58 pm
I saw Last King of Scotland yesterday.  Anyone want to comment on that?

I haven't really formed an opinion yet.

(Leslie - I'm glad you liked Transamerica.  I thought it was very good, and I think you're right about the ending...)

I watched it on DVD a few months ago. It's obvious why Forest Whitaker won the Oscar. I also thought James McAvoy was excellent although a few critics dissed his performance.

It is one of those "glad I saw it but once is enough" movies for me. I see it is on HBO now. I probably will pass on a repeat viewing!

And Shasta, I believe you're right, that Garrigan was a fictional character.

L

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on December 31, 2007, 08:17:30 pm
I watched it on DVD a few months ago. It's obvious why Forest Whitaker won the Oscar. I also thought James McAvoy was excellent although a few critics dissed his performance.

It is one of those "glad I saw it but once is enough" movies for me. I see it is on HBO now. I probably will pass on a repeat viewing!

And Shasta, I believe you're right, that Garrigan was a fictional character.

L



you guys are right.  Gerrigan was a fictional character (I watched the special features on the DVD).  However, one of Amin's wives did die following an attempted abortion; she was found dismembered; she had an affair with the health minister (according to wikipedia).   Amin did have British doctors. 

At first, I was someone put off by the incorporation of a fictional character into a true story.  In the special features, McAvoy describes his character as sort of a mirror to British/white society... (I'm paraphrasing somewhat poorly).  So if I think of McAvoy and his experiences as a sort of amalgamation of "white" experience with "dark Africa" I am less annoyed.  I did like how they presented a personalized story of what in actuality was widespread terror and brutality, and that we were able to see the 'good' and 'bad' Amin through McAvoy's eyes. 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 31, 2007, 08:50:01 pm
you guys are right.  Gerrigan was a fictional character (I watched the special features on the DVD).  However, one of Amin's wives did die following an attempted abortion; she was found dismembered; she had an affair with the health minister (according to wikipedia).   Amin did have British doctors. 

At first, I was someone put off by the incorporation of a fictional character into a true story.  In the special features, McAvoy describes his character as sort of a mirror to British/white society... (I'm paraphrasing somewhat poorly).  So if I think of McAvoy and his experiences as a sort of amalgamation of "white" experience with "dark Africa" I am less annoyed.  I did like how they presented a personalized story of what in actuality was widespread terror and brutality, and that we were able to see the 'good' and 'bad' Amin through McAvoy's eyes. 

Thanks for this, Bel. Interesting information. I am not sure I watched the special features so I didn't have this information.

Louise and I are planning another simulcast tomorrow. This time we'll be watching "Finding Neverland" for anyone who wants to join us.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on December 31, 2007, 09:06:57 pm
I saw Last King of Scotland yesterday.  Anyone want to comment on that?

I recently got the DVD, haven't watched it yet.  Will remedy that soon.
Did you watch Hotel Rwanda ?  (that's another one I want to check out)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on December 31, 2007, 09:37:57 pm
I recently got the DVD, haven't watched it yet.  Will remedy that soon.
Did you watch Hotel Rwanda ?  (that's another one I want to check out)

That is one of those movies I meant to see in the theater, didn't, and haven't seen on DVD yet. Thanks for the reminder.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on December 31, 2007, 10:34:09 pm
Thanks for this, Bel. Interesting information. I am not sure I watched the special features so I didn't have this information.

Louise and I are planning another simulcast tomorrow. This time we'll be watching "Finding Neverland" for anyone who wants to join us.

L

I liked that one!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on December 31, 2007, 10:35:39 pm
I recently got the DVD, haven't watched it yet.  Will remedy that soon.
Did you watch Hotel Rwanda ?  (that's another one I want to check out)

Hotel Rwanda is on my Netflix list but I haven't seen it yet.  Let us know what you think of Last King.  I did not know anything about Idi Amin before watching the movie.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on January 01, 2008, 12:00:30 am
Hotel Rwanda is on my Netflix list but I haven't seen it yet.  Let us know what you think of Last King.  ...

Will do.

I saw Robots tonight....loved it!
If you haven't seen it yet, check it out when you feel like taking a light, entertaining break from more 'serious' movies.. :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 01, 2008, 09:51:08 am
I watched "For Your Consideration" last night, the latest effort from Christopher Guest & Co. (Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show, A Mighty Wind). I loved his other movies. I didn't see this one in the theater because it had very mediocre reviews but I thought on TV it might be worth a few chuckles. Wrong. It was very disappointing in every way.

Oh well, at least I didn't waste money in the theater or on a DVD!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 01, 2008, 03:07:23 pm
Hotel Rwanda is excellent. Very moving, very informative, very shocking and sad and scary. It really gets you thinking about why the U.S. does or doesn't get involved in conflicts in other countries and whether or not they should. There's one scene I'll never forget -- an American TV journalist gets some footage of the carnage in the streets, and the Rwandans hiding out in the hotel are all excited about how, once the world sees what's going on, they'll be saved! And Joaquin Phoenix breaks the news that, no, they'll look up, go, "it's that terrible," and go back to their dinners. Which of course is exactly what happened.

Don Cheadle is magnificent, and all the main actors are good. Despite its subject matter the film isn't particularly graphically violent. Just last night I saw a trailer for another movie about Rwanda, but the stars were all white people. The movie looked good, but in general I hate that practice; it suggests audiences can't connect to movies in which the movies are about black people or Asians unless they have a white star. So I loved that Hotel Rwanda didn't resort to that.




Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Shasta542 on January 02, 2008, 09:03:13 am
Article

2008 movie preview: The 10 most anticipated movies of the new year and more:

http://movies.msn.com/movies/hitlist/12-28-07?GT1=7701& (http://movies.msn.com/movies/hitlist/12-28-07?GT1=7701&)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on January 02, 2008, 09:17:35 am
Doesn't look that terribly exciting Shasta.  The Mysterious Case of Benjamin Buttons sounds the most original.  I thought it was going to be more a scifi drama, but Forest Gump was mentioned in the same sentence. 

I watched MAYERLING yesterday, historic epic made in 1968.  I was thinking, wow, historic epics aren't really made anymore and that's too bad. It must cost alot of money to make and I guess the studios wonder if the adults are going to turn out to see it.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 02, 2008, 09:29:21 am
Article

2008 movie preview: The 10 most anticipated movies of the new year and more:

http://movies.msn.com/movies/hitlist/12-28-07?GT1=7701& (http://movies.msn.com/movies/hitlist/12-28-07?GT1=7701&)

This little tidbit will make Barb groan:

"Bond 22" (Nov. 7)
Currently untitled, director Marc Forster ("The Kite Runner," "Monster's Ball") teams up with screenwriter Paul Haggis ("Crash") and the latest 007, Daniel Craig, for an original story that picks up immediately after the events of "Casino Royale."


It was interesting that there was no mention of "Australia," the massive epic from Baz Luhrman, starring Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman. They just wrapped up shooting a few weeks ago--nine months in all. Filming started back in April. They are behind schedule and the release date has been pushed back, but they are still planning on 2008.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on January 02, 2008, 09:55:31 am
Actually this morning's LA TIMES is already saying award season this year is a bust and gives a list of films for 2008 as Oscar bait.

 :)

"But with awards season pundits are already declaring the 2007awards race a wash (blame those Iraq war films, a lack of big popular hits like "Titanic" and the ongoing writers strike) and it's not a moment too soon to consider next year's hopefuls.

Lots of Oscar favorites are poised to make their return in 2008. From Clint Eastwood, Sam Mendes and Ed Zwick to actors Russell Crowe, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt and actresses Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, Keira Knightley and Kate Winslet. Here is The Envelope's look ahead at Oscar bait in 2008."

Revolutionary Road
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Changeling
Here's the full article. There is a slide show of movies to look forward to in 2008

http://theenvelope.latimes.com/awards/oscars/env-prestige08-phoga01jan01,0,6454981.photogallery
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 02, 2008, 12:22:32 pm
My treat over the past two long weekends has been to watch lots of movies, some of them simulcast with Louise, and some on my own. With that in mind, here is my ranking of what I saw:

1. Gods and Monsters (definitely the best of all)
2. Transamerica
3. The Fountain
4. Big Fish
5. Finding Neverland (I liked this alot more than Louise did)
6. Ed Wood
7. The Namesake
8. National Treasure: Book of Secrets (saw in the theater)
9. For Your Consideration
10. The Notorious Bettie Page (this was a big disappointment--it was actually dull!)

Next up...for our next simulcast, we are hoping to watch The Wages of Fear (1953). In the theater, I'll be seeing Atonement, with my daughter. It opens here in Maine on Friday.

I also want to watch Cruising one of these days. I bought the DVD a few months ago and haven't had a chance to see it yet.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 02, 2008, 01:00:40 pm
From today's New York Times:

January 2, 2008

A Film Year Full of Escapism, Flat in Attendance


By BROOKS BARNES

LOS ANGELES — Despite a modest increase in 2007 box office receipts, moviedom is trudging into January with a droop in its shoulders.

Ticket sales at North American movie theaters totaled $9.7 billion, a 4 percent increase over the previous year, according to Media by Numbers, a box office tracking company. But attendance was flat, after a narrow increase in 2006 and three previous years of sharp declines. Movie fans bought about 1.42 billion tickets last year, according to Media by Numbers. The high watermark of the last 10 years came in 2002, when moviegoers bought about 1.61 billion tickets.

The results last year were largely driven by expensive sequels like “Spider-Man 3” (the top-grossing film) and “Shrek the Third” (the runner-up), although a handful of expert marketing campaigns turned some oddball entries like “Alvin and the Chipmunks” into bona fide hits. One surefire franchise was born to Paramount and DreamWorks in “Transformers” (which placed third).

Nine of the Top 10 grossing films were science fiction, fantasy or animation. The sole exception (unless you count the mock-historical “300”) was Universal’s action thriller “The Bourne Ultimatum,” which placed sixth with $227 million in domestic ticket sales.

As the movie industry turns its attention to 2008, the dark “No Country for Old Men” is showing box office legs, and one film in particular is already shaping up as a home run. Early results for “Juno,” about a quirky teenager who becomes pregnant, have outpaced those for the indie hits “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Brokeback Mountain.”

“The critical acclaim and award recognition have magnified the movie,” said Peter Rice, the president of Fox Searchlight, which is distributing “Juno.”

But box office results are always a game of glass half-full and glass half-empty, and the half-empties this time seem more prominent.

DVD sales continue to slump both domestically and abroad. The private money that has washed over Hollywood in recent years is starting to slow, investment bankers say, as more hedge funds go home with little to show. And movie executives are worried about the impending collision between striking screenwriters and the important awards shows.

The strike, now in its ninth week with no new talks scheduled, is starting to weigh more heavily on the movie business over all. Until now, the damage has been mostly confined to television, which operates with a shorter production pipeline. But as the strike drags on, movie executives — and their corporate bosses — are starting to worry about having enough time to put together their mega-movie slates for summer 2009.

At the box office the happy surprises of 2007 were almost all confined to escapist offerings like “The Game Plan,” a Walt Disney release about an N.F.L. quarterback and his young daughter, or sophomoric comedies like “Superbad,” a Sony release from the producer Judd Apatow.

But studios have instead churned out gloomy message movies, and more are on the way, noted Paul Dergarabedian, the president of Media by Numbers.

“There were some great films, but the appetite wasn’t there,” he said. Movies rooted in the Iraq war or terrorism — “In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition,” “Redacted” — particularly struggled. A glut of serious-minded awards hopefuls canceled one another out. Signs of trouble lurked even during the blockbuster-packed summer, in which ticket sales surpassed the $4 billion mark for the first time. Sequels, with the notable exception of “Bourne,” the third in a series, were generally not well reviewed and sold fewer tickets than their second or first installments.

“Shrek the Third,” “Spider-Man 3” and “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” all marked low points for these franchises at the domestic box office when ticket sales are adjusted for inflation, according to Box Office Mojo, another tracking service.

(The studios note that more than half of the ticket sales for each of those titles came from overseas. While there are no reliable independent data for overseas ticket sales, entertainment trade publications estimate that foreign receipts for the six biggest studios increased 9 percent in 2007 over a year earlier, to $9.4 billion.)

Stars did not seem to interest moviegoers, with marquee names playing to empty seats. Angelina Jolie flopped with “A Mighty Heart,” about the murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, and Nicole Kidman’s career grew chillier with the North American collapse of “The Golden Compass.” Among the men, Tom Cruise struggled to avoid blame for a dead-on-arrival “Lions for Lambs,” and Brad Pitt drew shrugs for “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.”

One big exception: Will Smith cemented his status as a top box office draw — and perhaps the biggest star in the business today — with robust results for “I am Legend,” a Warner Brothers release about a man wandering a post-apocalyptic Manhattan. The picture has sold $195 million in tickets since its Dec. 14 opening, with another $61.3 million coming from overseas, according to Box Office Mojo.

(Denzel Washington also gets credit for helping to turn Universal’s “American Gangster” into a $184 million hit, although he appears to be having a harder time with the just-opened “Great Debaters.”)

Of course results vary by studio, and some are entering 2008 on a high note. Walt Disney, for instance, has played the game better than most.

“Ratatouille” overcame early skepticism about its rat-in-the-kitchen subject to become both a global blockbuster and a critical darling. “Enchanted,” about an animated princess who comes to life, continues to chug away in theaters, and “National Treasure: Book of Secrets” is a slam dunk. That action film, starring Nicolas Cage, sold $124 million in tickets domestically in its first 10 days of release, according to Box Office Mojo.

Mark Zoradi, president of the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, cited a recent decision to focus more intently on the company’s brand as a catalyst for its performance. “The Disney name continues to be enormously successful with audiences,” he said.

Twentieth Century Fox appears to be able to sell just about anything. That studio has set the standard for effective Internet marketing by coming up with ways for fans to personalize messages. “The Simpsons Movie,” with its $526 million in total ticket sales around the world, benefited from Simpsonize Me, a Web promotion (simpsonizeme.com) that allowed visitors to animate pictures of themselves. Fox used a similar promotion to fuel “Alvin and the Chipmunks.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/movies/02year.html
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 02, 2008, 03:09:33 pm
This little tidbit will make Barb groan:

"Bond 22" (Nov. 7)
Currently untitled, director Marc Forster ("The Kite Runner," "Monster's Ball") teams up with screenwriter Paul Haggis ("Crash") and the latest 007, Daniel Craig, for an original story that picks up immediately after the events of "Casino Royale."


Make that a double-groan, I also heard that the Olsen twins were being considered to play villains (!) I hope that's not true!

There are concerns about Marc Forster directing because he's never done an action film.  Anyway, with Haggis on top of all that, it doesn't look good, lol!  I think I'll sell my Bond22 shares on Hollywood Stock Market, lol!

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 03, 2008, 02:29:59 am
After the aforementioned Sweeney Todd, I saw No Country for Old Men. It was admirably arty, kept my interest, the acting was all good by all involved (Tommy Lee Jones! Javier Bardem!, Josh Brolin! Woody Harrelson! the actress who played the guy's wife!) but ultimately it left me a little cold. Cohen Bros. movies tend to do that with me. Still, worth seeing. Suspenseful, and not as graphically violent as I'd feared.

We also rented several movies, as follows:

Zodiac. Liked it OK, was left a bit unsatisfied (unavoidably) by the ending -- maybe because I knew the mystery was going to remain unsolved and felt guilty because the people in my group kept saying, "I bet it's him!" about one character or another, as if the movie were a whodunit, and I knew they'd wind up disappointed when there was no resolution. Jake was good, but (sorry for the sacrilege, Jake fans) Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr. were a bit more charismatic -- partly due to their having more dynamic parts than Jake's (plus, I love both of those actors). Anthony Edwards was fun, too!

The Kingdom. I liked this a lot, maybe because I went in with low expectations. It got mediocre reviews. I'll have to go to rottentomatoes to figure out why -- if I recall correctly, it might have to do with its political messages. Anyway, if you're as ignorant about Middle Eastern politics as I am, it was fascinating (though possibly misinformative). Jamie Foxx and Chris Cooper were good as always, Jennifer Garner was OK, and a surprisingly cast Jason Bateman had the most terrifying scene in the movie.

Premonition. Don't bother. But you already knew that. This was my 16-year-old niece's choice. I like Sandra Bullock, and she made it watchable. Plus my attention was sustained by that NipTuck guy's eyebrows -- what's up with those things?

TV Set. I thought this was going to be really funny, but there were only a few laugh-out-loud lines. It's more wry, subtle, somewhat Hollywood-insiderish humor. But nevertheless fascinating and informative -- a behind-the-scenes look at the making of a TV show. It explains a lot about what's on TV. In fact, it leaves you wondering how anything really good (The Office, etc.) winds up on TV at all. And speaking of Batemen, there was Justine, first time I'd seen her since Family Ties! She was fine, and it was nice to see a person you remember as young, looking older, but good.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 04, 2008, 10:03:26 am
Pajiba has posted their top 12 list for the year and "Waitress" is their no. 1 choice. I gave that DVD to my mother for Christmas so I'll be seeing it soon. One movie on the list, which I have never heard of, but it sounds interesting, is "Starter for 10." Has anyone here seen it? It's been out on DVD since the summer.

Just curious.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on January 04, 2008, 01:02:43 pm
Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly put out his favorite movies of the year, and "Zodiac" was number 10.  Number one was "I'm Not There."  In between were some surprising picks like "Grindhouse" and "Superbad".

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=13&aid=77134
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 04, 2008, 01:06:13 pm
"I'm Not There" is finally playing here in Maine, so we're off to see it tomorrow at 2 pm.

"Atonement" opens here today, too, so I may go see that on Sunday.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on January 04, 2008, 01:21:59 pm
Anyone into period/corset movies as much as I am?  :)

I recently watched the 1995 BBC adaptation of Edith Wharton's book The Buccaneers.
The story revolves around the lives of four young women, American aristocrats who travel to England in a quest of love and adventure.
It has about 5 episodes, 302 minutes in total and I absolutely loved it...the costumes, the scenery, the performances.


Another period movie I have watched a few times over the past weeks is Fingersmith (BBC adaptation of Sarah Waters' novel)...quite a Victorian thriller and a beautiful love story between two women who are brought together in a twisted plot of betrayal.
After recently reading the novel, I can't seen to stop myself from popping in the DVD every so often.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 04, 2008, 01:41:07 pm
L - I'm glad you finally get to see I'm Not There.  I am not sure what you will think of it. 

(I haven't read any reviews of Atonement yet.)

I saw Waitress over the holiday and did not particularly care for it.  There were some humerous moments, but all in all, I did not find Keri Russell particularly believable.  Oh, I did love Andy Griffith though!  I was shocked and surprised to read that the director and co-star was killed last November (06).

M - I will add those to my netflix!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 04, 2008, 01:42:42 pm
also on Owen's list was "before the devil knows you're dead", anyone seen that?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on January 04, 2008, 02:02:25 pm
Anyone into period/corset movies as much as I am?  :)

I recently watched the 1995 BBC adaptation of Edith Wharton's book The Buccaneers.
The story revolves around the lives of four young women, American aristocrats who travel to England in a quest of love and adventure.
It has about 5 episodes, 302 minutes in total and I absolutely loved it...the costumes, the scenery, the performances.


Another period movie I have watched a few times over the past weeks is Fingersmith (BBC adaptation of Sarah Waters' novel)...quite a Victorian thriller and a beautiful love story between two women who are brought together in a twisted plot of betrayal.
After recently reading the novel, I can't seen to stop myself from popping in the DVD every so often.

*raises hand*

I'll watch a good 'corset movie' any day. I haven't seen any of the ones you mentioned Milli, although I have heard of the Buccaneers. The BBC has just started showing Sense and Sensibility, a tv adaptation by Andrew Davies. It was announced as 'from the man who brought you Mr. Darcy in a wet shirt'! LOL

It was very good. The next episode is scheduled for next Sunday. Yummy!!

The other day, Pride and Prejudice, the movie was on tv. I started watching it but I didn't like it. This Mr. Darcy was bland and I wasn't much impressed with Kiera Knightly's performance either.

And in spite of the poor reviews, I think I'll go and see Becoming Jane too.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 04, 2008, 03:45:00 pm
Pajiba has posted their top 12 list for the year and "Waitress" is their no. 1 choice. I gave that DVD to my mother for Christmas so I'll be seeing it soon. One movie on the list, which I have never heard of, but it sounds interesting, is "Starter for 10." Has anyone here seen it? It's been out on DVD since the summer.

Just curious.

L

I saw Starter for 10!  It's with the man of the hour James McAvoy.  One of those charming and funny British comedies, this one set in the 80s.  It's good but I wouldn't include it in my top ten by any means.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 04, 2008, 03:58:15 pm
I saw Starter for 10!  It's with the man of the hour James McAvoy.  One of those charming and funny British comedies, this one set in the 80s.  It's good but I wouldn't include it in my top ten by any means.

Ah, great, thanks! They had it at the local video store so I rented it for viewing sometime this weekend. I'll report back!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: southendmd on January 04, 2008, 04:27:31 pm
Two recent views:

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Le scaphandre et le papillon) is spectacular and moving.  Don't be put off by the premise of the guy with a stroke.  This ain't no disease-of-the-week flick.  Max von Sydow in a small role broke my heart.

Juno.  On my way into the above film, I ran into a friend who was coming to see Juno for the second time in two days.  Why?  Because he was laughing so hard the first time, he missed half the dialogue.  Again, don't be turned off by the teenage-pregnancy theme, this ain't no after-school special!  A super performance by Ellen Page, a snappy soundtrack, zippy dialogue, and somehow manages to give every character a way out of a stereotype.  After I saw it, I ordered a hamburger phone on ebay.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on January 05, 2008, 02:44:20 am
*raises hand*

I'll watch a good 'corset movie' any day. I haven't seen any of the ones you mentioned Milli, although I have heard of the Buccaneers. The BBC has just started showing Sense and Sensibility, a tv adaptation by Andrew Davies. It was announced as 'from the man who brought you Mr. Darcy in a wet shirt'! LOL

It was very good. The next episode is scheduled for next Sunday. Yummy!!

The other day, Pride and Prejudice, the movie was on tv. I started watching it but I didn't like it. This Mr. Darcy was bland and I wasn't much impressed with Kiera Knightly's performance either.

And in spite of the poor reviews, I think I'll go and see Becoming Jane too.


Hey Fabienne,

You may also be interested in checking out the latest BBC adaptations of these period movies ..

- Wives & Daughters
- North & South
- Our Mutual Friend
- Tipping the Velvet
- Bleak House


More later.. ;)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 05, 2008, 07:29:55 pm
I thought this was interesting

Sean Penn to lead Cannes Festival Jury

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=290835&GT1=7701

sad to see the note about his marriage ending, though
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 05, 2008, 07:38:20 pm
Thanks for that info, Bel!

Today I watched "Once" in a simulcast with Louise. I have a feeling I liked it more than she did! I thought it was a very sweet film about two people who meet and connect, for a week, through their music. Lots of very nice scenes of Dublin. I enjoyed the music. A bittersweet--but real to life--ending. Not a Hollywood ending, which was nice for a change. I would definitely recommend that folks add it to their Netflix queue, or pick it up at Blockbuster, which is where I got it.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 05, 2008, 09:31:28 pm
I finally saw The Savages with PH Hoffman and Laura Linney and what a wonderful film.  It more than lived up to my expectations! It has a wonderful script, excellent acting and best of all, most of it is set in Buffalo, lol!  (I like Buffalo!) 

Plot Summary: An irreverent, hilarious and heartbreaking story revolving around a modern American family, "The Savages" portrays an all-too-common dilemma: after drifting apart emotionally and geographically over the years, two siblings Wendy (Laura Linney) and Jon (Philip Seymour Hoffman) must band together to care for an elderly parent (Philip Bosco).


I may have to make room for it on my top ten list!  This has been a good year for movies because I keep wanting to expand my list, ten isn't enough!

Anyway, I highly recommend it!

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/the-savages.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on January 06, 2008, 03:02:24 am
It is wonderful to have this resource whenever I'm in the mood to see a movie!! Thank you and keep the reviews coming!!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 06, 2008, 09:52:48 am
The whole family watched "Starter for 10" last night on DVD. It was, as oilgun said, a quirky British movie that was funny. James McAvoy was cute. I would recommend it although I wouldn't put it on my top ten list. Maybe top 25!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 06, 2008, 06:49:36 pm
Today I went with my two children to see "I'm Not There." I enjoyed it although I felt it started to drag for the last third. I didn't entirely get the Richard Gere part (I guess I'll have to think about it). I thought Heath was great. The scene early on, when he was in the coffee shop with "Claire" -- he looked and sounded so much like Ennis -- that might have been my favorite moment of all.

The background music was great (naturally!).

Since people know my pet peeve about smoking--once again a movie where EVERYONE smoked like chimneys. Does (or did) Dylan really smoke 80 cigarettes a day (4 packs)?? Yikes. So maybe his representation was accurate. But did everyone have to smoke so much? Sigh....

I am glad I saw this on the big screen. I have a feeling watching this on DVD, my attention would wander or I would fall asleep. In the theater, I am forced to stay alert.

L

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 06, 2008, 07:06:29 pm
Today I went with my two children to see "I'm Not There." I enjoyed it although I felt it started to drag for the last third. I didn't entirely get the Richard Gere part (I guess I'll have to think about it). I thought Heath was great. The scene early on, when he was in the coffee shop with "Claire" -- he looked and sounded so much like Ennis -- that might have been my favorite moment of all.

The background music was great (naturally!).

Since people know my pet peeve about smoking--once again a movie where EVERYONE smoked like chimneys. Does (or did) Dylan really smoke 80 cigarettes a day (4 packs)?? Yikes. So maybe his representation was accurate. But did everyone have to smoke so much? Sigh....

I am glad I saw this on the big screen. I have a feeling watching this on DVD, my attention would wander or I would fall asleep. In the theater, I am forced to stay alert.

L



I remember something about that, lol!  I've softened my position on that subject ever since I found out that there was no smoking in Zodiac, most of which was set in the smokin' 70s and I hadn't even noticed.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 06, 2008, 07:10:27 pm
I remember something about that, lol!  I've softened my position on that subject ever since I found out that there was no smoking in Zodiac, most of which was set in the smokin' 70s and I hadn't even noticed.

There was also NO SMOKING in Lars and the Real Girl, and the only scene with any drinking was at the party.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 06, 2008, 07:14:25 pm
There was also NO SMOKING in Lars and the Real Girl, and the only scene with any drinking was at the party.

L

Then how come you didn't like it more then you did?!  ;D

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 06, 2008, 07:26:42 pm
random interlude (feel free to continue the smoking debate) -

I saw Nat'l Treasure 2 in the theater today (entertaining) and I saw a scary movie poster and in my head went "ew - that looks too scary to see in the theater" - then I realized it was The Dark Knight (which of course I will go see in the theater)!  Have you guys seen it??? It's mostly white with a red smile and "Why so serious?" in red with (i think) the joker outlined in the background...  I really can't believe I was frightened from a gazillion feet away...
 >:(
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 06, 2008, 07:27:54 pm
Then how come you didn't like it more then you did?!  ;D



You know, I saw it the day after Thanksgiving and I was feeling really down that day. More than I realized at the time. And all those dreary scenes of the midwest in winter, knowing Winter was coming to Maine (we'd already had a storm at that point, I think)...it probably just didn't hit me in the right frame of mind. Maybe it was my mistake to see it that day, who knows?

But I did notice the absence of smoking!

And oilgun, you are online on a Sunday evening. Does that mean your home computer is fixed?

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 06, 2008, 07:33:44 pm
I saw "I'm Not There" at The Movies on Exchange Street which is this little, tiny, funky, indie theater in the Old Port of Portland, ME.

I haven't been to the Movies in ages. Random thoughts: I am glad the place had heat! The seats were really uncomfortable and close together. I felt like I was on an airplane. And I have a whole new respect for the sound systems in the multiplexes, as well as the digital movies.

Movies that are coming to The Movies include "The Diving Bell and The Butterfly," and "Persepolis." So I might be in those uncomfortable seats again in the next few weeks. LOL

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 06, 2008, 08:15:38 pm

And oilgun, you are online on a Sunday evening. Does that mean your home computer is fixed?

L

My computer is toast, the last message it gave me was to backup all my files (couldn't) and to replace my hard drive (!) because a failure was imminent.  (That'll teach me for visiting those naughty sites, lol!)  Anyway, I hooked up my old, and much slower, CPU until I buy a new one, I was having e-withdrawals!

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 06, 2008, 08:29:07 pm
I remember something about that, lol!  I've softened my position on that subject ever since I found out that there was no smoking in Zodiac, most of which was set in the smokin' 70s and I hadn't even noticed.

You're right! And I didn't notice that, either.

I saw Juno today. I was afraid it had been so overhyped that I'd be disappointed, but I wasn't. The dialogue was extremely clever, and the lead actress, Ellen Page, was amazing. She really became Juno, and it couldn't have been easy to pull off that all that witty dialogue coming from a 16-year-old girl. She almost started to get on my nerves, she was so constantly witty and smart and cool, but only the way a girl like that in real life would probably get on your nerves now and then. Actually, she was a very nice girl.

The other actors were good, too. It was very much the classic, "I laughed, I cried" kind of movie. I highly recommend it.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on January 07, 2008, 02:58:22 am

I haven't been to the Movies in ages. Random thoughts: I am glad the place had heat! The seats were really uncomfortable and close together. I felt like I was on an airplane. And I have a whole new respect for the sound systems in the multiplexes, as well as the digital movies.

L

I have two cinemas to choose from. One is a big commercial cinema called Kinepolis, part of a large chain of cinemas, where you'll find all the blockbusters, the other one is smaller, older. And even though the sound system isn't as good, i prefer the latter. In the Kinepolis it seems the people go there to eat (smelly nachos or crisps, yuck!) or chat while a movie is playing in the background. The audience just doesn't seem to be very interested in what's on the screen.
Another thing (okay, and then I'll shut up! LOL) is that the schedule changes very fast. Take Gone, Baby Gone. It had great reviews, I really wanted to see it. It came out in Kinepolis and after one week, it was no longer scheduled at 8 pm. And 10.30 pm is late to go see a movie.

Atonement will be released here next Wednesday, again in Kinepolis. I'll have to call my babysitter soon!

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 07, 2008, 10:19:37 am
After seeing "I'm Not There" my daughter was curious about Richard Gere. So last night, we re-watched "Days of Heaven." I realized, as I watched it, that I really, really love this movie. It may rival Brokeback as my number 1 favorite movie of all time (don't shoot me, folks!). Seriously, if the Internet had existed when this came out (1978) and I could have conversed with other "Days of Heaven" fans...who knows what my life would have been like? LOL

As I watched it, I realized that it is not entirely dissimilar from BBM. Yes, the stories are completely different but major themes: what we do--or don't do--for love; the pain, and cost, of keeping a secret--are present in both movies.

Like BBM, this was filmed in Alberta, but in the plains, not the mountains. But it still has stunning scenery and the cinematography is magnificent.

It was released as a Criterion Collection DVD a few months ago, so it is available on Netflix and video stores that carry Criterion movies. I definitely recommend this as a "must see"! I'd love to chat about this movie with anyone here who does watch it/has seen it.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on January 07, 2008, 10:33:55 am
Wow, Leslie, that's some recommendation.

I'll admit I haven't seen this movie. But I will!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 07, 2008, 11:05:13 am
I haven't seen Days of Heaven since the '70s, but I saw it a couple of times then and loved it. What a beautiful movie. From time to time I've thought of watching it again. When I do, Leslie, I'll let you know!

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 07, 2008, 01:00:34 pm
After seeing "I'm Not There" my daughter was curious about Richard Gere. So last night, we re-watched "Days of Heaven." I realized, as I watched it, that I really, really love this movie. It may rival Brokeback as my number 1 favorite movie of all time (don't shoot me, folks!). Seriously, if the Internet had existed when this came out (1978) and I could have conversed with other "Days of Heaven" fans...who knows what my life would have been like? LOL

As I watched it, I realized that it is not entirely dissimilar from BBM. Yes, the stories are completely different but major themes: what we do--or don't do--for love; the pain, and cost, of keeping a secret--are present in both movies.

Like BBM, this was filmed in Alberta, but in the plains, not the mountains. But it still has stunning scenery and the cinematography is magnificent.

It was released as a Criterion Collection DVD a few months ago, so it is available on Netflix and video stores that carry Criterion movies. I definitely recommend this as a "must see"! I'd love to chat about this movie with anyone here who does watch it/has seen it.

L

I bought The Criterion DVD when it came out and have yet to watch it.  In fact, I don't think I've ever actually seen Days of Heaven.  After reading your post I'll have to put it on top of the pile!

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on January 07, 2008, 01:07:37 pm
Yes, let's watch it! Days of Heaven was one of my favorites too! Was that Karen Allen who played the female lead? I was hot for her rather than Gere, believe it or not!! As I recall, Gere played a somewhat James Dean type of character.

I have been rewatching old movie favourites lately. I loved the director's cut of The Last of the Mohicans. Good set-up also to see D Day-Lewis in There Will be Blood. Last night I saw Robert Altman's Three Women. Powerful acting from Janice Rule, Sissy Spacek, and Shelley Duvall. Does it seem to you like movies used to be much more complex than they are now that 90% of movies are produced to satisfy the teenage hetero male, LOL??

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 07, 2008, 01:16:14 pm
Yes, let's watch it! Days of Heaven was one of my favorites too! Was that Karen Allen who played the female lead? I was hot for her rather than Gere, believe it or not!! As I recall, Gere played a somewhat James Dean type of character.


No, not Karen Allen...it was Brooke Adams. As for Gere as a Dean-type character...well, we could discuss that. I am not sure that is how I would characterize him.

The imagery of the wheat field with the house in the distance was inspired by Wyeth's painting, "Christina's World." The actual style of the house itself was inspired by the house in "Giant," which did star James Dean. The "Christina's World" house is here in Maine. You can visit it in the summer, when it is open for tours.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 07, 2008, 01:17:44 pm
Yes, let's watch it! Days of Heaven was one of my favorites too! Was that Karen Allen who played the female lead? I was hot for her rather than Gere, believe it or not!! As I recall, Gere played a somewhat James Dean type of character.

I have been rewatching old movie favourites lately. I loved the director's cut of The Last of the Mohicans. Good set-up also to see D Day-Lewis in There Will be Blood. Last night I saw Robert Altman's Three Women. Powerful acting from Janice Rule, Sissy Spacek, and Shelley Duvall. Does it seem to you like movies used to be much more complex than they are now that 90% of movies are produced to satisfy the teenage hetero male, LOL??



I'm in!  And OMG! I love Three Women!  Shelley Duvall is wonderful in that!   "She and I are best friends!" "It's for the kitchen!"
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 07, 2008, 01:45:13 pm
Yes, let's watch it! Days of Heaven was one of my favorites too! Was that Karen Allen who played the female lead? I was hot for her rather than Gere, believe it or not!!

I came as close as a straight woman can to being hot for Brooke Adams in that movie, myself. She was beautiful. But then, so was Richard Gere! And Sam Shepherd was attractive, too. Whatever happened to whoever played the younger sister?

Quote
Does it seem to you like movies used to be much more complex than they are now that 90% of movies are produced to satisfy the teenage hetero male, LOL??

Absolutely. Film writers have often written about the '70s being the Golden Age of movies, with the success of "Star Wars" being the turning point. Once studios found how much money they could make with special-effects-laden, cartoonish action pictures, that was that.

I've read that it's not only teenage hetero males that today's big blockbuster movies are designed to appeal to, but also to global audiences. A non-English-speaker can gather the meaning of car chases and building explosions much more easily than talky character dramas.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 07, 2008, 06:02:57 pm
I came as close as a straight woman can to being hot for Brooke Adams in that movie, myself. She was beautiful. But then, so was Richard Gere! And Sam Shepherd was attractive, too. Whatever happened to whoever played the younger sister?
Sam Shepard was extremely sexy (He still is really), I had such a thing for him!

Quote
I've read that it's not only teenage hetero males that today's big blockbuster movies are designed to appeal to, but also to global audiences. A non-English-speaker can gather the meaning of car chases and building explosions much more easily than talky character dramas.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that.  Makes a lot of sense.

I just got back from There Will be Blood and all I have to say is: Oh My God!  It's a strange film, very over the top, especially the ending.  I loved the dramatic soundtrack which makes itself quite evident, like a lead character.  Daniel Day Lewis' theatrics at the end brought to mind Al Pacino in Scarface, Orson Wells in Citizen Kane & James Dean in Giant.  And it takes place in a bowling alley(!)  Anyway, I really enjoyed it!  It's not perfect, I thought Paul Dano was miscast, I didn't find him very convincing as the preacher.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 07, 2008, 06:11:51 pm
Sam Shepherd was extremely sexy (He still is really), I had such a thing for him!


Oh, join the club! LOL
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on January 07, 2008, 06:23:55 pm
I'm in!  And OMG! I love Three Women!  Shelley Duvall is wonderful in that!   "She and I are best friends!" "It's for the kitchen!"

Where is the back of the line for people who want to marry oilgun and spend the rest of their days happily watching movie after movie!!

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: southendmd on January 07, 2008, 06:26:14 pm
Where is the back of the line for people who want to marry oilgun and spend the rest of their days happily watching movie after movie!!



Behind me, missy!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 07, 2008, 06:33:29 pm
Behind me, missy!

LOL!  The line to marry me is definitely only VIRTUAL, sadly.  ;)

Here are some pics of Sam for Leslie (especially the last one, lol!)  Very Viggo isn't he?

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/Back-Bog-Beast-Bait.jpg)
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/SamShepard.jpg)(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/shepard.gif)
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/sam50x.jpg)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on January 07, 2008, 06:53:26 pm
Behind me, missy!

With the newfangled flat paneled screens, three is definitely not a crowd these days!! Anyone for polygamy?

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on January 07, 2008, 06:55:02 pm
So has anyone seen Don't Come Knocking? Sam was his usual fascinating self, but wasn't it a shocker seeing Jessica Lange??

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 07, 2008, 07:19:15 pm
So has anyone seen Don't Come Knocking? Sam was his usual fascinating self, but wasn't it a shocker seeing Jessica Lange??



I haven't seen it and in fact, haven't heard of it. What's the shocker?

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 07, 2008, 07:19:57 pm
LOL!  The line to marry me is definitely only VIRTUAL, sadly.  ;)

Here are some pics of Sam for Leslie (especially the last one, lol!)  Very Viggo isn't he?



Hahahaha, yes....

But the one right above and to the right, that's my favorite!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: southendmd on January 07, 2008, 09:09:36 pm
So has anyone seen Don't Come Knocking? Sam was his usual fascinating self, but wasn't it a shocker seeing Jessica Lange??



I've loved Jessica Lange ever since Frances.

Hey, haven't those two been shacking up together for like 25 years?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on January 07, 2008, 10:46:49 pm
I've loved Jessica Lange ever since Frances.

Hey, haven't those two been shacking up together for like 25 years?

Yes, I think that was the reason she was in the film. It was a rather obscure film by Werner Herzog about a washed-up Hollywood cowboy who returns to the scene of a film he did in Montana and...well, I don't want to spoil it.

My goodness, Jessica has aged a lot.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 07, 2008, 10:51:07 pm
Recently I read she'd had plastic surgery, though she'd vowed for years she wasn't going to. But in Broken Flowers -- that was the name of it, right? That movie where Bill Murray goes back to visit three old girlfriends? -- she looked strangely different. Several critics commented on it, too.

Twenty-plus years ago I worked with a woman who knew Jessica Lange's aunt (Jessica Lange grew up near the area I was working at the time). She said Jessica's aunt looked exactly like Jessica, except that the aunt was really, really aged and wrinkled.

Course, Sam Shepherd looks pretty aged these days, too, but on men nobody seems to mind as much.




Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: southendmd on January 08, 2008, 01:41:58 pm
I have to admit that I fell asleep during Don't Come Knocking...

So, upon everyone's recommendation, I watched Days of Heaven last night.  While it is certainly beautifully filmed and scored, it won't be rivaling BBM for me.  The story was interesting, almost telegraphic, or staccato, but I didn't respond to it emotionally. 

Reminded me of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in some ways:  the idyllic scenes with the characters having fun, the triangle, and of course the man-hunt. 

(http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/53/53_images/53visionsday2.jpg)

(http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews9/days-of-heaven/days-of-heavenPDVD_00801.jpg)

(http://www.sensesofcinema.com/images/days.jpg)

Here are some interesting trivia from IMDb:

1)  Shot almost entirely at "magic hour," the hours between day and night early in the morning and late in the evening. Terrence Malick wanted to have a white sky and no sight of the sun.

2)  Cinematographer Néstor Almendros was going blind during production. Before each shot, he would have his assistant take a picture with a Polaroid camera and then would view under a high-powered magnify glass.

3)  John Travolta, Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman turned down the role of Bill.

4)  The shot of locusts ascending to the sky was shot in reverse with the helicopter crew throwing peanut shells down, and actors walking backwards.

5)  The film's title is a reference to Deuteronomy 11:21 - "That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in which the LORD swore to your fathers to give them as the days of heaven upon the earth."
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 08, 2008, 01:58:56 pm
I have to admit that I fell asleep during Don't Come Knocking...

So, upon everyone's recommendation, I watched Days of Heaven last night.  While it is certainly beautifully filmed and scored, it won't be rivaling BBM for me.  The story was interesting, almost telegraphic, or staccato, but I didn't respond to it emotionally. 

Reminded me of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in some ways:  the idyllic scenes with the characters having fun, the triangle, and of course the man-hunt. 


That's interesting since Butch Cassidy is also one of my favorite movies. But I am not seeing the connection the same way as you! LOL

Someone commented on IMDb about the cinematographer going blind. This commenter worked with him on another (later) movie. Apparently Amendros had coke-bottle glasses during the filming of Days of Heaven but on this later movie, no glasses at all. The commenter didn't know if he had surgery or something, but whatever, his sight was restored.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 08, 2008, 02:51:55 pm
That's interesting since Butch Cassidy is also one of my favorite movies. But I am not seeing the connection the same way as you! LOL

I do, however see quite a connection between Butch Cassidy and BBM!

Quote
Someone commented on IMDb about the cinematographer going blind. This commenter worked with him on another (later) movie. Apparently Amendros had coke-bottle glasses during the filming of Days of Heaven but on this later movie, no glasses at all. The commenter didn't know if he had surgery or something, but whatever, his sight was restored.

That's good news, because when I read the previous post I was sad. Though Nestor Almendros is dead now, he's the first cinematographer whose name I actually knew. Mainly because of Day of Heaven. But he also worked on the beautiful (though otherwise stupid) Blue Lagoon, as well as Places in the Heart (the farm flick with Sally Field) and Sophie's Choice.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 08, 2008, 11:27:05 pm
Lust, Caution will be nominated for best foreign film, and will win. (Boy, I am full of predictions today, aren't I?)

Exactly. Crash was something like 72% at rottentomatoes. Right now Elah is 64%.

Since I am in the mood for predictions today (who knows what has gotten into me!) I predict that 3:10 to Yuma will be nominated for Best Picture, and win. I'm Not There will also be nominated--won't win--but Todd Haynes will for Best Director.

Since all the reviews are raving about Tommy Lee Jones, I bet he will get a best actor nom. Maybe even win, since the movie itself will be shut out. Russell Crowe will be nominated for 3:10 to Yuma. Maybe Christian Bale, too, which is why neither of them will win (since they are in the same movie).

Cate Blanchett will be nominated for best actress for I'm Not There. Maybe she'll win.

Is it going too far out on a limb to predict Ben Foster getting  best supporting actor nom for 3:10 to Yuma?

L

Well, Leslie, now I understand your enthusiasm for 3:10 to Yuma!  I just finished watching it man, what a solid film!  I was actually in tears at the end, for some bizarre reason I don't wish to explore right now, lol!  It really affected me.  This is what movies are all about.  A movie like this makes me forget the crap I've had to sit through. I loved all the performances, Russell Crowe and Christian Bale sure are damn fine actors. And I'll never look at Ben Foster the same way again.

A couple of little things bothered me.  I thought Mrs Evans seemed a tad too contemporary-beautiful.  I also thought that for poor ranchers the Evanses were burning an awful lot of oil lamps, even in rooms not being used.  But this is just nitpicking. 

What a satisfying experience, I loved it!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 08, 2008, 11:41:50 pm
Satisfying is a good way to put it. 3:10 is like an old-fashioned good movie. Not arty or envelope-pushing -- just entertaining, suspenseful, emotional, well-acted.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 09, 2008, 01:25:45 am
I remember something about that, lol!  I've softened my position on that subject ever since I found out that there was no smoking in Zodiac, most of which was set in the smokin' 70s and I hadn't even noticed.

Well, I've was misinformed.  I'm watching Zodiac, I got the director's cut today,  and there have been several instances of smoking already.  Robert Downy Jr's character smokes.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on January 09, 2008, 01:29:57 am
Well, Leslie, now I understand your enthusiasm for 3:10 to Yuma!  I just finished watching it man, what a solid film!  I was actually in tears at the end, for some bizarre reason I don't wish to explore right now, lol!  It really affected me.  This is what movies are all about.  A movie like this makes me forget the crap I've had to sit through. I loved all the performances, Russell Crowe and Christian Bale sure are damn fine actors. And I'll never look at Ben Foster the same way again.

A couple of little things bothered me.  I thought Mrs Evans seemed a tad too contemporary-beautiful.  I also thought that for poor ranchers the Evanses were burning an awful lot of oil lamps, even in rooms not being used.  But this is just nitpicking. 

What a satisfying experience, I loved it!

I'm glad you got to see this movie, oilgun, and that you've added it to your top ten.  I've been hoping to see it in some critics' top ten lists, but so far only Alison Bailes of Reel Talk has done so.  But she put it as number 1 on her list of favorites.  8)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on January 09, 2008, 03:57:46 am

I've been meaning to watch 3:10 to Yuma...Now it's on DVD, I'm gonna rent it one of these nights.


Tonight, I watched Boys Don't Cry (I've seen it before).
It's an excellent, tragic film.. it always leaves me feeling drained and depressed.  I could not get all the way to the end this time.   :-\ 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 09, 2008, 08:58:32 am

So, upon everyone's recommendation, I watched Days of Heaven last night.  While it is certainly beautifully filmed and scored, it won't be rivaling BBM for me.  The story was interesting, almost telegraphic, or staccato, but I didn't respond to it emotionally. 


I spent some time thinking about this comment yesterday, trying to sort out what it is, exactly, about Days of Heaven that hits me so hard.

I think that my original viewing experience was somewhat "Brokebackian" and that has always stayed with me. We lived in Chicago at that time, and I saw Days of Heaven in the theater. Like BBM, I think Days of Heaven is best on the big screen. This theater had a wonderful sound system and Days of Heaven has a terrific score, plus I have always been a huge Leo Kottke fan. So that also enhanced my original viewing experience.

I remember when the movie ended, I just sat there in my seat, sort of stunned. I went back and saw it again, a few days later and had the same reaction. To be honest, if the theater hadn't been right downtown, with the hassle of Chicago parking, I might have seen it more than twice!

I had sort of forgotten about this movie, but when I saw an announcement for the Criterion DVD, all the memories came flooding back. And watching it on DVD, I had the same visceral reaction I had 29 years ago. Interesting how a movie can evoke such strong emotional memories.

Like I said in my other post, if the Internet had been around in those days and I could have chatted with other "Heavenites" who knows what my life would have been like. As it was, I had my own memories, thought about the movie, then filed it away.

When I think about movies that are on my "favorites" list, a large part of it is the memory of the emotional reaction I had the first time I saw it--which puts Brokeback Mountain up there, Days of Heaven, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and yes, even Titanic. Poor Titanic, the movie that everybody loves to hate now, but I still love it, because I remember how I felt the first time I saw it.

Leslie

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 09, 2008, 09:02:14 am
Well, Leslie, now I understand your enthusiasm for 3:10 to Yuma!  I just finished watching it man, what a solid film!  I was actually in tears at the end, for some bizarre reason I don't wish to explore right now, lol!  It really affected me.  This is what movies are all about.  A movie like this makes me forget the crap I've had to sit through. I loved all the performances, Russell Crowe and Christian Bale sure are damn fine actors. And I'll never look at Ben Foster the same way again.


Having seen Christian Bale just the other day in I'm Not There, I am becoming more and more impressed with his talent. I also thought he was excellent in The Prestige.

And you're right...Ben Foster, wasn't he great? Wow.

I may need to rent this and watch it again. I am so glad I saw it in the theater, though!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 09, 2008, 09:03:42 am

Tonight, I watched Boys Don't Cry (I've seen it before).
It's an excellent, tragic film.. it always leaves me feeling drained and depressed.  I could not get all the way to the end this time.   :-\ 


I've never seen that, and it has been on my "must watch"  list for years. I suggested it to Louise for a simulcast and she said no, she couldn't watch it again. Once was enough for her.

One of these days...

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 09, 2008, 09:11:15 am
I'm glad you got to see this movie, oilgun, and that you've added it to your top ten.  I've been hoping to see it in some critics' top ten lists, but so far only Alison Bailes of Reel Talk has done so.  But she put it as number 1 on her list of favorites.  8)

I was disappointed in this too, Meryl. Maybe it suffered the curse of coming out too early in the year.

Looking at my predictions, obviously I called quite a few wrong. Lust, Caution won't be nominated because of some technical glitch that it wasn't Taiwanese enough. I don't think 3:10 to Yuma will be nominated, either.

I still think Todd Haynes might get nominated for best director, but I don't think he'll win. Likewise, I still think Tommy Lee Jones will get a best actor nom for that Elah thing he was in.

And I still wonder...Ben Foster for best supporting actor? Hmmm....

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: southendmd on January 09, 2008, 09:31:37 am
Leslie, can you say more about what "stunned" you with Days of Heaven?  I'd really like to know. 

Since I saw it, I've read a bunch of reviews that, besides mentioning the great cinematography and music, didn't really tell me what they connected with.  The narrator?  The struggle of poverty? 

Maybe I need to see it again. 

3:10 to Yuma is now out on DVD, so I'll probably see that soon.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 09, 2008, 09:35:45 am
Having seen Christian Bale just the other day in I'm Not There, I am becoming more and more impressed with his talent. I also thought he was excellent in The Prestige.

I thought he was great in The Prestige, too. Especially when you get to the end and think back, and realize that ... well, I'll say no more. But those who've seen it know what I mean.

Christian Bale also very good in Rescue Dawn. I rented that over Thanksgiving. It's kind of a grueling film, which I'd known going in, though somehow I found it a bit disappointing. But Christian Bale is good in it.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 09, 2008, 09:55:39 am
I've been meaning to watch 3:10 to Yuma...Now it's on DVD, I'm gonna rent it one of these nights.


Tonight, I watched Boys Don't Cry (I've seen it before).
It's an excellent, tragic film.. it always leaves me feeling drained and depressed.  I could not get all the way to the end this time.   :-\ 


aw, M....
 :(
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 09, 2008, 10:04:14 am
sort of along the lines of remembering how movies make you feel...

two of my favorite movies from when i was young are Superman and Star Wars.  I loved them then, and I love them now.  But I wonder if I had never seen them before, how I would feel about them now...

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 09, 2008, 10:51:17 am
two of my favorite movies from when i was young are Superman and Star Wars.  I loved them then, and I love them now.  But I wonder if I had never seen them before, how I would feel about them now...

I know. I've had the experience of going back and watching a movie I'd loved years ago, and being disappointed -- not only because I've changed, but because movies themselves have changed. For example, I rented Raiders of the Lost Ark to watch with my kids. If there's ever a movie that struck me, at the time, as being vibrant and dynamic and action-packed and exciting, that was it! But when my boys and I watched it, a few years ago, it was ... slow. I couldn't believe it! They were bored. In the years since then, action movies have just sped up so much that the difference was really noticeable.

But we've watched some movies together that depended less on action, such as Big and Back to the Future, and they've held up pretty well.

My brother and I and our kids rented Marathon Man over Christmas. I remember really liking that and have been wanting to see it for years. But it's really hard to find in video stores. Finally, we found it! But then we ran out of time and I didn't get a chance to see it. My brother watched it after we left and said it was still good.





Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 09, 2008, 12:28:27 pm
Leslie, can you say more about what "stunned" you with Days of Heaven?  I'd really like to know. 

Since I saw it, I've read a bunch of reviews that, besides mentioning the great cinematography and music, didn't really tell me what they connected with.  The narrator?  The struggle of poverty? 


I think it was the totality of the experience. The images that totally filled the screen, the music, the evocation of the time...I felt like I was there. I could have been one of the people riding on top of the train, or working in the wheat field, that's how much I felt like I was in the movie.

I also, at that time, had never seen a movie like that before. I was 23 and although I liked movies and had seen plenty, I had pretty much been watching mainstream movies at the mall theater. I hadn't yet discovered indie movies at the local art theater. Days of Heaven was a totally different experience for me and gave me an idea of what a movie could "do" to you.

The last piece that was special to me was the narration. I really liked Linda Manz' voice in this, and what she said. Again, I am not sure I had ever seen a movie before that used that technique and I thought it worked perfectly in this film. I read that Malick edited her narration from 60 hours of her speaking! But then again, it took him two years to edit the movie.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 09, 2008, 12:30:59 pm
I know. I've had the experience of going back and watching a movie I'd loved years ago, and being disappointed -- not only because I've changed, but because movies themselves have changed. For example, I rented Raiders of the Lost Ark to watch with my kids. If there's ever a movie that struck me, at the time, as being vibrant and dynamic and action-packed and exciting, that was it! But when my boys and I watched it, a few years ago, it was ... slow. I couldn't believe it! They were bored. In the years since then, action movies have just sped up so much that the difference was really noticeable.


I remember the first time I saw The Pink Panther after a many year hiatus, I thought it seemed very slow. But then, I let myself relax and got into the pacing and I enjoyed it just like I did in the old days.

I really can see what the zoom-zoom-zoom pace of life has done to my attention span!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on January 09, 2008, 01:40:25 pm
I thought he was great in The Prestige, too. Especially when you get to the end and think back, and realize that ... well, I'll say no more. But those who've seen it know what I mean.

Christian Bale also very good in Rescue Dawn. I rented that over Thanksgiving. It's kind of a grueling film, which I'd known going in, though somehow I found it a bit disappointing. But Christian Bale is good in it.

I read that Bale got put thru the wringer by Werner Herzog when this film was shooting in ...Thailand, was it? Between that and 3:10 to Yuma, he had quite a bang-up year!! Wonder if he'll be nominated for an Oscar. Wonder if there'll be an Oscar night this year?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 09, 2008, 01:44:32 pm
Wonder if there'll be an Oscar night this year?

I sure hope the strike will have been settled by then. I don't know how much longer I can stand watching Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert wing it without writers.



Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on January 09, 2008, 02:13:39 pm
I feel sorry for the GOLDEN GLOBES having to resort to a one hour telecast as it stands now. The Oscars, I think they might postphone it.   If the Academy is  looking for a blockbuster to bring up the ratings at this year's Oscar, all I can say is good luck because nothing is doing it for them. 

I saw BROTHERS (the Danish version which is titled Brødre) yesterday.  I enjoyed it, but it's another heavy film.   Jakey G, Tobey Maguire and Natalie Portman are starring in the remake.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lynne on January 10, 2008, 03:49:59 pm
Mark (jpwagoneer) and I saw ATONEMENT yesterday afternoon and I absolutely loved it...not to be missed, IMO.

Lynne
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 11, 2008, 10:03:48 am
Has anyone here seen "Breakfast on Pluto"? Opinions?
Title: Sundance Film Festival begins January 17th
Post by: MaineWriter on January 12, 2008, 10:18:11 am
From the Wall Street Journal:



Play It Again, Sundance

Families in crisis, high school and rock 'n' roll. At this year's installment of the Utah-based film festival, the themes may sound familiar, but the crowds should be larger than ever and the bidding for movies is expected to hit new heights.

By LAUREN A.E. SCHUKER
January 12, 2008; Page W1

At Sundance, "Once" isn't enough. Many of the movies at this year's Sundance Film Festival echo the themes of past festival hits, such as the family drama-comedy "Little Miss Sunshine" and the rock musical "Once."

Familiar subjects like family dysfunction, high-school melodrama and classic rock are dominating the festival, which opens Thursday. The lineup reflects the increasingly blurred line between the studio and independent film worlds, as indie filmmakers repeat tested formulas to appeal to the mass audiences that studios covet. As the writers' strike drags on and studios search for fresh material, bidding wars for Sundance movies are expected to break records.

While music-inspired films can sometimes spell box-office trouble, Sundance 2008 includes a number of music-focused flicks. Showing in the festival's high-profile closing slot is "CSNY Déjà Vu," which looks back critically at the 1960s by focusing on the Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young "Freedom of Speech Tour" of 2006. "U2 3D" presents the Irish rock band's 2005-2006 global "Vertigo" tour in 3D. And "Patti Smith: Dream of Life" is a documentary about the acclaimed punk poet.

From the same producers who made "Little Miss Sunshine" comes a film with a similar title about difficult familial relationships: "Sunshine Cleaning" tells the story of two troubled sisters who enter the biohazard waste removal business. Other films about distressed families include the drama "Sleepwalking," which traces what happens to a 12-year-old girl when her mother (Charlize Theron) takes off and her uncle (Nick Stahl) raises her on his own, and the comedic "Smart People," with Sarah Jessica Parker and "Juno" star Ellen Page.

Geoffrey Gilmore, director of the Sundance festival, says that inevitably some films will repeat themes. "The industry is exhausted," he says. But he adds that there are "a million fresh takes on an issue."

He says that many of the films focus on quirky, dysfunctional families not because they are trying to copy the recipe behind "Little Miss Sunshine" but because it's easiest to address the world's troubles "by not directly engaging in issues, and instead telling a personal, family story."

Additional highlights this year include Robert De Niro as a frenzied film producer in Barry Levinson's comedy "What Just Happened?," Mos Def in director Michel Gondry's "Be Kind Rewind" and Morgan Spurlock's documentary "Where in the World Is Osama Bin Laden?" Irish playwright Martin McDonagh's "In Bruges," starring Colin Farrell, opens the festival.

More than 50,000 people are expected to attend Sundance this year, up from 36,000 four years ago. Routinely, cellphones at Sundance stop working because so many people crowd Main Street during opening weekend. Studio executives say that when closing multimillion-dollar deals to purchase film rights, they have to drive six miles down the highway to the interstate to regain service.

Harvey Weinstein, the studio head and producer behind major indie and mainstream hits like "Pulp Fiction" and "The English Patient," says that buying a film at Sundance is "an endurance test. You see the film at 8, start bidding at 10 and finish at 6 a.m. There is another tone at the other festivals -- at Cannes, you see the film, but then there are other things to do before buying, there's a fabulous party to go to and you're in a tuxedo rather than a ski jacket."

Nearly half of the 64 films in competition at Sundance this year were made by first-time directors. Nevertheless, some say that the festival has changed in the past couple of years.

"It used to be a launching festival," says Tom Bernard, co-president of Sony Pictures Classics -- meaning that Sundance is now a better place to buy a film than to generate publicity for a movie that's already been purchased. "It's changed dramatically -- now it's all about the middlemen, about the deal that closes at 4 a.m. while other buyers are banging down the door and sitting out in the cold."

This year, only slightly more than a dozen of the films at Sundance boast distributors before the festival begins -- in part because sales agents are holding out for on-site bidding wars.

Sundance's Mr. Gilmore says that last year the films that sold at the festival itself went for more money than ever before: about $45 million in total, he estimates.

Studio executives worry that this year some prices will get pushed up into the range of $12 million to $15 million per film owing to increased demand for material, persistence of the writers' strike, and prospective director and actor strikes.

Buyers say they are looking carefully at three star-packed films aimed at young audiences: "Hamlet 2" (with Elisabeth Shue), about a high-school drama course that puts on a musical sequel to Shakespeare's play; "The Wackness" (with Mary-Kate Olsen), about a high-school kid growing up in New York who pays his therapist with marijuana; and "Assassination of a High School President" (with Mischa Barton), about a newspaper nerd and popular girl at a Catholic high school who investigate stolen SAT exams.

A number of documentaries are commanding buyers' attention, including "American Teen" (about high-school seniors in the Midwest) and newcomer Chris Waitt's "A Complete History of My Sexual Failures," which chronicles its director's love life through doctors, ex-girlfriends and his mother.

Mr. Spurlock, who scored a Sundance hit with "Super Size Me" in 2004, returns with "Where in the World Is Osama Bin Laden?," which features the filmmaker's whimsical journey through the Middle East to track down the al Qaeda head.

There are a record seven films from the Middle East, but many of them focus on the fringes of society there rather than the war in Iraq. "Slingshot Hip Hop" examines the rap scene in Palestine, where the music is charged with lyrics about poverty and politics. "Be Like Others" chronicles the lives of Iranian transsexuals and the rise of gender-reassignment surgery in the country. And "Strangers," an Israeli film, follows the love story between an Israeli man and Palestinian woman who meet during the World Cup finals in Germany.

Sundance began in 1978 as the Utah/US Film Festival; Robert Redford took it over in 1985 to showcase American independent film; it was renamed the Sundance Film Festival in 1991. Many of today's most famous filmmakers got their big break at Sundance, including Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino and Jim Jarmusch. The event has also launched such films as "sex, lies, and videotape," "Clerks" and "The Blair Witch Project."

Social activities pack the Sundance calendar, including concerts and presentations featuring some of the singers from this year's films (Patti Smith and U2's Bono are expected) and late-night parties beginning at 3 a.m. and ending only after the first screenings start around 8 a.m.

Not everyone enjoys the hoopla. Errol Morris, the Academy Award-winning documentary filmmaker, likens Sundance to "spending a week in a meat locker. ... I'd rather be eviscerated by the Iroquois than go," he says. Mr. Morris's film "A Brief History of Time" won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance in 1992. "Sundance has been very kind to me," he says, "but I have logged my time."

Write to Lauren A.E. Schuker at [email protected]

     URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120008195567084409.html
Title: Sundance Film Festival begins January 17th
Post by: MaineWriter on January 12, 2008, 10:23:16 am
"In Bruges" opens the film festival. I was actually 'in Bruges' with Fabienne last March and saw some of extras of the movie 'in Bruges'! I am looking forward to the reviews. Here's a synopsis:

Martin McDonagh, an award-winning playwright and Academy Award winner for his short Six Shooter, makes his feature debut with a work that is deliriously funny, pointed, and perverse, yet sad, thoughtful, and infused with a moral vision that resonantly reflects today's surreal world. The film takes place in a storybook setting, the preserved medieval Flemish town of Bruges, where two hit men, Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson), have been ordered to cool their heels among holiday tourists after a botched execution. Though he feels out of place amid the Gothic architecture, canals, and cobbled streets, Ken is drawn to the serenity of the place as he tries to soothe Ray's haunted psyche. As they wait for their boss Harry's (Ralph Fiennes's) call, they are caught up in a series of weird encounters with locals, tourists, a dwarf American filmmaker, and Dutch prostitutes, and a romantic liaison that is not what it seems. When the call finally comes, it prompts a life-and-death struggle that is violent, darkly comic, and surprisingly touching.

The Irish are without peer in making us laugh about ourselves, life, and especially things that aren’t supposed to be funny. The profane brilliance of McDonagh’s writing is all that and more. Galvanized by perceptive performances and framed by a unique beauty, this is filmmaking at its most exhilarating.

Director(s): Martin McDonagh

Screenwriter(s): Martin McDonagh

Executive Producers: Jeff Abberley, Julia Blackman, Tessa Ross
Producers: Graham Broadbent, Peter Czerin
Cinematographer: Eigil Bryld
Editor: Jon Gregory

(http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h243/lnicoll/Maine/08F0071.jpg)
Title: Sundance Film Festival begins January 17th
Post by: MaineWriter on January 12, 2008, 10:24:54 am
Here's the website for the festival:

http://www.sundance.org/festival/
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 12, 2008, 11:18:23 am
I watched Queen Margot last night... 1994 French film based on the novel by A. Dumas.  Being rather ignorant about French history at the time, I didn't exactly know what I was in for - it was more shocking and violent than I was expecting, but still good.  (Parts of it are fictitious, so that helped me sleep a little easier, lol...)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 13, 2008, 01:11:35 am
I saw Charlie Wilson's War this afternoon and liked it much more than I had expected. I forgot, until the credits rolled, that it was written by Aaron Sorkin, which explains the snappy dialogue and colorful, likable characters. It reinvigorated my faltering faith in Tom Hanks, who is excellent. And it reinforced my consistent faith in Philip Seymour Hoffman, who is excellent also.

It's moving but also unexpectedly subtle. I think I recall a discussion about it a few pages back where we noted that people see this movie different ways depending on their politics. Well, I would say that it is mostly a feel-good movie about fighting Communists, so conservatives can enjoy that. But it has a decidedly ironic, foreshadowing tone at the end that unmistakably points to the future blowback.

"We'll see ..." as PSH's character says.



Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on January 13, 2008, 02:12:44 pm
"In Bruges" opens the film festival. I was actually 'in Bruges' with Fabienne last March and saw some of extras of the movie 'in Bruges'! I am looking forward to the reviews. Here's a synopsis:



Thanks for that Leslie. I'm wondering whether the scene we saw will be included in the movie.

Imdb isn't saying much about this film. I don't even know whether it will be released in Belgium. I sure hope so.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 13, 2008, 02:58:03 pm
Thanks for that Leslie. I'm wondering whether the scene we saw will be included in the movie.

Imdb isn't saying much about this film. I don't even know whether it will be released in Belgium. I sure hope so.



I would think, just for national pride, it would be released. People will want to see the scenery, if nothing else!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on January 13, 2008, 05:46:09 pm
Mark (jpwagoneer) and I saw ATONEMENT yesterday afternoon and I absolutely loved it...not to be missed, IMO.

Lynne
Sounds like a great film and great company!!

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 13, 2008, 10:33:33 pm
Today i saw The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and it truly is a wonderfully moving, funny and uplifting film.  It surpassed my expectations.

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/diving-bell-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on January 13, 2008, 11:28:43 pm
I saw THE ORPHANAGE today.  Overall, the film had the feel of a 1960's ghost story. I'm thinking on the lines of THE HAUNTED as well as THE OTHERS.  While a decent film THE ORPHANAGE wasn't as good as the two I mentioned above.  There were a few rather large plot holes which took away from the film. 

There has been some controversy about the film being in Spanish and not being advertised that way.  The couple sitting behind me moaned and said "we have to read subtitles?"   It's sad ppl can be so lazy. 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 13, 2008, 11:34:33 pm
There has been some controversy about the film being in Spanish and not being advertised that way.  The couple sitting behind me moaned and said "we have to read subtitles?"   It's sad ppl can be so lazy. 

I really don't understand people who see a film without knowing anything about it.  I guess those are the people that most DVD covers are designed for, lol!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on January 13, 2008, 11:46:09 pm
Today, I watched The Children's Hour (1961) starring Audrey Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine, James Garner.

Martha (Shirley MacLaine's character) and Karen (Audrey's character) are headmistresses of a girls' school.   When they punish a notorious bratty child for bad behavior, she tells her grandmother (who wastes no time in spreading the word) that the two women are lovers.  Of course, all the parents are disgusted and proceed to pull their children out of the school.

Like was the case with the few gay-themed movies in those days, Shirley MacLaine's character was made to portray the fact that she was actually in love with her friend and fellow teacher in a manner that showed her disgust and shame.  When she confesses her love to Karen, she repeatedly says how ashamed and dirty she feels by the whole thing. Even though Martha's love was not reciprocated in the same way, Karen offered that they go away together, somewhere where they weren't known for the "unnatural" sexual activities they'd been accused of engaging in.  I think that could've been a nice ending but no, Martha's fate was sealed by the end of the movie (let's just say they didn't ride off in the sunset together).

I am glad we've made some progress since then.  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on January 13, 2008, 11:58:18 pm
Lucise, I just want to say I love your Audrey Hepburn signature.  Audrey was just so nice and charming, made some wonderful movies, incredibly photogenic and a humanitarian.   It's no wonder her passing made for a rare editorial in The New York Times. So much more then a movie star.

I always loved her in Breakfast at Tiffany's and Roman Holiday.   

I heard Audrey approached THE CHILDREN'S HOUR with hesitation.  This was considered very very edgy material when it came out in the early 1960's.  The play I believe dates back to the 1930's.  I guess the theater crowds are more sophisticated about things like that.   The playwright Hellman brought up the issue of lesbianism because she said at the time, it was the most scandalous thing you could be accused of...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on January 14, 2008, 12:14:25 am
Hey KD, cheers.  :)


Here is a piece from the documentary: The Celluloid Closet, referencing The Children's hour:


[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429gotnYSt0[/youtube]
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 14, 2008, 11:20:52 am
I saw THE ORPHANAGE today.  Overall, the film had the feel of a 1960's ghost story. I'm thinking on the lines of THE HAUNTED as well as THE OTHERS.  While a decent film THE ORPHANAGE wasn't as good as the two I mentioned above.  There were a few rather large plot holes which took away from the film. 

There has been some controversy about the film being in Spanish and not being advertised that way.  The couple sitting behind me moaned and said "we have to read subtitles?"   It's sad ppl can be so lazy. 

My daughter went and saw it on Saturday with a friend. She said it was very scary. Funny, she never even mentioned the subtitles, so obviously, they didn't bother her!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 14, 2008, 08:34:41 pm
My daughter went and saw it on Saturday with a friend. She said it was very scary. Funny, she never even mentioned the subtitles, so obviously, they didn't bother her!

L

oh, I finally realized what movie you were talking about...

The advertisements I saw linked it with "Pan's Labyrinth"...  so if a movie goer saw Pan's, then they should have been prepared (for the subtitles).  But maybe lots of people are seeing The Orphanage that didn't see Pan's...

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on January 15, 2008, 02:06:00 am
I finally got to see a movie I've wanted to see in quite a while.
It is an Indian movie called Sancharram (aka The Journey), written and directed by Ligy J. Pullappally.
Like Deepa Mehta's "Fire", The Journey mainly addresses the subject of lesbianism in Indian society.


(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i285/Lucise/Misc/ba0ea482.jpg)

 
At its centre are two young women who have been best mates since they were children.  As they grow older, their relationship transitions from friendship to love (with great performances by the two leads).  The complications surrounding their blossoming relationship go from bad to worse when they are found out and a marriage is hastily arranged. 

I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would in fact.  It felt like watching a long and rather sensual poem ... loved the cinematography :)


Excerpt from an interview with the screenwriter/director [on her motivation for making the movie]:

Ligy J. Pullappally: On January 25, 2000, I received an email about a young woman at a university in the South Indian state of Kerala. She and her girlfriend had fled the school, presumably under the threat of expulsion as a result of the rumors of their love affair with each other. The women were recovered and sent back to their respective families. The next day, one of the young woman's body was found floating in the reservoir of a dam. It was a tragic loss of young life and potential, a suicide. It was, I would learn, an all too familiar circumstance in the South Indian state of Kerala.

I wanted to do something to draw attention to the alarmingly frequent incidents of gay suicide - to try to stem that tide; I knew that isolation was a factor in these incidents, so I considered creating a positive media representation of young gay people.

[courtesy of -  http://www.desiclub.com/bollywood/bollywood_features/bolly_article.cfm?id=253]



Worth checking out.  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 16, 2008, 05:38:03 pm
The AMPAS shortlist for the Foreign Language Film Award shockingly excludes 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days and Persepolis

http://www.variety.com/blog/890000489/post/1600020160.html (http://www.variety.com/blog/890000489/post/1600020160.html)

I've heard of one and seen none of the following shortlisted films:

Austria, "The Counterfeiters," Stefan Ruzowitzky, director
Brazil, "The Year My Parents Went on Vacation," Cao Hamburger, director
Canada, "Days of Darkness," Denys Arcand, director
Israel, "Beaufort," Joseph Cedar, director
Italy, "The Unknown," Giuseppe Tornatore, director
Kazakhstan, "Mongol," Sergei Bodrov, director
Poland, "Katyn," Andrzej Wajda, director
Russia, "12," Nikita Mikhalkov, director
Serbia, "The Trap," Srdan Golubovic, director


Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere is also pissed off:

One of the biggest outrages in the history of the Academy's foreign film committee -- a scandal fed by deficient taste and myopic, mule-like obstinacy -- has just happened with the release of the nine-film short list that doesn't include Cristian Mungiu's widely hailed 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days. The people who pushed for this decision need to be identified and, with all charity and compassion, expelled from this group for life. What will it take? Torches and pitchforks at the corner of Wilshire and La Peer at 8 pm this evening?

More at: http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2008/01/4_months_doesnt.php (http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2008/01/4_months_doesnt.php)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 16, 2008, 05:50:53 pm
What about "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"? Or do you think that will get nominated in the best picture category?

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 16, 2008, 06:06:13 pm
What about "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"? Or do you think that will get nominated in the best picture category?

L
Actually, France submitted Persepolis so Diving Bell wasn't in the running for this award:  http://www.thefilmexperience.net/Awards/2007/foreignfton.html (http://www.thefilmexperience.net/Awards/2007/foreignfton.html)

 It might get a best picture nom, certainly a best director and adaptation.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on January 17, 2008, 05:21:24 pm
The AMPAS shortlist for the Foreign Language Film Award shockingly excludes 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days and Persepolis



The Lives Of Others (das Leben der Anderen) from Germany wasn't included either. It is one of the best movies I've seen last year.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 17, 2008, 05:41:24 pm
The Lives Of Others (das Leben der Anderen) from Germany wasn't included either. It is one of the best movies I've seen last year.

The Lives of Others was in the running last year and won. The film came out in 2006 in the U.S.  I was really surprised to see it listed for the 2007 BAFTAs.
Title: Criterion releases 2-Disc Edition of THE ICE STORM!
Post by: oilgun on January 17, 2008, 05:56:48 pm
Here's some exciting news on the DVD front.  Criterion is releasing a 2 disc edition of Ang Lee's The Ice Storm. It includes a commentary with Ang and James Schamus

This is giving me hope that we may eventually get a decent edition of Brokeback Mountain! Hope it doesn't take ten years like it did for The Ice Storm though:

http://www.criterion.com/asp/release.asp?id=426 (http://www.criterion.com/asp/release.asp?id=426)

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/IceStorm.jpg)

(Now there's a nicely designed DVD cover! Criterion must be the only one to hire professional Graphic Designers.... "Whaaa...no floating heads?!"  :laugh:)

Compare that with the cover of the Fox edition (I'll be happy to be rid of this monstrosity!):
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/IceStorm--2.jpg)



Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on January 17, 2008, 06:30:17 pm
Yep, Lee and Schamus should have tackled BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN after they did the commentary for THE ICE STORM. It's been ten years since they did THE ICE STORM. Don't you forget things in a ten year time period?   I've never heard Lee give commentary on DVD before.  I wonder if he will talk in generalities or specifics about the film. 
Title: Re: Criterion releases 2-Disc Edition of THE ICE STORM!
Post by: BelAir on January 17, 2008, 07:59:16 pm
Here's some exciting news on the DVD front.  Criterion is releasing a 2 disc edition of Ang Lee's The Ice Storm. It includes a commentary with Ang and James Schamus




be sure you report back after you watch the commentary...

 ::)
Title: Re: Criterion releases 2-Disc Edition of THE ICE STORM!
Post by: oilgun on January 17, 2008, 08:11:19 pm
be sure you report back after you watch the commentary...

 ::)

Oh, I will!  I forgot to mention that the DVD's release date is March 18th.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Artiste on January 17, 2008, 10:30:37 pm
So you want an BM II movie??

Anyone?

Hugs!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 18, 2008, 09:50:41 am
In Bruges opened the Sundance Flim Festival last night. Here's an early review from Filmthreat.com

IN BRUGES
   
by Jeremy Mathews

(2008-01-19)

2007, Rated R, 107 minutes

In the opening voice-over of "In Bruges," Colin Farrell immediately puts the audience at ease. His character, Ray, admits that he didn't even know where Bruges was until his boss told him to lay low there. Then, he punctuates the commentary with some helpful information: "It's in Belgium."

Writer/director Martin McDonagh has crafted his entire film with the same spirit as the introduction. The content may initially seem daunting, but the film presents it in an accessible, entertaining manner that dares you not to enjoy yourself. This is a film about people who have done bad things and deal with real psychological issues, but they're also people who ramble, bicker and talk—and do so in the way peculiar to British criminals in movies.

Ray and his mentor Ken, played by the great Brendan Gleeson, flee from London to the medieval town after Ray's debut job as a hitman ended in failure. The two were instructed to go sight-seeing, but Ray spends most of his time whining about the town, indulging his neuroses and pissing all over Ken's attempts to take in the culture. His mood changes a bit, however, when he meets a cute local (Clémence Poésy) who works on the set of a pretentious Dutch film whose case includes a drug-loving dwarf (Jordan Prentice).

The dynamic between Gleeson and Farrell grows more and more fascinating as we learn more about what the characters have been through. As they exchange stylish dialogue, they reveal more about whether or not they indulge one another and why.

In a film full of great performances, Ralph Feinnes steals the show as Harry, the boss. Initially heard only over the telephone, Feinnes takes on an accent and a philosophy far from that of his typical role. He makes Harry presumptive and indignant, approachable and intimidating, a bundle of rage in a reasonable demeanor. It would be hard to find a better harbinger of doom.

During its conclusion, the film oscillates between big ideas and big set pieces. It's only here that McDonagh falters a bit in his balancing act, using what could have been a considerable emotional payoff as a launch pad for a rather elaborate (but quite well done) chase scene. Even when the film goes off the rails, however, it's still a fun ride.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on January 18, 2008, 10:22:07 am
Leslie, have you seen the trailer?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0780536/trailers-me60268068 (http://imdb.com/title/tt0780536/trailers-me60268068)

I think it has some great dialogue!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 18, 2008, 10:50:55 am
Thanks for that, Fabienne, I hadn't seen it.

The reviewers are all praising the "snappy dialog" which had the audience laughing out loud. While some reviews praised the movie (like the one I posted) a few complained that this was one of those movies that started out funny, felt like a comedy, and then took an abrupt turn. I have a feeling I know what that turn is, given the occupations of the leads.

Either way, I'll seek it out because I want to see the scenery!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on January 18, 2008, 12:02:03 pm
And what was in my mailbox today? The dvd of Days Of Heaven!

I ordered it just because of your recommendation Leslie. Maybe we'll watch it tonight.  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 18, 2008, 12:05:28 pm
Is anyone planning to see JJ Abrams' Cloverfield this weekend?  The reviews are pretty good and I love the trailer.

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/cloverfield.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 18, 2008, 12:14:47 pm
Maybe I'll go with my son. I still want to see Atonement, though...

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 18, 2008, 12:15:10 pm
And what was in my mailbox today? The dvd of Days Of Heaven!

I ordered it just because of your recommendation Leslie. Maybe we'll watch it tonight.  :)

Oh, I can't wait for your review!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on January 18, 2008, 12:53:38 pm
Maybe I'll go with my son. I still want to see Atonement, though...

L

I know what you mean. We were going to see it last night, but my husband had a hard day at work and he wanted to watch something that would give him a laugh, so we decided on Charlie Wilson's War. And we laughed! I really enjoyed the biting satire. Tom Hanks was really good as the Congress man knocking back one whiskey after another. Julia Roberts had interesting wigs. LOL But Philip Seymour Hoffman really stole the show, his performance was hilarious.

We'll watch Atonement next week. And I still haven't seen Gone, Baby Gone or Rendition or Before The Devil Knows You're Dead. *sigh* Never enough time.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on January 18, 2008, 08:16:26 pm
I went to see "Atonement" today and really enjoyed it.  I'd been led to believe from the trailer that it was a big epic film, but it wasn't, really.  There was a big scene showing the gathering of troops for the Battle of Dunkirk (really well done), but basically, it was an intimate story of two lovers whose lives were tragically impacted by a third person.  The music, by Dario Marianelli, was beautifully evocative and made the bittersweet story all the more moving.  The director used the camera in a way that I can only describe as lyrical.  Overall, the impression I got was that of having read a long, evocative, sadly beautiful poem.  Highly recommended.  8)

There was a preview for "In Bruges," and it looks very appealing.  If for no other reason than to see that gorgeous town (I've spent many imaginary hours there by working on the opera "Die Tote Stadt"), I have to see it. Clemence Poesy, who played Fleur in the most recent Harry Potter movie, is also in it. :D

Another preview was for "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day," starring Frances McDormand and Amy Adams.  It looks really cute.  Frances McDormand is a not too successful London nanny who finally gets a job with Amy Adams' character, an American actress.  Ciaran Hinds, one of my favorites, is also in it, as is Shirley Henderson, who plays "Moaning Myrtle" in the Harry Potter movies.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on January 19, 2008, 01:26:34 pm
The film critic at Time Magazine had a recent article that Hollywood needs to make more "Out of Africa's" in order to get ppl to watch the Oscars and to get adults to the cinema.  He said ppl don't watch the Oscars as a contest to see who will win best picture, but rather as a coronation (Titanic).   However, I thought well doesn't the movie poster from OUT OF AFRICA have a comparable look with a certain image from BBM??   ;D


http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/27/A70-13827 

I'm having a problem copying the image, so I just posted the link.  As Meryl pointed out in a msg to me, "It's is a nice image, and very evocative of the shot in BBM."

I know Ennis and Jack weren't' having a picnic "the morning after," but it's still familiar enough.  Who needs OUT  OF AFRICA when you the scenery and passion of BBM.

http://popbytes.com/img/brokeback-dec9.jpg
















Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on January 19, 2008, 01:55:20 pm
Karl, here's the picture you mentioned, in case others are having trouble opening it:

(http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h269/merylmarie/out_of_africa.jpg)

And the BBM shot to go with it:

(http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h269/merylmarie/BBMLinesVisualized/BrokieBrunch/Brokeback/PosterBBM.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 19, 2008, 03:31:18 pm
This would be a good companion piece to our analysis of the more familiar BBM poster and its resemblance to the Titanic poster.

The thing that most strikes me in contrasting these is that Meryl Streep and Robert Redford are turned toward the camera and facing each other, while Jack and Ennis are turned away from both us and each other. That faintly suggests something secretive or illicit about their relationship. Of course, knowing that this is the "I ain't queer" scene probably reinforces that inference, for me.

Plus, while Meryl and Bob are touching or almost touching, Jack and Ennis are not, leaving the nature of their relationship vague.

It's interesting to imagine a poster with Jack and Ennis posed like the "Out of Africa" stars.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 19, 2008, 04:34:16 pm
i agree to all of the above...

i was also thinking that Meryl and Robert (can't remember their character's names) looked enclosed by their scenery (i.e. the mountains 'wrapping' around them) whereas as Jack and Ennis looked removed from the view in front of them...

e.g. 'where do we belong in this world?' for Jack and Ennis and 'we are happy in this world' for Meryl and Robert.  Obviously the fact that we see the backs of one couple and the front of the other has something to do with it as well.

Quote
It's interesting to imagine a poster with Jack and Ennis posed like the "Out of Africa" stars.

this makes me think of scene around the fire, that I think is actually just Jake and Heath, not Jack and Ennis...  I'll see if I can find it.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 19, 2008, 04:49:53 pm
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee304/BelAirChoice/bbm3.jpg)

(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee304/BelAirChoice/bbmpair.jpg)

well, those were the two images I was thinking of... but because they are close-ups and in the trees, they aren't really all that similar to the OoA poster.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 19, 2008, 04:58:45 pm
Sorry to break in here with a totally different topic but I just saw Juno and thought it was great!  After all the hype it actually exceeded my expectations.  It's a really sweet and intelligent film with excellent performances and a wonderful soundtrack. (I'm listening to it as I write this, lol!)

Sonic Youth's version of the Carpenters' Superstar (4:05)

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0--RCqzJkA[/youtube]
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 19, 2008, 05:00:58 pm
I am glad to hear it lived up to all the hype!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 19, 2008, 05:40:07 pm
Hannah and I went to see Atonement. I thinks she is still upstairs sobbing...poor thing.

It was good and I enjoyed it. The scenery, the costumes, the evocation of an earlier time...all great. I kept saying to myself, "there is something about this movie..." and I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Then, I was reading comments at The New York Times and commenter #63 hit the nail on the head. I said, "Ah ha!" Not to give too much away (for those who haven't seen it) but the exact same conceit was used in "Adaptation," another movie I liked the first time around and grew to love on subsequent viewings. I suspect the same thing will happen with "Atonement." Interesting.

I saw very different previews than Meryl, though! "The Eye" (blech, skip), "Charlie Bartlett" (looks funny), and "10,000 BC" which looks really really dreadful. When I saw it was the same director as "Independence Day" and "The Day After Tomorrow" I knew that meant STAY AWAY. I will.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: southendmd on January 19, 2008, 07:19:29 pm
Sorry to break in here with a totally different topic but I just saw Juno and thought it was great!  After all the hype it actually exceeded my expectations.  It's a really sweet and intelligent film with excellent performances and a wonderful soundtrack. (I'm listening to it as I write this, lol!)

I'm glad you also enjoyed Juno.  The soundtrack is full of wonderfully quirky, sweet songs. 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 20, 2008, 07:22:31 pm
I saw Before the Devil Knows You're Dead today and quite enjoyed it.  Let's just say that it isn't exactly a feel-good film,  :o! although there are some touches of dark humour.  Phillip Seymour Hoffman is great as usual and so is Ethan Hawke and I liked how the film was structured, jumping back and forth in the timeline, it worked quite well.
The French poster below is somewhat misleading, btw.

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/Before_devil_knows_youre_dead_2007.jpg)
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/before_the_devil.jpg)
"Aww man, there's a fly in my beer!  It's just not a good day!"
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 20, 2008, 10:08:02 pm
I saw Before the Devil Knows You're Dead today and quite enjoyed it.  Let's just say that it isn't exactly a feel-good film,  :o! although there are some touches of dark humour.  Phillip Seymour Hoffman is great as usual and so is Ethan Hawke and I liked how the film was structured, jumping back and forth in the timeline, it worked quite well.
The French poster below is somewhat misleading, btw.

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/Before_devil_knows_youre_dead_2007.jpg)
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/before_the_devil.jpg)

from that profile view in the poster, EH reminds me of Benicio del Toro (sp?)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 21, 2008, 10:19:41 am
I am not  quite sure what I think about this...



January 21, 2008

Oliver Stone to Make "Fair" Movie About George W. Bush


By REUTERS

Filed at 9:00 a.m. ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Director Oliver Stone, who has made movies about Presidents John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, is developing a project about the current occupant of the White House, but promises it will not be a hatchet job, Daily Variety reported on Sunday.

Stone is in talks with Josh Brolin, who is starring in "No Country For Old Men," to play the title role in "Bush," the trade paper said.

He is shopping the script to financiers and hopes to start production by April, with a release date in time for the election in November, or the inauguration of Bush's successor in January.

Stone told Daily Variety that he planned to make "a fair, true portrait" of Bush, focusing on such areas as his relationship with his father, President George H.W. Bush, his wild youth, and his conversion to Christianity.

"It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors," said Stone.

He said Brolin was better looking than Bush, "but has the same drive and charisma that Americans identify with Bush, who has some of that old-time movie-star swagger."

A White House spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment. Bush has acknowledged that he was a heavy drinker in his younger days, but has long been sober.

Stone, who has had his battles with drink and drugs, earned three Oscar nominations for his 1991 conspiracy film "JFK." In 1996, he also received a script nomination for "Nixon," which starred Anthony Hopkins. He won best directing Oscars for the Vietnam sagas "Platoon" and "Born on the Fourth of July."

Other historical figures reinterpreted by Stone include dead rock star Jim Morrison in "The Doors," and Alexander the Great in "Alexander."

In 2002, he shot a flattering documentary about Cuban leader Fidel Castro for HBO, but the pay-cable network told him to balance it with more footage about political prisoners on the communist island.

Stone's efforts last year to film a documentary about another Bush nemesis, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also hit turbulence. His request for access was denied with an official reportedly dismissing the filmmaker as "part of the Great Satan."

(Reporting by Dean Goodman, editing by Philip Barbara)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 21, 2008, 10:59:06 am
I am one of those people who doesn't like 'historical' movies to be released in such closeness (at least temporally) to real events...

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 21, 2008, 11:04:06 am
I am not  quite sure what I think about this...



January 21, 2008

Oliver Stone to Make "Fair" Movie About George W. Bush


By REUTERS

Filed at 9:00 a.m. ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Director Oliver Stone, who has made movies about Presidents John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, is developing a project about the current occupant of the White House, but promises it will not be a hatchet job, Daily Variety reported on Sunday.

Stone is in talks with Josh Brolin, who is starring in "No Country For Old Men," to play the title role in "Bush," the trade paper said.

He is shopping the script to financiers and hopes to start production by April, with a release date in time for the election in November, or the inauguration of Bush's successor in January.

Stone told Daily Variety that he planned to make "a fair, true portrait" of Bush, focusing on such areas as his relationship with his father, President George H.W. Bush, his wild youth, and his conversion to Christianity.

"It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors," said Stone.

He said Brolin was better looking than Bush, "but has the same drive and charisma that Americans identify with Bush, who has some of that old-time movie-star swagger."

A White House spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment. Bush has acknowledged that he was a heavy drinker in his younger days, but has long been sober.

Stone, who has had his battles with drink and drugs, earned three Oscar nominations for his 1991 conspiracy film "JFK." In 1996, he also received a script nomination for "Nixon," which starred Anthony Hopkins. He won best directing Oscars for the Vietnam sagas "Platoon" and "Born on the Fourth of July."

Other historical figures reinterpreted by Stone include dead rock star Jim Morrison in "The Doors," and Alexander the Great in "Alexander."

In 2002, he shot a flattering documentary about Cuban leader Fidel Castro for HBO, but the pay-cable network told him to balance it with more footage about political prisoners on the communist island.

Stone's efforts last year to film a documentary about another Bush nemesis, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also hit turbulence. His request for access was denied with an official reportedly dismissing the filmmaker as "part of the Great Satan."

(Reporting by Dean Goodman, editing by Philip Barbara)



He won't have to do a hatchet job, just depicting reality will be bad enough,  :laugh:

This reminds me, a friend at work who recently went to Vegas was unable to use her left-over American cash to pay for her lunch at the food court, nobody wanted to accept it (i'm in Canada).  She said people used to kill for American money so she's convinced the end of the world is near  ???
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 21, 2008, 11:04:25 am
I am one of those people who doesn't like 'historical' movies to be released in such closeness (at least temporally) to real events...



Very good point. I agree and feel the same way.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 21, 2008, 11:05:28 am
He won't have to do a hatchet job, just depicting reality will be bad enough,  :laugh:

This reminds me, a friend at work who recently went to Vegas was unable to use her left-over American cash to pay for her lunch at the food court, nobody wanted to accept it (i'm in Canada).  She said people used to kill for American money so she's convinced the end of the world is near  ???

End of the world, huh? I guess I should just start going to the movies more often, then!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 21, 2008, 11:06:53 am
End of the world, huh? I guess I should just start going to the movies more often, then!
Let's go ee Cloverfield!  :laugh:

According to the Mayan calendar we've got until 2012!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 21, 2008, 12:12:50 pm
Here are some movies NOT to see...



"I Know Who Killed Me" kills critics at Razzies


Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:32am EST

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Two New York firemen posing as a gay couple, psychically linked identical twins and a mild-mannered man dominated by his latex-wearing obese wife are all contenders this year for the worst screen couples in Hollywood.

Among the nominations announced on Monday for the 28th annual Golden Raspberry awards, which celebrate the worst in filmmaking, are Adam Sandler, Lindsay Lohan and Eddie Murphy for their respective work in "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry," "I Know Who Killed Me" and "Norbit."

It's a double-whammy for Lohan and Murphy, who play multiple roles in their cinematic fiascoes and were nominated opposite themselves in the worst screen couple category.

"I Know Who Killed Me," a teen thriller in which Lohan plays psychically connected twins, "is a Lindsay Lohan 'vehicle' that proved as dangerous for its star as any car she ever ran off the road," said John Wilson, who heads the group that spoofs the Oscars by celebrating the year's worst films.

"Norbit" garnered Murphy five nods for what Wilson described as a "latex-laden, nearly laugh-free 'comedy.'"

In that film, Murphy plays Norbit, as well as his adopted Asian father and hugely obese girlfriend.

Rounding out the list is "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry," in which Sandler and co-star Kevin James claim to be domestic partners in order to receive medical benefits, a comedy Wilson describes as a "gag-inducing 'gay romp.'"

"I Know Who Killed Me" received a total of nine nominations by the Razzies -- worst screen couple, picture, horror movie, screenplay, director, remake/rip-off, supporting actress and two nods for actress -- trailed by "Norbit" and "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry," which both received eight.

The worst film category also includes "Bratz," based on the popular toy dolls -- the four lead actresses were all named in the worst actress category in a "four-for-one deal" -- and "Daddy Day Camp," starring Oscar winner Cuba Gooding Jr.

The worst actor category also includes Nicolas Cage for his turns in "Ghost Rider," "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" and "Next" and Jim Carrey for "The Number 23."

Others nominated for worst actresses include Diane Keaton in "Because I Said So," Jessica Alba in "Awake," "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" and "Good Luck, Chuck."
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on January 21, 2008, 12:37:57 pm
Let's go ee Cloverfield!  :laugh:

According to the Mayan calendar we've got until 2012!

I saw CLOVERFIELD over the weekend. Let's just say I'm glad it was a short film, I believe it was less then an 1:30 minutes.   I'm not a film snob, so I don't mind seeing films like this. Plus I had a busy weekend, so I couldn't squeeze in the time to see longer fare such as THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

CLOVERFIELD was an overblown chase film except they are being chased by a monster.  Like Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS, the characters aren't given much information; where does the monster come from,  what is it,  etc etc.  The movie is shot via camcorder and some ppl might not like that as the picture doesn't stay steady for long. In that regards, it reminded me of the much lower budgeted BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.  Also, 95% of the film takes place at nighttime so we really don't get a "Godzilla" image of the monster.   It's hard to describe what it looks like.   

This is the second "disaster" movie I've recently seen that takes place in Manhattan.  I AM LEGEND was the other one. You'd think they'd be tired of seeing their city destroyed by plague or by monster.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 21, 2008, 12:52:43 pm
This is the second "disaster" movie I've recently seen that takes place in Manhattan.  I AM LEGEND was the other one. You'd think they'd be tired of seeing their city destroyed by plague or by monster.

I saw a column on this very subject in The Guardian. It points out the movie's echoes of 9/11 and suggests that Americans are trying to process that event through movies.

Here's the link and an excerpt.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/01/cinematic_take_on_911.html (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/01/cinematic_take_on_911.html)

Quote
Over a century of cinema , America has contemplated and iterated its origins in the movies, mostly through westerns. It's still doing so. Paul Thomas Anderson's superb There Will Be Blood is less a character-study than a thesis on the two opposing forces - entrepreneurial capitalism and evangelical Christianity - that have shaped the Midwest. But America also has its destruction myth, inevitably set in New York, whose reduction to rubble both confirms that city's pre-eminence and signals that the stakes are high. The spectacle of NY landmarks (the Brooklyn Bridge, the Flatiron Building) being totalled is as much a recurring obsession for American filmmakers as among the higher echelons of al-Qaida. I can't recall another culture - even the Sumerians, no strangers to fatalism - which has rehearsed its own extinction with such apparent relish.

... In the end much of the film's power resides not in its special effects but in the plausibility of its set-up: a surprise party in a downtown apartment is suddenly interrupted by an explosion outside. And just like that everything changes forever. It demonstrates one of the chief lessons of 9/11: vast, largely unguessed-at forces can abruptly irrupt into everyday life, shattering bourgeois self-absorption and upending supposed certainties. It's a chastening lesson, one that America is still learning how to tell.

BTW, I found that piece by reading a review of Cloverfield on Slate, which also addresses this topic:

Quote
I'm more interested in how Cloverfield plays on 9/11 anxieties—not in the way one "plays out" issues in therapy, but in the way one plays a video game. 2008 has already seen a notable uptick in America's historical eagerness to eradicate New York in our imagination. Besides Cloverfield and I Am Legend, there's the upcoming History Channel special Life After People, whose ubiquitous poster shows a crumbling Brooklyn Bridge overgrown with vines. As this fine piece in the Guardian points out, Americans seem almost soothed by replaying the fantasy of our flagship city in ruins. What's that about?

In a quote from the press notes, Abrams says, "We live in a time of great fear. Having a movie that is about something as outlandish as a massive creature attacking your city allows people to process and experience that fear in a way that is incredibly entertaining and incredibly safe." Cloverfield's entertainment value remains to be determined over its opening weekend. For viewers in the same demographic as Rob and his buddies, I suspect it will be a big hit. But maybe its re-imagining of 9/11 as the ultimate buzzkill is a little too safe. The movie may be the first to repackage the events of Sept. 11 as pure entertainment. It's certainly the first to use those events as part of a viral marketing hook, in a spooky untitled trailer that premiered before last summer's Transformers. Whoa, that would be intense, if lower Manhattan was suddenly destroyed by some terrible, faceless agent of evil. Oh, wait.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on January 21, 2008, 02:05:53 pm
It's interesting that you bring that topic up, Karl and Leslie.  I was just ruminating this morning on my underlying anxiety about being unexpectedly thrown out onto the street here in NYC. 

I often wonder what I would do if we had to evacuate suddenly.  I never forgot the images of those poor Bosnians, especially old people and children, who were made to trek miles and miles over the harsh countryside as part of Milosovic's ethnic cleansing policy.   It's not that far-fetched, unfortunately, given the scenario of a possible "dirty bomb" attack here that could spread radiation over many miles.  In fact, ever since 9/11, I have had a purse-size bag sitting in my closet with extra money, a transistor radio, energy bars, water and other portable necessities, ready to pick up and take with me.  Sounds paranoid, I know, but I'm not alone by a longshot.

Although a monster attack or a quick climatic disaster is really unlikely, I do think it's only a matter of time before New York and other coastal cities will have to be abandoned in the face of the rising sea levels brought on by global warming.  I'm just glad I can enjoy living here now.  It's a great city, full of beautiful and exciting things, a wonderful example of how millions of people can coexist together in relative harmony.  The disaster scenarios just make me appreciate it all the more on a daily basis.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on January 21, 2008, 02:39:36 pm
I am not  quite sure what I think about this...



January 21, 2008

Oliver Stone to Make "Fair" Movie About George W. Bush


By REUTERS

Filed at 9:00 a.m. ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Director Oliver Stone, who has made movies about Presidents John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, is developing a project about the current occupant of the White House, but promises it will not be a hatchet job, Daily Variety reported on Sunday.

Stone is in talks with Josh Brolin, who is starring in "No Country For Old Men," to play the title role in "Bush," the trade paper said.

He is shopping the script to financiers and hopes to start production by April, with a release date in time for the election in November, or the inauguration of Bush's successor in January.

Stone told Daily Variety that he planned to make "a fair, true portrait" of Bush, focusing on such areas as his relationship with his father, President George H.W. Bush, his wild youth, and his conversion to Christianity.

"It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors," said Stone.

He said Brolin was better looking than Bush, "but has the same drive and charisma that Americans identify with Bush, who has some of that old-time movie-star swagger."

A White House spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment. Bush has acknowledged that he was a heavy drinker in his younger days, but has long been sober.

Stone, who has had his battles with drink and drugs, earned three Oscar nominations for his 1991 conspiracy film "JFK." In 1996, he also received a script nomination for "Nixon," which starred Anthony Hopkins. He won best directing Oscars for the Vietnam sagas "Platoon" and "Born on the Fourth of July."

Other historical figures reinterpreted by Stone include dead rock star Jim Morrison in "The Doors," and Alexander the Great in "Alexander."

In 2002, he shot a flattering documentary about Cuban leader Fidel Castro for HBO, but the pay-cable network told him to balance it with more footage about political prisoners on the communist island.

Stone's efforts last year to film a documentary about another Bush nemesis, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also hit turbulence. His request for access was denied with an official reportedly dismissing the filmmaker as "part of the Great Satan."

Has anyone else ever had the thought that Heath Ledger would make a convincing George W. Bush?  The voice might be a challenge, since Bush is a tenor and Heath a bass, but there are a number of moments in BBM where he reminds me of him, a few of which are below:

(http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h269/merylmarie/BBMLinesVisualized/BrokieBrunch/Brokeback/EnnisReunionSmile.jpg)

(http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h269/merylmarie/BBMLinesVisualized/BrokieBrunch/Brokeback/afterthedivorce.jpg)

(http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h269/merylmarie/BBMLinesVisualized/BrokieBrunch/Brokeback/itsnormalandall.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 21, 2008, 02:51:22 pm
Although I can see the resemblance that you are referring to, Meryl, especially in the nose, the thought of Heath playing Mr. Bush just makes me throw up a little in my mouth! LOL

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on January 21, 2008, 03:03:20 pm
Although I can see the resemblance that you are referring to, Meryl, especially in the nose, the thought of Heath playing Mr. Bush just makes me throw up a little in my mouth! LOL

L

I know, Leslie!  I didn't say I liked the resemblance, just that it's there.  ;)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: loneleeb3 on January 21, 2008, 03:10:33 pm


(http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h269/merylmarie/BBMLinesVisualized/BrokieBrunch/Brokeback/EnnisReunionSmile.jpg)

(http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h269/merylmarie/BBMLinesVisualized/BrokieBrunch/Brokeback/afterthedivorce.jpg)

(http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h269/merylmarie/BBMLinesVisualized/BrokieBrunch/Brokeback/itsnormalandall.jpg)
No, he will always be my Ennis! I don't care what Movie he is in or how old he gets. In my mind he will forever be Ennis Del Mar.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on January 21, 2008, 03:29:24 pm

One of the movies I watched recently is called The Gymnast. (directed by Ned Farr)
http://www.thegymnastfilm.com/thegymnast_flash.html


It is lovely little film with breathtaking aerialist performances by the two leads.  Simply wow.
That, and it's a love story.  I really enjoyed it.  :)


(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i285/Lucise/Misc/9c103de9.jpg)


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 21, 2008, 04:19:28 pm
Well, I had to do it!  Just got back from seeing Cloverfield! (I'm not a film snob either, lol!)  It really does play on post 9/11 anxieties, several early scenes of clouds of dust and debris billowing through the streets of lower Manhattan looked eerily familiar.  All in all, it was a pretty effective film, I was pretty much on the edge of my seat throughout.  The camcorder effect, which often didn't show us what was happening, or only partly, worked well at increasing the confusion and fear. There was just enough character development to make us care about happens to them.  The creature was a bit of a disappointment, I think it would have been more effective if we never actually got a good look at it.  Anyway, it was fun!

The trailers shown:  A teaser trailer of Star Trek showing the enterprise under construction.  -Hellboy II, looks pretty bad.  -21 with Kevin Spacey about that ring of card-counting math wiz MIT students in Vegas.  Wasn't there a TV show about that?  There must have been others but I can't remember them.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on January 21, 2008, 04:48:31 pm
Well Oilgun, do you realize how many Trekkies are going to pay just to see that 3 second image of the new Star Trek, coming Christmas 2008.  I've actually seen the image posted on some mainstream film blogs and that's all it was, an image of the Enterprise under construction.  William Shatner is still whining about not being cast... Probably wanted a pretty penny.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 21, 2008, 04:55:48 pm
[...] William Shatner is still whining about not being cast... Probably wanted a pretty penny.

How come actors never retire, that's what I want to know. :laugh:
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 21, 2008, 04:56:52 pm
Has anyone else ever had the thought that Heath Ledger would make a convincing George W. Bush?

If that thought has ever passed through my mind for even a split second I immediately got rid of the thought, destroyed the brain cells it touched and forgot I ever had it.

 :P :P :P

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: loneleeb3 on January 21, 2008, 05:46:36 pm
I just watched a great movie today. It's "A Love Song For Bobby Long".
It's got Scarlett Johanson and John Travolta! Oh, what a beautiful story.
It was agreat cast and acted very well!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 21, 2008, 06:34:45 pm
It's interesting that you bring that topic up, Karl and Leslie.  I was just ruminating this morning on my underlying anxiety about being unexpectedly thrown out onto the street here in NYC. 

I often wonder what I would do if we had to evacuate suddenly.  I never forgot the images of those poor Bosnians, especially old people and children, who were made to trek miles and miles over the harsh countryside as part of Milosovic's ethnic cleansing policy.   It's not that far-fetched, unfortunately, given the scenario of a possible "dirty bomb" attack here that could spread radiation over many miles.  In fact, ever since 9/11, I have had a purse-size bag sitting in my closet with extra money, a transistor radio, energy bars, water and other portable necessities, ready to pick up and take with me.  Sounds paranoid, I know, but I'm not alone by a longshot.

Although a monster attack or a quick climatic disaster is really unlikely, I do think it's only a matter of time before New York and other coastal cities will have to be abandoned in the face of the rising sea levels brought on by global warming.  I'm just glad I can enjoy living here now.  It's a great city, full of beautiful and exciting things, a wonderful example of how millions of people can coexist together in relative harmony.  The disaster scenarios just make me appreciate it all the more on a daily basis.


I know people (okay, actually only one person, and it's NOT me) that won't consider living near any big cities due to possible bomb attacks... 

Anyhow... having the little bag packed - actually sounds like a good idea, no matter where you live...

and your last point up there is a really good one.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 21, 2008, 06:38:12 pm
Well, I had to do it!  Just got back from seeing Cloverfield! (I'm not a film snob either, lol!)  It really does play on post 9/11 anxieties, several early scenes of clouds of dust and debris billowing through the streets of lower Manhattan looked eerily familiar.  All in all, it was a pretty effective film, I was pretty much on the edge of my seat throughout.  The camcorder effect, which often didn't show us what was happening, or only partly, worked well at increasing the confusion and fear. There was just enough character development to make us care about happens to them.  The creature was a bit of a disappointment, I think it would have been more effective if we never actually got a good look at it.  Anyway, it was fun!

The trailers shown:  A teaser trailer of Star Trek showing the enterprise under construction.  -Hellboy II, looks pretty bad.  -21 with Kevin Spacey about that ring of card-counting math wiz MIT students in Vegas.  Wasn't there a TV show about that?  There must have been others but I can't remember them.

that always seems to happen, doesn't it?  (I remember being enjoying the ride of Jeepers Creepers until we actually saw the creature...)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 22, 2008, 09:50:17 am
I am home this morning making a casserole so I decided to flip on the announcement of the Academy Award nominees. Of my predictions from months ago, I was mostly wrong, but I did nail one: Tommy Lee Jones for Best Actor in "In the Valley of Elah." Yeah!

Hal Holbrook snuck in for Best Supporting Actor for "Into the Wild." I think he stole Ben Foster's nomination for "3:10 to Yuma." Oh well.

Cate Blanchett had a double nomination! Best Supporting Actress for "I'm Not There" and Best Actress for the Queen Elizabeth movie (I don't remember the name).

Best Picture nominees:

Atonement
Juno
There Will Be Blood
No Country for Old Men
Michael Clayton (I think). I didn't write anything down (I'm making a casserole, remember!).

I'll post a press release with all the nominees as soon as I find one online.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 22, 2008, 10:13:25 am
The casserole is made so without further ado:

List of 80th Annual Oscar Nominees

By The Associated Press – 14 minutes ago

Complete list of 80th annual Academy Award nominations announced Tuesday:

1. Best Picture: "Atonement," "Juno," "Michael Clayton," "No Country for Old Men," "There Will Be Blood."

2. Actor: George Clooney, "Michael Clayton"; Daniel Day-Lewis, "There Will Be Blood"; Johnny Depp, "Sweeney Todd the Demon Barber of Fleet Street"; Tommy Lee Jones, "In the Valley of Elah"; Viggo Mortensen, "Eastern Promises."

3. Actress: Cate Blanchett, "Elizabeth: The Golden Age"; Julie Christie, "Away From Her"; Marion Cotillard, "La Vie en Rose"; Laura Linney, "The Savages"; Ellen Page, "Juno."

4. Supporting Actor: Casey Affleck, "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"; Javier Bardem, "No Country for Old Men"; Hal Holbrook, "Into the Wild"; Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Charlie Wilson's War"; Tom Wilkinson, "Michael Clayton."

5. Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett, "I'm Not There"; Ruby Dee, "American Gangster"; Saoirse Ronan, "Atonement"; Amy Ryan, "Gone Baby Gone"; Tilda Swinton, "Michael Clayton."

6. Director: Julian Schnabel, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"; Jason Reitman, "Juno"; Tony Gilroy, "Michael Clayton"; Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, "No Country for Old Men"; Paul Thomas Anderson, "There Will Be Blood."

7. Foreign Film: "Beaufort," Israel; "The Counterfeiters," Austria; "Katyn," Poland; "Mongol," Kazakhstan; "12," Russia.

8. Adapted Screenplay: Christopher Hampton, "Atonement"; Sarah Polley, "Away from Her"; Ronald Harwood, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"; Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, "No Country for Old Men"; Paul Thomas Anderson, "There Will Be Blood."

9. Original Screenplay: Diablo Cody, "Juno"; Nancy Oliver, "Lars and the Real Girl"; Tony Gilroy, "Michael Clayton"; Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava and Jim Capobianco, "Ratatouille"; Tamara Jenkins, "The Savages."

10. Animated Feature Film: "Persepolis"; "Ratatouille"; "Surf's Up."

11. Art Direction: "American Gangster," "Atonement," "The Golden Compass," "Sweeney Todd the Demon Barber of Fleet Street," "There Will Be Blood."

12. Cinematography: "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford," "Atonement," "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "No Country for Old Men," "There Will Be Blood."

13. Sound Mixing: "The Bourne Ultimatum," "No Country for Old Men," "Ratatouille," "3:10 to Yuma," "Transformers."

14. Sound Editing: "The Bourne Ultimatum," "No Country for Old Men," "Ratatouille," "There Will Be Blood," "Transformers."

15. Original Score: "Atonement," Dario Marianelli; "The Kite Runner," Alberto Iglesias; "Michael Clayton," James Newton Howard; "Ratatouille," Michael Giacchino; "3:10 to Yuma," Marco Beltrami.

16. Original Song: "Falling Slowly" from "Once," Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova; "Happy Working Song" from "Enchanted," Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz; "Raise It Up" from "August Rush," Nominees to be determined; "So Close" from "Enchanted," Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz; "That's How You Know" from "Enchanted," Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz.

17. Costume: "Across the Universe," "Atonement," "Elizabeth: The Golden Age," "La Vie en Rose," "Sweeney Todd the Demon Barber of Fleet Street."

18. Documentary Feature: "No End in Sight," "Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience," "Sicko," "Taxi to the Dark Side," "War/Dance."

19. Documentary (short subject): "Freeheld," "La Corona (The Crown)," "Salim Baba," "Sari's Mother."

20. Film Editing: "The Bourne Ultimatum," "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "Into the Wild," "No Country for Old Men," "There Will Be Blood."

21. Makeup: "La Vie en Rose," "Norbit," "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End."

22. Animated Short Film: "I Met the Walrus," "Madame Tutli-Putli," "Meme Les Pigeons Vont au Paradis (Even Pigeons Go to Heaven)," "My Love (Moya Lyubov)," "Peter & the Wolf."

23. Live Action Short Film: "At Night," "Il Supplente (The Substitute)," "Le Mozart des Pickpockets (The Mozart of Pickpockets)," "Tanghi Argentini," "The Tonto Woman."

24. Visual Effects: "The Golden Compass," "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End," "Transformers."

___

Academy Award winners previously announced this year:

HONORARY AWARD (Oscar statuette): Robert Boyle
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 22, 2008, 10:42:10 am
The casserole is made so without further ado:

List of 80th Annual Oscar Nominees

By The Associated Press – 14 minutes ago

Complete list of 80th annual Academy Award nominations announced Tuesday:

1. Best Picture: "Atonement," "Juno," "Michael Clayton," "No Country for Old Men," "There Will Be Blood."

2. Actor: George Clooney, "Michael Clayton"; Daniel Day-Lewis, "There Will Be Blood"; Johnny Depp, "Sweeney Todd the Demon Barber of Fleet Street"; Tommy Lee Jones, "In the Valley of Elah"; Viggo Mortensen, "Eastern Promises."

3. Actress: Cate Blanchett, "Elizabeth: The Golden Age"; Julie Christie, "Away From Her"; Marion Cotillard, "La Vie en Rose"; Laura Linney, "The Savages"; Ellen Page, "Juno."

4. Supporting Actor: Casey Affleck, "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"; Javier Bardem, "No Country for Old Men"; Hal Holbrook, "Into the Wild"; Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Charlie Wilson's War"; Tom Wilkinson, "Michael Clayton."

5. Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett, "I'm Not There"; Ruby Dee, "American Gangster"; Saoirse Ronan, "Atonement"; Amy Ryan, "Gone Baby Gone"; Tilda Swinton, "Michael Clayton."

6. Director: Julian Schnabel, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"; Jason Reitman, "Juno"; Tony Gilroy, "Michael Clayton"; Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, "No Country for Old Men"; Paul Thomas Anderson, "There Will Be Blood."

7. Foreign Film: "Beaufort," Israel; "The Counterfeiters," Austria; "Katyn," Poland; "Mongol," Kazakhstan; "12," Russia.

8. Adapted Screenplay: Christopher Hampton, "Atonement"; Sarah Polley, "Away from Her"; Ronald Harwood, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"; Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, "No Country for Old Men"; Paul Thomas Anderson, "There Will Be Blood."

9. Original Screenplay: Diablo Cody, "Juno"; Nancy Oliver, "Lars and the Real Girl"; Tony Gilroy, "Michael Clayton"; Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava and Jim Capobianco, "Ratatouille"; Tamara Jenkins, "The Savages."

10. Animated Feature Film: "Persepolis"; "Ratatouille"; "Surf's Up."

11. Art Direction: "American Gangster," "Atonement," "The Golden Compass," "Sweeney Todd the Demon Barber of Fleet Street," "There Will Be Blood."

12. Cinematography: "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford," "Atonement," "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "No Country for Old Men," "There Will Be Blood."

13. Sound Mixing: "The Bourne Ultimatum," "No Country for Old Men," "Ratatouille," "3:10 to Yuma," "Transformers."

14. Sound Editing: "The Bourne Ultimatum," "No Country for Old Men," "Ratatouille," "There Will Be Blood," "Transformers."

15. Original Score: "Atonement," Dario Marianelli; "The Kite Runner," Alberto Iglesias; "Michael Clayton," James Newton Howard; "Ratatouille," Michael Giacchino; "3:10 to Yuma," Marco Beltrami.

16. Original Song: "Falling Slowly" from "Once," Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova; "Happy Working Song" from "Enchanted," Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz; "Raise It Up" from "August Rush," Nominees to be determined; "So Close" from "Enchanted," Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz; "That's How You Know" from "Enchanted," Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz.

17. Costume: "Across the Universe," "Atonement," "Elizabeth: The Golden Age," "La Vie en Rose," "Sweeney Todd the Demon Barber of Fleet Street."

18. Documentary Feature: "No End in Sight," "Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience," "Sicko," "Taxi to the Dark Side," "War/Dance."

19. Documentary (short subject): "Freeheld," "La Corona (The Crown)," "Salim Baba," "Sari's Mother."

20. Film Editing: "The Bourne Ultimatum," "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "Into the Wild," "No Country for Old Men," "There Will Be Blood."

21. Makeup: "La Vie en Rose," "Norbit," "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End."

22. Animated Short Film: "I Met the Walrus," "Madame Tutli-Putli," "Meme Les Pigeons Vont au Paradis (Even Pigeons Go to Heaven)," "My Love (Moya Lyubov)," "Peter & the Wolf."

23. Live Action Short Film: "At Night," "Il Supplente (The Substitute)," "Le Mozart des Pickpockets (The Mozart of Pickpockets)," "Tanghi Argentini," "The Tonto Woman."

24. Visual Effects: "The Golden Compass," "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End," "Transformers."

___

Academy Award winners previously announced this year:

HONORARY AWARD (Oscar statuette): Robert Boyle


Oooh, I hope Norbit wins for Makeup!  :laugh:

Other than that, not too many surprises really...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 22, 2008, 10:52:29 am
Oooh, I hope Norbit wins for Makeup!  :laugh:

Other than that, not too many surprises really...

Norbit gets nominated for Makeup. It also got nominated for a gang of Razzies. Is that a first? Razzie noms and Academy Award in the same year?

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 22, 2008, 10:58:43 am
Norbit gets nominated for Makeup. It also got nominated for a gang of Razzies. Is that a first? Razzie noms and Academy Award in the same year?

L

Somehow, I doubt that it's a first, but I can't remember any examples off-hand.

Hopefully Michael Clayton will be re-released, it's the only one I haven't seen.  I just noticed that American Gangster was shut-out, haven't seen that one either.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 22, 2008, 11:12:06 am
Somehow, I doubt that it's a first, but I can't remember any examples off-hand.

Hopefully Michael Clayton will be re-released, it's the only one I haven't seen.  I just noticed that American Gangster was shut-out, haven't seen that one either.

Michael Clayton is being re-released, I think in the next week or two.

My son saw it and wasn't terribly impressed. I'll be interested in what you think of it. Frankly, the whole George Clooney mystique is lost on me, which is why I wasn't terribly interested in seeing the movie.

So far, of the best picture noms, I have seen one: Atonement. I do want to see Juno, which is still playing, and maybe There Will Be Blood. I'm not too interested in the other two.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 22, 2008, 11:52:10 am
I liked Michael Clayton a lot. It was very well written and directed: both as a suspenseful thriller as well as an effective, subtle character drama. And it's well acted, not only by George Clooney but also by Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton. I'm not as huge a fan of Clooney-as-matinee-idol as some people but I think he can be a very good actor.

I don't think it will win the Best Picture, one because it's just not a BP type of movie and two because it's so far overshadowed by Juno and There Will Be Blood (which seem like the front-runners to me). Nor do I think Clooney will win BA or Swinton BSA (my predictions: Daniel Day-Lewis and Cate Blanchett). But they were both good.

UPDATE: Oops! I belatedly realized that Tom Wilkinson had been nominated for BSA, too. Again, I don't think he'll get it (Phillip Seymour Hoffman is my prediction), but he was very good.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on January 22, 2008, 12:12:21 pm
I liked Michael Clayton a lot. It was very well written and directed: both as a suspenseful thriller as well as an effective, subtle character drama. And it's well acted, not only by George Clooney but also by Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton. I'm not as huge a fan of Clooney-as-matinee-idol as some people but I think he can be a very good actor.

I don't think it will win the Best Picture, one because it's just not a BP type of movie and two because it's so far overshadowed by Juno and There Will Be Blood (which seem like the front-runners to me). Nor do I think Clooney will win BA or Swinton BSA (my predictions: Daniel Day-Lewis and Cate Blanchett). But they were both good.


I agree! I really liked Michael Clayton. And George Clooney was very good. No pretty face mr. charming, but a man caught up in an empty world and trying to find his way out. I also liked him in Syriana.

Go see it Leslie, you won't be disappointed.


And I have a question. We're going to see Atonement tonight. And I was reading Robert Egbert's review. It started with 'Atonement" begins on joyous gossamer wings, and descends into an abyss of tragedy and loss.'

What does 'gossamer' mean? I couldn't find an adequate description in my dictionary. Fluffy? Featherlike? hmmm

I've never heard it before.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on January 22, 2008, 12:20:36 pm
What a lovely word, gossamer! To me, it is like a fabric, like chiffon, that is so feather-light and translucent that it may well be imaginary.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 22, 2008, 12:22:24 pm
I agree! I really liked Michael Clayton. And George Clooney was very good. No pretty face mr. charming, but a man caught up in an empty world and trying to find his way out. I also liked him in Syriana.

Go see it Leslie, you won't be disappointed.


And I have a question. We're going to see Atonement tonight. And I was reading Robert Egbert's review. It started with 'Atonement" begins on joyous gossamer wings, and descends into an abyss of tragedy and loss.'

What does 'gossamer' mean? I couldn't find an adequate description in my dictionary. Fluffy? Featherlike? hmmm

I've never heard it before.

Probably the best description would be "soft, sheer and gauzy." If you think of wings that fairies might have (in a children's story, for example) -- that sort of gauzy, see through look with sparkles -- that describes gossamer to me.

I can't wait to hear what you think of Atonement. It has been in my mind pretty much constantly since I saw it on Saturday. There is a spoiler thread on this board (don't look at it now!) that you might want to chime in on after you have seen it.

I don't think I read Roger's review. A.O. Scott in the New York Times totally missed the boat on this movie, though, if you want my opinion.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on January 22, 2008, 01:09:14 pm

Atonement is also on my next-to-see list.   :)



Back in the world of period movies, last night I watched the last of two episodes of Rebecca, the 1997 BBC adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's book.  I have not seen the Alfred Hitchcock 1940 production of the same film, but this 'newer' version was enjoyable to watch, particularly the last episode.  I loved Diana Rigg in her role as Mrs Danvers, the domineering (& somewhat insane) housekeeper..


(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i285/Lucise/Misc/6cce82c1.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on January 22, 2008, 01:10:59 pm
They say no picture has won the Academy Award for best picture without being nominated for Film Editing.  The last one that did was ORDINARY PEOPLE.  BBM was not nominated in this category. 

Here's the list for this year.
Film Editing

"The Bourne Ultimatum"
"The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"
"Into the Wild"
"No Country for Old Men"
"There Will Be Blood"


I think those two are frontrunners right now. However, given how studios use "Crash tactics," who knows?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 22, 2008, 01:29:30 pm
Atonement is also on my next-to-see list.   :)

Excellent! Report back....

Quote

Back in the world of period movies, last night I watched the last of two episodes of Rebecca, the 1997 BBC adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's book.  I have not seen the Alfred Hitchcock 1940 production of the same film, but this 'newer' version was enjoyable to watch, particularly the last episode.  I loved Diana Rigg in her role as Mrs Danvers, the domineering (& somewhat insane) housekeeper..


You need to see the 1940 version, it's fabulous. Put it on your netflix queue!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 22, 2008, 01:30:51 pm
They say no picture has won the Academy Award for best picture without being nominated for Film Editing.  The last one that did was ORDINARY PEOPLE.  BBM was not nominated in this category. 

Here's the list for this year.
Film Editing

"The Bourne Ultimatum"
"The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"
"Into the Wild"
"No Country for Old Men"
"There Will Be Blood"


I think those two are frontrunners right now. However, given how studios use "Crash tactics," who knows?

That's interesting and I would have put those two down as the frontrunners. Probably the winner will be the one with the bigger marketing campaign. Was either one distributed by Lionsgate (wasn't that the distributor for Crash?).

Edited to add: Yes, my memory is still intact. Lionsgate was one of the Crash distributors.

NCFOM and TWBB were both distributed by Miramax so it will be interesting to see how that shakes out.

Atonement was distributed by Focus Features--shades of BBM!



L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on January 22, 2008, 01:41:10 pm

Probably the best description would be "soft, sheer and gauzy." If you think of wings that fairies might have (in a children's story, for example) -- that sort of gauzy, see through look with sparkles -- that describes gossamer to me.

I can't wait to hear what you think of Atonement. It has been in my mind pretty much constantly since I saw it on Saturday. There is a spoiler thread on this board (don't look at it now!) that you might want to chime in on after you have seen it.

I don't think I read Roger's review. A.O. Scott in the New York Times totally missed the boat on this movie, though, if you want my opinion.

L

Thanks for that Leslie!


And a Belgian entry has been nominated in the category Best Short Film, Live Action. It's Tango Argentini.

I'll be honest, I haven't heard much of this. These short films are only shown at special film festivals, not in the regular cinemas. I found this on IMDB. 'An office clerk with a hankering to tango enlists the support of a workplace colleague as he prepares for a date. It's Christmas time and the concept of giving assumes fairy tale proportions in this beguiling modern story.'

It sounds interesting. I'd like to see it.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: southendmd on January 22, 2008, 01:50:39 pm
Go, Juno!  I just saw it again yesterday, and loved it just as much.  The theatre was packed!  I was able to pay attention to the little details, and the nuances of the performances this time. 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on January 22, 2008, 02:03:51 pm
Excellent! Report back....

You need to see the 1940 version, it's fabulous. Put it on your netflix queue!

I don't think we've got NetFlix up here but I'll definitely check it out.  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 22, 2008, 02:05:14 pm
To me, the consensus narrative on NCFOM and TWBB goes like this: NCFOM was good, but TWBB is kind of like it and better. So TWBB wins out between those two (I've only seen the first, but if I were an Academy member, I wouldn't vote for it -- though artistically accomplished, it kind of left me cold).

Juno is completely different, so can compete without comparison. This could capture the prize if the Academy is in a "Little Miss Sunshine" mood.

It would be quirky-and-feel-good vs. epic masterpiece.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 22, 2008, 03:21:21 pm
I don't think we've got NetFlix up here but I'll definitely check it out.  :)

No Netflix up here but we do have Zip.ca which is great. (Except that it put my local Specialty DVD rental place, The Revue, out of business)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on January 24, 2008, 12:33:08 pm
Shaky movie (the camera) is making ppl sick according to CNN.com.  CLOVERFIELD is causing ppl to leave the theater with motion sickness.  I heard ppl utter such comments when they left the theater.  They hated the wobbling camera affect.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/01/24/movie.sickness/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

I had the same feeling when I watched the Woody Allen film HUSBANDS AND WIVES.  I think there was some symbolism that their relationship were "rocky" and hence the camera was all over the place. Couldn't wait for the film to be over with.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 24, 2008, 05:00:30 pm
Shaky movie (the camera) is making ppl sick according to CNN.com.  CLOVERFIELD is causing ppl to leave the theater with motion sickness.  I heard ppl utter such comments when they left the theater.  They hated the wobbling camera affect.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/01/24/movie.sickness/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

I had the same feeling when I watched the Woody Allen film HUSBANDS AND WIVES.  I think there was some symbolism that their relationship were "rocky" and hence the camera was all over the place. Couldn't wait for the film to be over with.

The shaky camera, and it really is shaky, didn't bother me at all, so I guess I'm not susceptible to vertigo.  My sister, however, is the opposite, she has to sit in the very last (top) row of the theatre for ANY movie, otherwise she starts feeling sick. Meanwhile, I like to sit way in the front so that the screen takes over my whole field of vision, we're not exactly the best movie partners...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 24, 2008, 05:08:29 pm
The only movie that ever made me sick was Koyaanisqatsi, which came out in 1982. I think it was the combination of the way it was filmed and the music. I have never had motion sickness before in my life, but I was sick at the end of this!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on January 25, 2008, 05:57:53 pm
I got halfway thru a Heath Ledger film last night called "A Knight's Tale."  Has anybody ever seen this film. I usually love these medieval stories, but I don't know what sort of audience this film was was shooting for.  They had contemporary rock music from QUEEN I believe during the jousting segments.   I preferred the use of Wagner's scores in EXCALIBUR (1981). Now that was rousing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pylGJO6I30M&feature=related   Wait till it gets to thirty seconds. That's when it gets kickin...


Of course, I did enjoy seeing Heath in "A Knight's Tale."  He's good at everything I've seen him in. He had the "gift."  I'll have to finish watching the movie. 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 25, 2008, 06:07:30 pm
Actually, I saw "A Knight's Tale" in the theater and enjoyed it very much. The modern music was the whole spin of that movie--that, and the fact that Shannon Sossamyn's costumes were a blend of old fashioned and modern. We own the DVD.

But I know there are plenty of folks who hate the movie, precisely because of the music.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 25, 2008, 09:12:35 pm
Actually, I saw "A Knight's Tale" in the theater and enjoyed it very much. The modern music was the whole spin of that movie--that, and the fact that Shannon Sossamyn's costumes were a blend of old fashioned and modern. We own the DVD.

But I know there are plenty of folks who hate the movie, precisely because of the music.

L

I have the movie on right now, and am quite enjoying it.  Wasn't Heath a little shocked at the movie's final presentation/promotion?

Still there are some wonderful, wonderful moments in the film...

I think Heath has a particularly angelic appearance as well.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 25, 2008, 11:41:53 pm
I watched Sarah Polley's Away From Her.  It's her first feature as a director and it's like she's been doing it for years.  It's a surprisingly mature film,  beautiful and quietly heart wrenching.  Although it's mainly known as the Julie Christie movie outside this country, it's veteran Canadian actor Gordon Pinsent who has the more difficult role as the husband losing his beloved to Alzheimer's.  A wonderful performance.

I also watched Claire Denis' Beau Travail.  I love this movie more each time I see it.  The final scene with Galoup dancing (to This is the Rythm of the Night) is so strangely cathartic and joyful, it gives me shivers.

And of course, it's on Youtube (!):

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e5g_wXJf1I[/youtube]
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on January 26, 2008, 12:39:07 pm
Getting back to EXCALIBUR, I see the director, John Boorman's latest project is Memoirs of Hadrian scheduled for release in 2009.  The Roman emperor Hadrian had a  male lover who drowned and it drove him into a terrible stage of grief.

From wikipedia.org

"Hadrian was especially famous for his romance with a Greek youth, Antinous. While touring Egypt, Antinous mysteriously drowned in the Nile in 130. Deeply saddened, Hadrian founded the Egyptian city of Antinopolis. Hadrian drew the whole Empire into his mourning, making Antinous the last new god of antiquity."

Somebody on the msg board posted that Zac Efron should play Antinous. Yeah, that's gonnna happen. High School Musical star plays male lover to a Roman emperor.   ;)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 26, 2008, 12:50:04 pm
Getting back to EXCALIBUR, I see the director, John Boorman's latest project is Memoirs of Hadrian scheduled for release in 2009.  The Roman emperor Hadrian had a  male lover who drowned and it drove him into a terrible stage of grief.

From wikipedia.org

"Hadrian was especially famous for his romance with a Greek youth, Antinous. While touring Egypt, Antinous mysteriously drowned in the Nile in 130. Deeply saddened, Hadrian founded the Egyptian city of Antinopolis. Hadrian drew the whole Empire into his mourning, making Antinous the last new god of antiquity."

Somebody on the msg board posted that Zac Efron should play Antinous. Yeah, that's gonnna happen. High School Musical star plays male lover to a Roman emperor.   ;)


Memoirs of Hadrian!: The Movie Musical!   ;D  Hadrian could be played by Nathan Lane... :-X
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 26, 2008, 05:22:21 pm
Apparently, Johnny Depp along with two other major actors will be 'replacing' Heath in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus.  The idea is to change the actor once he goes through the magic mirror so they'll be able to keep many of the already filmed scenes with Heath.

I think that's good news if it's true.   My source is not exactly official, it's a poster on IMDb who knows a Vancouver costume designer, Jane Still, who is friends with Monique Prud'homme, the film's costume designer...  It certainly sounds plausible though, considering how fantastical the film sounds and all the love and respect that both Heath and Gilliam have from other actors.

It would be nice to have another Heath moment to look forward to.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Shakesthecoffecan on January 26, 2008, 05:26:06 pm
So last night I saw a really good film on Logo, from 2004, called Outing Riley.

I would recomend it.

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTZwGePZRe8[/youtube]
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 26, 2008, 05:45:14 pm
Apparently, Johnny Depp along with two other major actors will be 'replacing' Heath in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus.  The idea is to change the actor once he goes through the magic mirror so they'll be able to keep many of the already filmed scenes with Heath.

I think that's good news if it's true.   My source is not exactly official, it's a poster on IMDb who knows a Vancouver costume designer, Jane Still, who is friends with Monique Prud'homme, the film's costume designer...  It certainly sounds plausible though, considering how fantastical the film sounds and all the love and respect that both Heath and Gilliam have from other actors.

It would be nice to have another Heath moment to look forward to.

The news reports on this seem to be going back and forth on this. The Australian press says Johnny Depp is in and the movie is going ahead, while UK sources say it is stopped, no mention of Depp.

I actually think it would be terrific if Johnny could do it. I heard the same explanation about the mirror, oilgun, so I think it could be feasible. They finished all the on location and outdoor scenes in London. They were scheduled to go to Vancouver to work on a sound stage, do "blue screen" filming, and special effects. Two months of filming were left in the schedule.

I agree, it would be nice to have another Heath moment to  look forward to and not have his last movie be as the Joker.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on January 26, 2008, 05:54:25 pm
I agree, it would be nice to have another Heath moment to  look forward to and not have his last movie be as the Joker.

I was just thinking that. Having his last movie be as the Joker will definitely be a mixed blessing at best. Nice to see Heath one more time and to hear yet another outpouring of what I'm sure will be respect and admiration. But sad, especially given all we've heard about how playing the Joker stressed him out so much it might have contributed to his need for sleeping pills.

 :'(

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on January 26, 2008, 11:15:52 pm
It would be nice to have another Heath moment to look forward to.

Amen, brother.  8)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 26, 2008, 11:59:25 pm
I agree...

 :)

It would be nice for the film to be completed...  if it's not, there certainly will be all sorts of hoopla about getting a hold of the filmed scenes, etc. 

I read one report, and only one report, that said Heath had an argument with some folks related to the film... anyone else see that substantiated anywhere?  (Sorry if I should move the question to a different thread.)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on January 27, 2008, 08:29:50 am
I was just thinking that. Having his last movie be as the Joker will definitely be a mixed blessing at best. Nice to see Heath one more time and to hear yet another outpouring of what I'm sure will be respect and admiration. But sad, especially given all we've heard about how playing the Joker stressed him out so much it might have contributed to his need for sleeping pills.

 :'(



My thoughts too. I never planned to go see this movie (it's really not my type of thing), but now, i definitely don't want to.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 27, 2008, 10:00:04 am
I agree...

 :)

It would be nice for the film to be completed...  if it's not, there certainly will be all sorts of hoopla about getting a hold of the filmed scenes, etc. 

I read one report, and only one report, that said Heath had an argument with some folks related to the film... anyone else see that substantiated anywhere?  (Sorry if I should move the question to a different thread.)


I posted that article. I haven't seen anything else that has mentioned the argument. Supposedly he was upset because he didn't like the way a scene turned out and they wouldn't let him re-do it.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on January 27, 2008, 01:32:43 pm
The mirror thing is already getting mixed up with THE DARK KNIGHT.  I butted into a conversation last night when I heard others saying that Heath was going to go thru the mirror and Johnny Depp would come out as the joker.  I told them that the film had already wrapped, so I don't understand why they'd need to replace him.   OILGUN's post about The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus sounds like he got the right story.   

Doesn't the JOKER die and is usually resurrected for latter films. I presume Heath's joker might meet a similar fate.  Hate to see that as Heath's last moment in film.   

Last night, the director of CANDY was talking about how Heath submerged into him into the world of a junkie. More speculation about "not being able to let go of that character."  They said that about River Phoenix and MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO.  I think this is all very premature as there is no evidence of Heath doing narcotics. But the media loves to speculate and of course assuming the worse does sell.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on January 27, 2008, 05:43:01 pm
I'm not sure if this has already been discussed. I went to see Love in Time of Cholera and I was so disappointed. I think Javier Bardem is superb as Florentino Ariza but the movie in general lacks of the passion Gabriel García Márquez put in the novel. It seems like the director and the screenwriter are not familiar with the Caribbean culture and understanding of life and love. I didn't see the point in having an hispanic cast if the movie is in English. Some of the actors don't speak it well. Also John Leguizamo is a complete miscast.

If you don't know what this story is about I strongly recommend reading the novel and not spending your money on this movie. Really.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kelda on January 27, 2008, 05:45:06 pm
The news reports on this seem to be going back and forth on this. The Australian press says Johnny Depp is in and the movie is going ahead, while UK sources say it is stopped, no mention of Depp.

I actually think it would be terrific if Johnny could do it. I heard the same explanation about the mirror, oilgun, so I think it could be feasible. They finished all the on location and outdoor scenes in London. They were scheduled to go to Vancouver to work on a sound stage, do "blue screen" filming, and special effects. Two months of filming were left in the schedule.

I agree, it would be nice to have another Heath moment to  look forward to and not have his last movie be as the Joker.

L

The UK tabloid press (specifically the sun) as the forst place I saw it mentioned about Johnny Depp, but nothing anywhere else in the UK since, who knows...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 27, 2008, 05:57:42 pm
I'm not sure if this has already been discussed. I went to see Love in Time of Cholera and I was so disappointed. I think Javier Bardem is superb as Florentino Ariza but the movie in general lacks of the passion Gabriel García Márquez put in the novel. It seems like the director and the screenwriter are not familiar with the Caribbean culture and understanding of life and love. I didn't see the point in having an hispanic cast if the movie is in English. Some of the actors don't speak it well. Also John Leguizamo is a complete miscast.

If you don't know what this story is about I strongly recommend reading the novel and not spending your money on this movie. Really.

oh, I'll be sure to avoid it (the movie) then...  (but I'll keep the novel on my list)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 27, 2008, 11:09:15 pm
I finally watched the Irish film Once.  I now understand why it rates 97% Fresh on RottenTomatoes, it's absolutely wonderful!  Brilliant really.

Here's the RT Synopsis:
The Irish romance ONCE may be a musical, but it is miles away from the traditional Hollywood idea of people bursting into song. Glen Hansard (frontman for indie rock band The Frames) plays the guy, a street musician who is playing for change when he meets the girl (Marketa Irglova), an immigrant from the Czech Republic. The pair immediately bond over their shared love of music (he is a guitarist, and she plays the piano), and the film chronicles their tentative relationship. Both are weighed down by plenty of baggage: his songs are fueled by a painful breakup, and she is a young mother who left her husband behind in her native country. Like the independent favorite BEFORE SUNRISE, ONCE is a simple, sweet drama that doesn’t rely on an elaborate plot. With its use of digital video and handheld cameras, ONCE matches its spare visual style to its intimate mood. Each moment feels stolen from real life, and the story is at once familiar and fresh. Driven more by music than by dialogue, ONCE features a stirring soundtrack of heartfelt indie rock sung by Hansard and Irglova. Before his foray into film, director John Carney (ON THE EDGE) played bass in The Frames, and his passion for music is clear in this modern musical that hits every note perfectly.

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/Once-01.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on January 28, 2008, 01:15:57 am
Oilgun,

Fantastic new signature!

It is now on my to-do list to see every single one of Daniel Day Lewis' films... and to not ever think another less than good thought about him ever again.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on January 28, 2008, 10:33:06 pm
Oilgun,

Fantastic new signature!

It is now on my to-do list to see every single one of Daniel Day Lewis' films... and to not ever think another less than good thought about him ever again.

B,

Definitely check out "My Beautiful Laundrette".  Great film.  :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 28, 2008, 11:53:19 pm
Oilgun,

Fantastic new signature!

It is now on my to-do list to see every single one of Daniel Day Lewis' films... and to not ever think another less than good thought about him ever again.

Thanks!

Here are some clips of DDL in My Beautiful Laundrette (8:01min.):

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKup9VLuM5U[/youtube]
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 29, 2008, 09:33:42 am
I finally watched the Irish film Once.  I now understand why it rates 97% Fresh on RottenTomatoes, it's absolutely wonderful!  Brilliant really.


I watched it a few weeks ago and I loved it too. That may be a good one to watch again and try to cheer myself up. I loved the music.

One of the songs was nominated for an Academy award. I so, so, so hope it wins!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 29, 2008, 09:43:37 am
I watched it a few weeks ago and I loved it too. That may be a good one to watch again and try to cheer myself up. I loved the music.

One of the songs was nominated for an Academy award. I so, so, so hope it wins!

L

The film really was a good tonic.  As for its nominated song, Falling Slowly, I hope it wins too but of course they'll probably give it to Happy Working Song from Enchanted  ::)  :laugh:
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 29, 2008, 10:58:48 am
The film really was a good tonic.  As for its nominated song, Falling Slowly, I hope it wins too but of course they'll probably give it to Happy Working Song from Enchanted  ::)  :laugh:

Three of the five songs are from Enchanted. Maybe they'll cancel themselves out.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 29, 2008, 11:04:42 am
For fun, you can go to www.pressherald.com and vote for the top categories of the Oscar awards. I think it would be fun if they started getting votes from all over the world!

The link for the survey is right on the first page. Let me know if you entered!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on January 29, 2008, 12:24:27 pm
For fun, you can go to www.pressherald.com and vote for the top categories of the Oscar awards. I think it would be fun if they started getting votes from all over the word!

The link for the survey is right on the first page. Let me know if you entered!

L

Done!  I won't win though, I'm always wrong at those things.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on January 29, 2008, 10:39:14 pm
I took the survey, too.  If I win, you've got the movie tickets, Leslie.  ;D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 29, 2008, 10:58:15 pm
I took the survey, too.  If I win, you've got the movie tickets, Leslie.  ;D

Ah, thank you Meryl. Maybe we can plan a weekend? I'll show you Portland, buy you a lobster...

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on January 29, 2008, 11:43:02 pm
Ah, thank you Meryl. Maybe we can plan a weekend? I'll show you Portland, buy you a lobster...

L

The lobster sealed the deal.... ;D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: southendmd on January 30, 2008, 12:49:33 am
Hey, Leslie, I took the survey also. 

If I win, we're going together, and we'll have a pamplemousse. :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on January 30, 2008, 09:29:45 am
Hey, Leslie, I took the survey also. 

If I win, we're going together, and we'll have a pamplemousse. :)

Ah, excellent!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on February 03, 2008, 11:02:48 am
So, yesterday, I watched my first full length movie since Heath died.

I had been nervous for whatever reason, but everything went fine.  I watched Annapolis - a random movie I've had stored on my DVR for a while.  I thought it was a fine, easy, movie.  Not as horrible as all the reviews said...  I liked that no one died, that the liar got in trouble, that there wasn't any sex...

I also saw a little bit of "Where the Heart is," a movie I've always liked.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kelda on February 03, 2008, 12:50:49 pm
I don't pop in here often but had to say that I saw Juno yesterday and really really enjoyed it. I though the characters were quirly and witty and the storyline was great...

wow! Dream big!

I also like the Superbad guy - me thinks him and Ellen are the up and coming hot actors over the next few years.

(and on a side note - I really love the name Juno!)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on February 03, 2008, 01:56:34 pm
I saw "There Will Be Blood" yesterday, and I won't say that my recent gratitude to Daniel Day-Lewis didn't play a part in the choice of what to go see.  ;)

I thought it was a very strong film, an unblinking look at oil speculators during the beginnings of that business: gritty, unsentimental and fascinating.  Unlike many films today that try to capture a period, this one did succeed in making me feel I was in the early 1900's.  Daniel Day-Lewis gave his usual superb performance--there wasn't a nano-second when you felt he wasn't totally in character as this driven, misanthropic businessman whose heart's love was given out only with great reluctance to the boy he adopted and the man who claimed to be his half brother.  His hatred for the young preacher who tries to get the best of him is made monumentally clear in the masterful final scene.  Wow, what a catharsis.  :P

I think something light like "Juno" is definitely next up on my list.  ;D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 03, 2008, 05:20:44 pm
I saw "There Will Be Blood" yesterday, and I won't say that my recent gratitude to Daniel Day-Lewis didn't play a part in the choice of what to go see.  ;)

I thought it was a very strong film, an unblinking look at oil speculators during the beginnings of that business: gritty, unsentimental and fascinating.  Unlike many films today that try to capture a period, this one did succeed in making me feel I was in the early 1900's.  Daniel Day-Lewis gave his usual superb performance--there wasn't a nano-second when you felt he wasn't totally in character as this driven, misanthropic businessman whose heart's love was given out only with great reluctance to the boy he adopted and the man who claimed to be his half brother.  His hatred for the young preacher who tries to get the best of him is made monumentally clear in the masterful final scene.  Wow, what a catharsis.  :P

I think something light like "Juno" is definitely next up on my list.  ;D

You took the words right out of my mouth, Meryl, and said it more eloquently than I could.

I just saw "There Will Be Blood" this afternoon. My reaction walking out of the theater was, "I need to think about this movie." And I do.

I certainly think Daniel Day-Lewis should get the Oscar for his performance.

The only other nominated film I have seen (so far) is "Atonement." I liked "Atonement" better, but I think this might be a better movie (if that makes sense).

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on February 03, 2008, 08:26:59 pm
The only other nominated film I have seen (so far) is "Atonement." I liked "Atonement" better, but I think this might be a better movie (if that makes sense).

Yes, it makes perfect sense. I didn't feel the same way about Atonement, but I know what you mean in principle. Some movies are more enjoyable even if they aren't as "good." For example, I liked Michael Clayton better than No Country for Old Men. But NCFOM is probably better in terms of art.

TWBB is the only nominated film I haven't seen. I was going to see it last night, then I was going to see it today ... now it looks like it will be next weekend.





Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 03, 2008, 08:36:38 pm
Yes, it makes perfect sense. I didn't feel the same way about Atonement, but I know what you mean in principle. Some movies are more enjoyable even if they aren't as "good." For example, I liked Michael Clayton better than No Country for Old Men. But NCFOM is probably better in terms of art.

TWBB is the only nominated film I haven't seen. I was going to see it last night, then I was going to see it today ... now it looks like it will be next weekend.


I hope you see it and report back. It is definitely a movie that has me thinking and I would like to know what others are thinking...

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on February 03, 2008, 10:02:15 pm
I saw TWBB yesterday and it left me cold.  Maybe I'm due to see a film where a person is acting in a noble manner.  So many films I've seen of late don't exactly paint an optimistic portrait of  human nature or the future of the human race. 

Don't get me wrong, I liked TWBB very much, but I was expecting DDLewis to start off by being somewhat of a visionary who is eventually torn apart by his lust for oil and wealth. I guess that sounds too Hollywood and that's been done before.  I can't think of much to say about this film without the revelation of potential spoilers.  I probably need to see it again to get some questions answered. 

Interesting article in THE ECONOMIST on why Americans despise the oil industry as illustrated by the likes of TWBB. Oh, those evil oilmen.  >:(

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10533992

 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on February 04, 2008, 12:16:39 am
I am curious whether there is any violence to speak of, or 'there will be blood' only metaphorical?

I watched Hedwig and the Angry Inch this afternoon and love, love, loved it!  Who knew I had such an inner East Berlin-punk rockin-transgendered soul?  One of my favorite [heart-breaking] lines - "It's what I have to work with..."
Too bad the movie has to go back tomorrow, or I'd have the soundtrack on autoplay for days...

On another topic, have y'all seen previews for Wall E?  (There was one during the super bowl tonight, and also, I think one at Nat'l Treasure 2.)  I think it looks real cute.

 :)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on February 04, 2008, 02:11:37 am
Wal-E does look cute. I saw a commercial, too.

I rewatched Blood Diamond and 3:10 to Yuma (second time for both) this weekend with my sons. They liked both, though preferred the latter. I'm still bummed that 3:10 didn't get nominated for anything. I think Christian Bale and Russell Crowe were very viable as best actor/best-supporting actor.

And while I wouldn't nominate Leonardo DiCaprio on the basis of Blood Diamond, I thought he was very good in it.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on February 04, 2008, 06:06:39 am
And while I wouldn't nominate Leonardo DiCaprio on the basis of Blood Diamond, I thought he was very good in it.

I also thought his performance was good but not enough for a best actor nomination. I think he was nominated because he spoke English with an African accent during the entire movie.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 04, 2008, 07:41:14 am
I am curious whether there is any violence to speak of, or 'there will be blood' only metaphorical?

There is some violence but it is not wall-to-wall blood like you see in "Munich" or "The Departed." I don't like really violent movies and this one didn't bother me.

Quote
On another topic, have y'all seen previews for Wall E?  (There was one during the super bowl tonight, and also, I think one at Nat'l Treasure 2.)  I think it looks real cute.

 :)

Yes, I have seen the previews for that. It does look cute.

Previews at the movies yesterday: The Duchess, with Keira Knightley; Young at Heart (a documentary about old folks who sing rock and rolls songs, it looks like fun) and Defiance, with Daniel Craig and Liev Schrieber.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 04, 2008, 07:42:34 am
Wal-E does look cute. I saw a commercial, too.

I rewatched Blood Diamond and 3:10 to Yuma (second time for both) this weekend with my sons. They liked both, though preferred the latter. I'm still bummed that 3:10 didn't get nominated for anything. I think Christian Bale and Russell Crowe were very viable as best actor/best-supporting actor.


I still think Ben Foster should have gotten Best Supporting Actor. It was a good movie and I am disappointed that it didn't get nominated for anything.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: opinionista on February 04, 2008, 08:12:44 am
I know this has been discussed already but us in Europe get to see movies later  >:(

Anyway, I went to see Juno and I totally loved it!!!! I'm not sure if it'll actually win anything but I am glad it is among the best picture nom movies. I thought it was very well done and well acted. I think this year No Country for Old Men will take all awards. Can't wait to see it. It opens this weekend.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 04, 2008, 09:36:07 am
I know this has been discussed already but us in Europe get to see movies later  >:(

Anyway, I went to see Juno and I totally loved it!!!! I'm not sure if it'll actually win anything but I am glad it is among the best picture nom movies. I thought it was very well done and well acted. I think this year No Country for Old Men will take all awards. Can't wait to see it. It opens this weekend.

I still haven't gotten to Juno but it is on my list.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on February 04, 2008, 11:24:47 am
I still think Ben Foster should have gotten Best Supporting Actor. It was a good movie and I am disappointed that it didn't get nominated for anything.

Me too. I think it's victim of that Oscar amnesia, where if a movie is released too early it gets overshadowed by the big holiday films. That's the only explanation that makes sense to me, because it is one of my two or three favorite movies from last year.

I'm not sure if it'll actually win anything but I am glad it is among the best picture nom movies. I thought it was very well done and well acted. I think this year No Country for Old Men will take all awards. Can't wait to see it. It opens this weekend.

I actually think the competition will be between Juno and There Will Be Blood. I think people who might be inclined to vote for NCFOM will vote for TWBB instead, because they're very vaguely similar, and while I haven't seen Blood I'm judging by reviews that it's more acclaimed. Juno is something completely different, and will compete on its own terms. So it comes down to whether the voters will be in more of a Little Miss Sunshine mood, in which case Juno will win, or a Departed mood, in which case Blood will win.

When it gets closer to the ceremony, we'll have to place our bets!  :)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 04, 2008, 11:45:48 am
Me too. I think it's victim of that Oscar amnesia, where if a movie is released too early it gets overshadowed by the big holiday films. That's the only explanation that makes sense to me, because it is one of my two or three favorite movies from last year.
Oscar Amnesia and lack of Studio support.  Remember that Crash came out very early in the year, everyone had forgotten it (probably a day after seeing it, lol!) but the Studio really pushed it come Oscar time (and every liberal homophobe jumped on it.)   I'm sure 3:10 would have gotten more noms if it had been promoted more.

Quote
I actually think the competition will be between Juno and There Will Be Blood. I think people who might be inclined to vote for NCFOM will vote for TWBB instead, because they're very vaguely similar, and while I haven't seen Blood I'm judging by reviews that it's more acclaimed. Juno is something completely different, and will compete on its own terms. So it comes down to whether the voters will be in more of a Little Miss Sunshine mood, in which case Juno will win, or a Departed mood, in which case Blood will win.

When it gets closer to the ceremony, we'll have to place our bets!  :)

I really hope JUNO doesn't win, it will give the right-to-lifers too much amunition.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on February 04, 2008, 11:49:58 am
Don't count out "No Country."  Half of Hollywood will be wanting to kiss up to the Coens, and that won't hurt when it comes time to vote.  ;)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on February 06, 2008, 12:57:53 am

Recently watched Boys On the Side (1995)..


(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i285/Lucise/Misc/da3dd8ee.jpg)


Great casting and chemistry between the three ladies.  Loved it, as well as the movie soundtrack - Indigo Girls, Bonnie Raitt, Melissa Etheridge, Sarah Mclachlan....
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 06, 2008, 07:51:12 am
I wasn't sure where to post this, but this thread seemed to make sense to me. From the New York Times:

February 6, 2008

Vanity Fair Cancels Its Oscars Party


By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA

Imagine a wedding reception without food, music or Champagne, and you get an inkling of how a lot of Hollywood would view the Oscars without the Vanity Fair party. But Hollywood will no longer have to imagine it — the party is off.

In sympathy with striking writers, Vanity Fair on Tuesday canceled its annual multimillion-dollar must-attend party. There are other parties, but this is the one Oscar-related trapping that has come to rival the main event for a cast of above-the-title stars, assorted billionaires and several hundred of their closest friends.

The editor of Vanity Fair, Graydon Carter, said on Tuesday that canceling was the right thing to do, whether or not there was a breakthrough in talks between the Writers Guild of America and production companies before the Oscar ceremony on Feb. 24.

“A magazine like Vanity Fair is a group of writers and artists, and we are in solidarity with the writers and artists out there,” Mr. Carter said. “Whether the strike is over or not, there are a lot of bruised feelings. I don’t think it’s appropriate for a big magazine from the East to come in and pretend nothing happened.”

He added, “There will be something sort of liberating about ordering Chinese food and watching the Oscars in bed.”

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has pledged that the Oscars will go on, and it has asked the writers not to picket given recent progress in contract talks.

But the guild insists that it will picket, and many stars are expected to skip the event rather than cross a picket line.

Vanity Fair’s invitation-only party — it would have been the 15th — was to begin with dinner for 170 people during the ceremony at Craft restaurant in Century City, Mr. Carter said, and continue into the early morning with 650 to 700 people.

Someone cruising through last year’s party could have seen Oprah Winfrey chatting with John Travolta, Ellen DeGeneres with Sacha Baron Cohen, or Martin Scorsese with John Singleton.

For the stars, arrival at the party offers the second red carpet walk of the day, complete with cameras. Many women change gowns between the Oscars and the party.

“The Vanity Fair party is the crown jewel,” said Leslee Dart, the publicist, who has several clients up for awards. “It’s the party everybody wants to go to. At 1 and 2 in the morning, it’s still going on strong. I started getting calls a month ago from people saying, ‘Can you help me get into the Vanity Fair Party?’ ”

At the annual lunch for nominees in Beverly Hills on Monday, Sidney Ganis, the academy’s president, urged the group — including the actors George Clooney, Viggo Mortensen and Laura Linney — to show up and claim their awards. He joked that official certificates of nomination would carry the legend “Must be present to win.”

Even if the sides continue to move toward a settlement of the three-month-old strike, it appeared unlikely that the walkout would end before the middle of next week. That leaves academy officials planning for alternatives — one with a full complement of nominees, one without.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/business/media/06vanity.html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 06, 2008, 12:17:45 pm
I wasn't sure where to post this, but this thread seemed to make sense to me. From the New York Times:

February 6, 2008

Vanity Fair Cancels Its Oscars Party


By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA

Imagine a wedding reception without food, music or Champagne, and you get an inkling of how a lot of Hollywood would view the Oscars without the Vanity Fair party. But Hollywood will no longer have to imagine it — the party is off.

In sympathy with striking writers, Vanity Fair on Tuesday canceled its annual multimillion-dollar must-attend party. There are other parties, but this is the one Oscar-related trapping that has come to rival the main event for a cast of above-the-title stars, assorted billionaires and several hundred of their closest friends.

The editor of Vanity Fair, Graydon Carter, said on Tuesday that canceling was the right thing to do, whether or not there was a breakthrough in talks between the Writers Guild of America and production companies before the Oscar ceremony on Feb. 24.

“A magazine like Vanity Fair is a group of writers and artists, and we are in solidarity with the writers and artists out there,” Mr. Carter said. “Whether the strike is over or not, there are a lot of bruised feelings. I don’t think it’s appropriate for a big magazine from the East to come in and pretend nothing happened.”

He added, “There will be something sort of liberating about ordering Chinese food and watching the Oscars in bed.”

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has pledged that the Oscars will go on, and it has asked the writers not to picket given recent progress in contract talks.

But the guild insists that it will picket, and many stars are expected to skip the event rather than cross a picket line.

Vanity Fair’s invitation-only party — it would have been the 15th — was to begin with dinner for 170 people during the ceremony at Craft restaurant in Century City, Mr. Carter said, and continue into the early morning with 650 to 700 people.

Someone cruising through last year’s party could have seen Oprah Winfrey chatting with John Travolta, Ellen DeGeneres with Sacha Baron Cohen, or Martin Scorsese with John Singleton.

For the stars, arrival at the party offers the second red carpet walk of the day, complete with cameras. Many women change gowns between the Oscars and the party.

“The Vanity Fair party is the crown jewel,” said Leslee Dart, the publicist, who has several clients up for awards. “It’s the party everybody wants to go to. At 1 and 2 in the morning, it’s still going on strong. I started getting calls a month ago from people saying, ‘Can you help me get into the Vanity Fair Party?’ ”

At the annual lunch for nominees in Beverly Hills on Monday, Sidney Ganis, the academy’s president, urged the group — including the actors George Clooney, Viggo Mortensen and Laura Linney — to show up and claim their awards. He joked that official certificates of nomination would carry the legend “Must be present to win.”

Even if the sides continue to move toward a settlement of the three-month-old strike, it appeared unlikely that the walkout would end before the middle of next week. That leaves academy officials planning for alternatives — one with a full complement of nominees, one without.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/business/media/06vanity.html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin


Damn!  I bought a new outfit and everything!!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on February 06, 2008, 05:14:30 pm

Recently watched Last of the Blonde Bombshells (2000) starring Dame Dench(bought the movie 'cause of her).
I thought it was good but Judy made it even more worth it.


(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i285/Lucise/Misc/292abf1d.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 07, 2008, 09:45:51 am
I watched Latter Days yesterday. It one way, it has every cliche and stereotype in the book. In another way, it's a very good movie. I'd recommend it.

The two leads have a very hot sex scene with lots of long legs and chiseled abs. Definitely worth seeing! LOL. My favorite line (right after the sex scene):

Chris: "I thought you'd be more...y'know, reticent."

Aaron: "Well, I'm already going to Hell for kissing you, so I may as well take the scenic route."

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lumière on February 07, 2008, 01:05:13 pm
After meaning to watch it for a long time, I finally got the movie Aimee & Jaguar(1999) and watched it last night.


(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i285/Lucise/Misc/b3ba90da.jpg)


I'll have to re-watch it again real soon because there were places where the subtitles disappeared so fast I think I missed some words, lol.


Aimée & Jaguar is a 1999 German war and drama film set during World War II. It was written and directed by Max Färberböck, based upon Erica Fischer's book, chronicling the actual lives of Lilly Wust and Felice Schragenheim during that time period. [Wikipedia]



Berlin 1943/44 ("The Battle of Berlin"). Felice, an intelligent and courageous Jewish woman who lives under a false name, belongs to an underground organization. Lilly, a devoted mother of four, though an occasional unfaithful wife, is desperate for love. An unusual and passionate love between them blossoms despite the danger of persecution and nightly bombing raids. The Gestapo is on Felice's trail. Her friends flee, she decides to sit out the war with Lilly. One hot day in August 1944, the Gestapo is waiting in Lilly's flat...[Imdb Summary]



Highly recommended!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Lynne on February 07, 2008, 01:22:52 pm
I watched Latter Days yesterday. It one way, it has every cliche and stereotype in the book. In another way, it's a very good movie. I'd recommend it.

The two leads have a very hot sex scene with lots of long legs and chiseled abs. Definitely worth seeing! LOL. My favorite line (right after the sex scene):

Chris: "I thought you'd be more...y'know, reticent."

Aaron: "Well, I'm already going to Hell for kissing you, so I may as well take the scenic route."

L

You're right, Leslie - LATTER DAYS does have every cliche and stereotype in the book - I think it's intentional - that and the low production value somehow are part of its charm for me.  I guess I like it so well because I can feel the emotional connection between Aaron and Christian and Christian's pain.  The scene when Christian visits Sister Davis hits my heart hard.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 08, 2008, 12:16:21 am
An interesting article on the most anticipated book to film adaptations.

http://themovie-fanatic.com/tmf_top_50/books_to_films_hitlist/books_to_movies_part1/ (http://themovie-fanatic.com/tmf_top_50/books_to_films_hitlist/books_to_movies_part1/)

Excerpt:
I love reading books! Some may say it's a dying media- with the internet and all- but the pleasure you get from reading is hard to experience in other, perhaps more modern form. Doubling the pleasure is when a favorite book is adapted on the big screen!

While some of the most engrossing films are based on original scripts, there are some equally awesome movies which are based on adaptations of some of today's best-selling novels and non-fiction books. In this feature, we listed 50 of the most anticipated book to movie adaptations for 2008 and beyond.

The list is quite diverse- thrillers and horror, coming-of-age, fantasy and adventure, classics, romantic novels, crime and drama. Some of them are currently 'works in progress' and soon to be released, while some are still at the stage of being optioned by various extremely excited filmmakers and producers.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on February 08, 2008, 05:52:30 pm
Anybody heard about the new gay surfer movie. And unlike other surfer movies, i.e. SURF CITY, this one looks like it has a plot.  Oh, they look rather conflicted in the trailer.  Is it really the most anticipated gay themed movie of the year?  Opening in March of 2008.


Best. Gay. Week. Ever. (February 8, 2008)
by Michael Jensen, Editor
February 8, 2008
Several weeks ago, I wrote about Shelter, the upcoming movie from here! about two surfing buddies who fall in love. To say the reaction to those clips was strong would be an understatement. That makes me all the more pleased to announce that we have the world premiere of the brand-new trailer for the highly-anticipated gay surfing drama.

The link for the video and the rest of the story is
http://www.afterelton.com/bgwe/2-8-08

The link for the film is
http://www.heretv.com/sheltermovie/

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 08, 2008, 05:58:48 pm
Anybody heard about the new gay surfer movie. And unlike other surfer movies, i.e. SURF CITY, this one looks like it has a plot.  Oh, they look rather conflicted in the trailer.  Is it really the most anticipated gay themed movie of the year?  Opening in March of 2008.


Best. Gay. Week. Ever. (February 8, 2008)
by Michael Jensen, Editor
February 8, 2008
Several weeks ago, I wrote about Shelter, the upcoming movie from here! about two surfing buddies who fall in love. To say the reaction to those clips was strong would be an understatement. That makes me all the more pleased to announce that we have the world premiere of the brand-new trailer for the highly-anticipated gay surfing drama.

The link for the video and the rest of the story is
http://www.afterelton.com/bgwe/2-8-08

The link for the film is
http://www.heretv.com/sheltermovie/



I've never heard of Shelter before, but after watching the trailer, I can't wait to see it!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kelda on February 08, 2008, 09:18:16 pm
I know this has been discussed already but us in Europe get to see movies later  >:(

Anyway, I went to see Juno and I totally loved it!!!! I'm not sure if it'll actually win anything but I am glad it is among the best picture nom movies. I thought it was very well done and well acted. I think this year No Country for Old Men will take all awards. Can't wait to see it. It opens this weekend.

Heh, yes Nat - i was the same although I had a dvd screener  ::) but i totally loved it too!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 08, 2008, 10:06:42 pm
While I'm still in my Bourne-again mode, I think it's time for a gay action hero!  The closest we have is Private Eye Donald Strachey, played by Chad Allen, in the movies Third Man Out, Shock to the System and the upcoming Icy Blues.  Chad does a great job but the series is more like a gay version of the Nick & Nora Charles films. 

I want an edgy action hero!  I even know who to cast:  Robert Gant!

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/RobertGant.jpg)
"Who, me?"  Yes, Robert, you would be perfect!


I seem to have a lot of influence in Hollywood, look what I just found:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1043839/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1043839/)

Kiss Me Deadly
Ex-spy Jacob Keane (Robert Gant) is drawn back into the shadowy world of international espionage when his former partner Marta reappears after 17 years, her memory erased, on the run from a pair of deadly, psychopathic assassins.


The bad news is that Shannen Doherty co-stars,  ;)!

But they more than make up for that by featuring the Australian out actor & ex-rugby player Ian Roberts:

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/IanRoberts01.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Shasta542 on February 08, 2008, 11:56:00 pm
Look what's on the worst Oscar picks:

http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2008/photos/worstoscars?gt1=7701 (http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2008/photos/worstoscars?gt1=7701)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on February 09, 2008, 01:31:17 am
Look what's on the worst Oscar picks:

http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2008/photos/worstoscars?gt1=7701 (http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2008/photos/worstoscars?gt1=7701)

3. "Crash," Best Picture, 2006
Another raging example of Hollywood's intense desire to reward itself for "saying something." Only this time, they forgot to notice that the winning picture actually said nothing about race and class in America that you couldn't learn from reading a bumper sticker or wearing a ribbon on the lapel of your tux. Yes, Virginia, mean people do suck, and there is a vast inequity between white people and black people in not just America but the world. It's worth remembering, but is it worth dramatizing? Worth letting good actors sink their whiter-than-white teeth into roles that never rise above archetypes? Worth converting into a script that makes every situation an Important Moment? Worth watching? Worth nominating? Worth a Best Picture Oscar? Just for caring? I vote no. (Lionsgate Films)

Love it, love it, love it.  ;D
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on February 09, 2008, 01:10:05 pm
Love it, love it, love it.  ;D

Wow, that is brilliant writing.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on February 10, 2008, 12:01:01 pm
I saw There Will Be Blood last night. Like Leslie, I have to think about it some more. I came out of it and told my husband, "I don't think I get it." It seemed like it marshalled a lot of powerful elements -- powerful acting, impressive sets and costumes, an epic plot -- to say ... well, what exactly?

I'm still not sure. Although as we talked about it over dinner, it started to feel a bit more cohesive.

And today I'm still thinking about it. It's like it works on an almost unconscious level.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Shasta542 on February 10, 2008, 12:05:58 pm
If you're like me, you might have to watch it again to take it all in!  :P  ;)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 10, 2008, 12:22:02 pm
I saw There Will Be Blood last night. Like Leslie, I have to think about it some more. I came out of it and told my husband, "I don't think I get it." It seemed like it deployed a lot of powerful elements -- powerful acting, impressive sets and costumes, an epic plot -- to say ... well, what exactly?

I'm still not sure. Although as we talked about it over dinner, it started to feel a bit more cohesive.

And today I'm still thinking about it. It's like it works on an almost unconscious level.



Am I the only one who laughed at the "bowling with God" scene?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Artiste on February 10, 2008, 07:03:49 pm
The other day, The Four Feathers was playing on TV with Heath Ledger!!

That was a surprise, since I did not know but when I found out late, I only say the last half!!

Brilliant Heath was in that movie!!

Does anyone know more about that movie?

Hugs!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on February 10, 2008, 09:37:25 pm
we discussed it a little bit a while back on the Heath Heath Heath thread.

did you want to talk about anything in particular Artiste?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Artiste on February 10, 2008, 10:08:22 pm
The Four Feathers!!

What did Heath say about his role there?

Why did HE CHOOSE that movie?

It is about muslims... taking over, in some ways!! ??

Hugs!!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 11, 2008, 08:16:35 am
Am I the only one who laughed at the "bowling with God" scene?

I didn't laugh, but there was some laughter in the theater.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 11, 2008, 08:19:58 am
The Four Feathers!!

What did Heath say about his role there?

Why did HE CHOOSE that movie?

It is about muslims... taking over, in some ways!! ??

Hugs!!


You can find out more here, Artiste:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Feathers_(2002_film)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 13, 2008, 12:36:11 am
I found an interesting site where you can actually watch full length B movies for free.  You don't even need to register, jut click PLAY and watch.  There are some interesting titles: Carnival of Lost Souls, Metropolis, A Boy and His Dog, The Brother From Another Planet (!) and the early Peter jackson film Bad Taste.

www.bmovies.com (http://www.bmovies.com)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: southendmd on February 13, 2008, 09:31:57 am
It's a sad day in Boston.  My local independent video store is closing for good.  They were champions of things other than the latest blockbuster:  foreign films, gay films, documentaries, "camp and cult".  I much preferred patronizing them rather than some chain store (although, they're all gone too). 

On the good side, they are selling everything!  All DVDs for $8. 

Needless to say, my library has grown considerably in the last twenty-four hours.  I was able to round out my Heath collection with Brothers Grimm and The Order; also Jake with Moonlight Mile, October Sky and The Good Girl, even City Slickers!

A few other gems included Days of Heaven (thanks, Leslie) and All the Pretty Horses.

Hello, Netflix...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 13, 2008, 11:00:42 am
It's a sad day in Boston.  My local independent video store is closing for good.  They were champions of things other than the latest blockbuster:  foreign films, gay films, documentaries, "camp and cult".  I much preferred patronizing them rather than some chain store (although, they're all gone too). 

On the good side, they are selling everything!  All DVDs for $8. 

Needless to say, my library has grown considerably in the last twenty-four hours.  I was able to round out my Heath collection with Brothers Grimm and The Order; also Jake with Moonlight Mile, October Sky and The Good Girl, even City Slickers!

A few other gems included Days of Heaven (thanks, Leslie) and All the Pretty Horses.

Hello, Netflix...

The same thing just happened to me just recently.  My local specialty video store closed for good and had all its DVDs on sale.  They specialized in foreign films, documentaries and experimental.  Zip.ca (like Netflix) put them out of business.  I spent a bundle there on French and LGBT titles and even found some out-of-print and Criterion titles and all in pristine condition. 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on February 13, 2008, 12:22:09 pm
Dreadful how ppl are having to resort to Netflix or Blockbuster.  I know Blockbuster does tailor their stores to their area's demographics.  Suburban blockbusters usually have limited fgn film selection and one gay film jumbled in with "Drama."    I was at a Blockbuster's store in the gay area of Houston,TX  (Montrose) and the gay section was titled "Community Interest."   

Rents are so high in some cities that independent video stores and used bookstores are the first to go. Can't pay the deep pocket rents that Pottery Barn can.  And we do need more "Pottery Barns."  ;)

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: southendmd on February 17, 2008, 11:25:55 am
One of the gems I found at my  soon-to-be-closing video store is "An Early Frost"; I didn't even know it had been released on DVD.

I watched it last night:  I think I hadn't seen it since it came out in 1985.  Wow, so powerful, even 20+ years later.  A young Aidan Quinn, in one of his earliest performances, portrays the main character with dignity and intelligence.  Gena Rowlands was brilliant as the mother, and Ben Gazzara, although prone to overdoing it, develops the most.  I loved Sylvia Sydney as the grandmother:  "Come and kiss your grandmother; it's a disease, not a disgrace."  John Glover (today known as Lionel Luther on "Smallville") practically stole the show, befriending Aidan Quinn's character with warmth and humor. 

This film (the first to deal with AIDS) managed to educate the public and show a very affecting story at the same time.  Neither maudlin nor hopeless.  Thank God things have changed.

(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/9/91/180px-Earlyfrost.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 17, 2008, 11:42:26 am
I remember that movie. I had such a crush on Aidan Quinn (after seeing him in Reckless the year before) I was busy watching anything he was in. It was good...I'd like to see it again.

Let's add it to the list, Paul!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Artiste on February 17, 2008, 12:05:11 pm
Did anyone talk about these two movies:

My Sister Eileen 1955;

Sweet Charity 1969;

which I saw both last night, with joy!!

These two movies sure say a lot!! You think so too??

Hugs!!
Have a Beautiful Happy Sunday!! Bon Dimanche!! (Good Sunday!!)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on February 17, 2008, 12:33:09 pm
One of the gems I found at my  soon-to-be-closing video store is "An Early Frost"; I didn't even know it had been released on DVD.

I watched it last night:  I think I hadn't seen it since it came out in 1985.  Wow, so powerful, even 20+ years later.  A young Aidan Quinn, in one of his earliest performances, portrays the main character with dignity and intelligence.  Gena Rowlands was brilliant as the mother, and Ben Gazzara, although prone to overdoing it, develops the most.  I loved Sylvia Sydney as the grandmother:  "Come and kiss your grandmother; it's a disease, not a disgrace."  John Glover (today known as Lionel Luther on "Smallville") practically stole the show, befriending Aidan Quinn's character with warmth and humor. 

This film (the first to deal with AIDS) managed to educate the public and show a very affecting story at the same time.  Neither maudlin nor hopeless.  Thank God things have changed.

(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/9/91/180px-Earlyfrost.jpg)

Thanks for that review...  I will add it to my netflix... no independent video stores round these parts...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on February 17, 2008, 09:16:25 pm
Since I'm in training these days, I've been spending more time in a hot tub with my friends, and it's reminding me of that old movie Altered States with William Hurt. Anybody remember it?
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on February 17, 2008, 09:19:14 pm
I just got back from Definitely, Maybe. It was very light but cute. I'd seen the trailers and thought it looked stupid, but A.O. Scott gave it a good review in the NYT, which persuaded me to give it a shot. And sure enough, it was worth seeing.

But Leslie, watch out -- there's a scene in which some pretty intense flirting is centered on ... smoking. There were a lot of logos in this movie, so I'm guessing they pocketed some tobacco industry money, too.


Since I'm in training these days, I've been spending more time in a hot tub with my friends, and it's reminding me of that old movie Altered States with William Hurt. Anybody remember it?

F-R, your post came in while I was writing. I loved Altered States! I was in journalism school at the time and it inspired me to spend time in an isolation tank and then write about it.







Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on February 18, 2008, 03:50:50 am
I remember that movie. I had such a crush on Aidan Quinn (after seeing him in Reckless the year before) I was busy watching anything he was in. It was good...I'd like to see it again.

Let's add it to the list, Paul!

L

I can't remember how long it has been since I've seen that movie, but i really liked it. I thought Aidan Quinn's performance was very sensitive. I liked him.

Wasn't he in Desperately Seeking Susan? hmmm, need to check on IMDB
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 18, 2008, 09:46:18 am
I can't remember how long it has been since I've seen that movie, but i really liked it. I thought Aidan Quinn's performance was very sensitive. I liked him.

Wasn't he in Desperately Seeking Susan? hmmm, need to check on IMDB

Yes, he was, and he was so hot in that....

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 18, 2008, 09:51:35 am

But Leslie, watch out -- there's a scene in which some pretty intense flirting is centered on ... smoking. There were a lot of logos in this movie, so I'm guessing they pocketed some tobacco industry money, too.


Hahahaha, I have such a reputation! LOL

Yesterday I watched my netflix DVD, "Imagine Me and You." I think I saw previews for this back in Brokeback Days. Or maybe with "Thank You for Smoking"...which I did go and see by the way. Do you realize in that movie you never see one character smoke? Lots of talk about cigarettes, of course, but no actual smoking. But I digress...

"Imagine Me and You" was...eh. Just so-so. Certainly an easy diversion for a Sunday afternoon, but nothing that I want to rewatch.

I don't think there was any smoking, though!

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on February 18, 2008, 10:31:18 am

F-R, your post came in while I was writing. I loved Altered States! I was in journalism school at the time and it inspired me to spend time in an isolation tank and then write about it.
Cool...did you get in touch with your primal self and/or turn into a monkey??








Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on February 18, 2008, 11:42:22 am
Cool...did you get in touch with your primal self and/or turn into a monkey??

Unfortunately no, so the piece I wrote was somewhat anticlimactic. I didn't even have LSD-like hallucinations. I just got really, really bored.

Or maybe with "Thank You for Smoking"...which I did go and see by the way. Do you realize in that movie you never see one character smoke? Lots of talk about cigarettes, of course, but no actual smoking. But I digress...

Thank You for Smoking was the first movie I saw after Brokeback that I was able to enjoy without constantly thinking about how it wasn't Brokeback. BTW, for those who don't already know, the director of TYFS, Jason Reitman, also directed Juno.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 18, 2008, 12:33:19 pm
I'm off work today because Ontario has a new Holiday called Family Day (Is it just me or does that name sound offensive to others as well, thanks to the Christian right?) and I'm getting ready to go see a movie, I'm considering:

MICHAEL CLAYTON
UP THE YANGTZE
DIARY OF THE DEAD
PERSEPOLIS

What do you think?

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 18, 2008, 12:40:07 pm
I'm off work today because Ontario has a new Holiday called Family Day (Is it just me or does that name sound offensive to others as well, thanks to the Christian right?) and I'm getting ready to go see a movie, I'm considering:

MICHAEL CLAYTON
UP THE YANGTZE
DIARY OF THE DEAD
PERSEPOLIS

What do you think?



If I had that list, I'd choose Persepolis.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: southendmd on February 18, 2008, 12:43:15 pm
If I had that list, I'd choose Persepolis.

L

Me too!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on February 18, 2008, 12:59:29 pm
The only one on the list I've seen is Michael Clayton. I liked it a lot.

I've read Persepolis, though, and thought it was good. But you wouldn't catch me going to Diary of the Dead if I were being chased into the theater by zombies.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 18, 2008, 05:08:39 pm
If I had that list, I'd choose Persepolis.

L

Well, I was on my way to see PERSEPOLIS but stupidly got the start times confused and got there 10 minutes late.  With all the ads and trailers the movie probably hadn't started but I didn't take the chance.  So I headed to another theatre just in time for HANNAH MONTANA!

Just kidding, I saw MICHAEL CLAYTON and really enjoyed it.  The opening scene just hooks you and reels you in, I was on the edge of seat throughout.  I wonder what the people at Monsanto think of it  >:(   Damn that George Clooney!  As soon as I'm finally able to hate him, something like this happens!

Speaking of trailers,I did get a bit of jolt, one of them was for THE DARK KNIGHT and I was NOT expecting it.  I'm just glad I was sitting down (in the dark) because my heart just broke into a million pieces. Again!  :'(
There was also a more extended trailer for 10,000 BC and I have to admit that I'm quite intrigued.  Those woolly mammoths look mighty fine.  I'm a sucker for prehistoric movies, I loved QUEST FOR FIRE and 1,000,000 YEARS BC.
Anyway, I thought they were unusual choices to show before a movie like MC.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on February 18, 2008, 05:31:27 pm
Just kidding, I saw MICHAEL CLAYTON and really enjoyed it.  The opening scene just hooks you and reels you in, I was on the edge of seat throughout.  I wonder what the people at Monsanto think of it  >:(   Damn that George Clooney!  As soon as I'm finally able to hate him, something like this happens!

Glad you enjoyed it, oilgun! You know, I don't think the movie really deserves a BP Oscar, but I'm glad it was nominated, if only to get more attention for that much-overlooked movie.

Quote
There was also a more extended trailer for 10,000 BC and I have to admit that I'm quite intrigued.

I thought that looked interesting, too.

Quote
I did get a bit of jolt, one of them was for THE DARK KNIGHT and I was NOT expecting it.

Same thing happened to me when I saw There Will Be Blood. It's a very strange feeling.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 18, 2008, 05:33:04 pm

Speaking of trailers,I did get a bit of jolt, one of them was for THE DARK KNIGHT and I was NOT expecting it.  I'm just glad I was sitting down (in the dark) because my heart just broke into a million pieces. Again!  :'(


Oh my. To see that without being prepared would be quite a jolt.

Quote
There was also a more extended trailer for 10,000 BC and I have to admit that I'm quite intrigued.  Those woolly mammoths look mighty fine.  I'm a sucker for prehistoric movies, I loved QUEST FOR FIRE and 1,000,000 YEARS BC.
Anyway, I thought they were unusual choices to show before a movie like MC.

You're intrigued...when I saw it (before Atonement, of all things!) I said to my daughter, "Yuck..not for me!" That feeling was reinforced when I saw it was from the director of Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow (is that the right name? The one with Jake when NY turns into an ice tundra?)

The woolly mammoths did look fine, but the people weren't too appealing. LOL

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: BelAir on February 18, 2008, 11:16:00 pm
Oh my. To see that without being prepared would be quite a jolt.

You're intrigued...when I saw it (before Atonement, of all things!) I said to my daughter, "Yuck..not for me!" That feeling was reinforced when I saw it was from the director of Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow (is that the right name? The one with Jake when NY turns into an ice tundra?)

The woolly mammoths did look fine, but the people weren't too appealing. LOL

L

Yes, indeed.  I don't honestly anticipate going to the theater for a movie anytime soon...   But, if I do, I'll just plan/expect to see it, so I'm not jolted...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 19, 2008, 12:07:21 am
Glad you enjoyed it, oilgun! You know, I don't think the movie really deserves a BP Oscar, but I'm glad it was nominated, if only to get more attention for that much-overlooked movie.


I wonder about the BP nom as well.  Maybe the story is a bit too John Grisham-esque?  Not that there's anything wrong with that, lol!  I think maybe George's famous charm ::) gave it a nudge.

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/MichaelClayton01b.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 19, 2008, 12:29:17 am
You're intrigued...when I saw it (before Atonement, of all things!) I said to my daughter, "Yuck..not for me!" That feeling was reinforced when I saw it was from the director of Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow (is that the right name? The one with Jake when NY turns into an ice tundra?)

The woolly mammoths did look fine, but the people weren't too appealing. LOL

L

I should have specified Guilty Pleasure,  :D  The fact that it was by the same director as THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW (contender for worse movie title ever?) was actually a plus for me, because I figure he had the budget to pull it off and I know what to expect. 

I actually enjoyed TDaT - and Jake has nothing to do with it, I'm not a Gyllenhallic (sp?) by any means.  I actually think he should be embarrassed about being in it..  I also hated the CGI wolves -  I just love movies where cities are either deserted or destroyed.  I didn't see I AM LEGEND at the theatre because of my ongoing grudge against Will Smith, but I know I'll love seeing a deserted and crumbling New York City.  These movies speak to the kid in me.  Same thing with movies about prehistory, it's like seeing all these museum displays and artists' renderings from science books come to life, it's just so..COOL!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: yb on February 19, 2008, 01:10:24 am
I didn't see I AM LEGEND at the theatre because of my ongoing grudge against Will Smith, but I know I'll love seeing a deserted and crumbling New York City.  These movies speak to the kid in me.  Same thing with movies about prehistory, it's like seeing all these museum displays and artists' renderings from science books come to life, it's just so..COOL!

Oh!  You should have gone to see I AM LEGEND just to see the trailer of The Dark Knight!  LOL.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 19, 2008, 09:49:56 am


"No Country" adds honors in pre-Oscar awards blitz

Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:11am EST

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Oscar front-runner "No Country For Old Men" picked up two awards during the weekend as the countdown to the Academy Awards entered its final week.

The film won the top prize in sound mixing at the 44th annual Cinema Audio Society awards on Saturday.

The award was accepting by production mixer Peter Kurland and re-recording mixers Skip Lievsay, Craig Berkey and Gregg Orloff, who will compete at the Oscars on Sunday against the teams from "The Bourne Ultimatum," "Ratatouille," "3:10 to Yuma" and "Transformers."

The grim Western picked up eight Oscar nominations, tying with "There Will Be Blood" as the leading contender.

Also Saturday, "No Country for Old Men" was named best contemporary film at the 12th annual Art Directors Guild awards. The prize was accepted by Jess Gonchor, who did not receive an Oscar nomination.

Instead, two other Art Directors Guild winners "There Will Be Blood" (period film) and "The Golden Compass" (fantasy film) will compete for the Oscar against "American Gangster," "Atonement" and "Sweeney Todd."

But "No Country" was not able to secure a clean sweep during the weekend awards blitz. A day later, "The Bourne Ultimatum" and "Sweeney Todd" won the top prizes at the 58th annual American Cinema Editors Eddie Awards, for drama and musical/comedy, respectively.

"The Bourne Ultimatum" will compete for the Oscar against "No Country," "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "Into the Wild" and "There Will Be Blood."

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

http://www.reuters.com/article/filmNews/idUSN1821326220080219
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on February 19, 2008, 10:33:33 am
I have been invited to two previews, Honeydripper and Penelope. I'm hoping to see both of them and will post reviews. Wow, this is my first chance to see a movie that isn't at least two years old in a long time!

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on February 19, 2008, 11:18:18 am
I have been invited to two previews, Honeydripper and Penelope. I'm hoping to see both of them and will post reviews. Wow, this is my first chance to see a movie that isn't at least two years old in a long time!

Both excellent choices, F-R! Honeydripper should be good because how can a John Sayles movie not be. And Penelope I hadn't heard of, so I was curious enough to go to the website just now, and it looks really charming.

A couple of days ago I went to see U2 3D at my local IMAX theater.  Never mind that I am crazy for U2, this film was phenomenal.  The technology was unmatched.  I have been to several live U2 concerts over the years, and this movie was BETTER.

That sounds good, too, susiebk. I think it's coming to my local theater and, though I like U2, I hadn't planned to see it. But now I will try to take it in.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Kd5000 on February 19, 2008, 01:48:07 pm
I recently rented AWAY FROM HER and found it a very moving film.  The acting was excellent and the main female character,  Julie Christie , portraying the character Fiona says "I think I may be beginning to disappear."  Like I said it's a good human interest story.


Oh, it's a Canadian film and there only one jab at the United States!  :D   Julie Christie's character is asked by her doctor what movies she has seen recently" Oh, we never go to the movies, it's just the multiplex full of American Hollywood garbage."  Well something to that effect. 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 28, 2008, 08:29:11 am
Yesterday I watched 30 DAYS OF NIGHT.  It's a VERY effective horror featuring a couple of great performances by Ben Foster and Danny Huston as the lead vampire and an appropriately brooding Josh Hartnett.  It's quite gory although it's not all about the gore, it's scared the crap out of me!

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/thirty_days_of_night_ver6.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 28, 2008, 06:20:35 pm
Ooh, I love vampire stories.  I just added it to my Netflix queue.


You won't regret it, but be warned, these are not your standard Anne Rice-ish sexy & romantic Vampires.  I can't wait to get home and watch it again along with the Director/Josh Hartnett commentary.

Strangely, the movie rates only 50% on Rotten Tomatoes.  There are plot holes of course but the constant tension made them fairly easy to ignore.  I don't know what these critics were expecting from a movie based on a graphic novel.  It's way better than most films in the horror and the based-on-graphic-novel genres.

Here's a review that I agree with by James Berardinelli:

http://www.reelviews.net/movies/t/30_days.html (http://www.reelviews.net/movies/t/30_days.html)

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/30days-2.jpg)(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/30days-1.jpg)

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/30days-3.jpg)
Aaah, look at that face!  Here's Josh looking tense, no, concerned.  Scared?  Sad?  Determined?  Who cares, he looks gorgeous! :-*
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on February 28, 2008, 07:19:41 pm
Thanks for the warning, but I don't mind a little blood and gore.  I recently viewed and enjoyed 28 Days Later (zombies as opposed to vampires), and also Underworld with Kate Beckinsale.  Have you seen either film?

The review sounded interesting - thanks for the link.



Yes, I've seen both and really enjoyed 28 Days Later.  I liked Underworld but mostly for Scott Speedman, lol! (Yes I was a Felicity fan, lol!)  Anyway if you like those two than you'll have a blast with this one.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on February 28, 2008, 08:40:52 pm
Thanks for the warning, but I don't mind a little blood and gore.  I recently viewed and enjoyed 28 Days Later (zombies as opposed to vampires), and also Underworld with Kate Beckinsale.  Have you seen either film?

The review sounded interesting - thanks for the link.



I liked Underworld - mostly because of the twist of the story and because of all the shenanigans that were going on behind the camera.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 29, 2008, 07:57:09 am
Has anyone seen Margo At The Wedding?  I watched it yesterday, and I really liked it a lot.   :D

Really? I saw it in the video store and thought about renting it, but it got such lousy reviews. I think it played in the movie theater for 20 minutes or so.
What did you like about it?

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on February 29, 2008, 07:58:03 am
My daughter and I are going to see In Bruges this afternoon. That's the plan of the moment, at least.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on February 29, 2008, 08:24:04 am
My daughter and I are going to see In Bruges this afternoon. That's the plan of the moment, at least.

L

Ah, great plan. Let us know what you think! Too bad we didn't run into Ralph Fiennes last year..

(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m312/Belbbmfan/HPIM1103.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: delalluvia on March 01, 2008, 12:12:30 am

Just came from seeing The Other Boleyn Girl.

Critics gave it a C- and tore it up, but me and my friend thought it was quite good and not as soap-opera-y as the critics made out.

I do recommend it, and of course, it's based on a historical fiction book so liberty has been taken with historical events.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on March 01, 2008, 09:45:37 am
I saw In Bruges late yesterday afternoon.

I mostly wanted to see it because I was "in Bruges" last year at this time, when they were filming the movie. In that way, I wasn't disappointed. Lovely scenes of the city and it brought back good memories.

Storywise, it was good, but not great. It starts off in a light vein and then takes a dark turn with a fairly violent, bloody ending. I was prepared for that from having read the reviews. I am glad I saw it but it is a "once is enough" movie for me.

Lots of jokes that pick on Belgium, though.  >:(

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Artiste on March 01, 2008, 07:06:13 pm
Did anyone see Red River 1948?

I just started a thread on that film.

Be happy to get your views on it...

hugs!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on March 03, 2008, 02:41:55 pm
Has anyone seen In the Valley of Elah?

I watched it yesterday and I thought it was very good.  It was about a man, played by Tommy Lee Jones, who sets out to investigate the disappearance of his son.  The son is a soldier and he goes missing soon after returning from Iraq.

The film examines how patriotism can sometimes lead us to make bad decisions, and it looks at the effects war has on the young people who are forced to fight.  And it also explores the love parents have for their children and what a shock it can be for them when they learn their kid might have serious flaws.

Ultimately, I think In the Valley of Elah is about confronting the truth.

In the Valley of Elah got okay reviews when it came out but lots of praise for Tommy Lee Jones, who was nominated for an Oscar for his performance. I didn't see it because it was directed by that Haggis guy, who directed Crash, and I don't like his movies.

Glad to hear you enjoyed it, Gary.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on March 03, 2008, 02:43:25 pm
Here's a few more films that I've seen recently on DVD that I would recommend:

Michael Clayton

Great World of Sound

Gone Baby, Gone

Eastern Promises

Two Days In Paris

The Namesake

Rocket Science

December Boys

3:10 to Yuma

Once



Of the movies on that list, I really enjoyed Once and 3:10 to Yuma. I really wanted to like The Namesake, because Monsoon Wedding (same director, Mira Nair) is one of my all time favorites. I thought The Namesake was good, but not great and that was a disappointment.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on March 04, 2008, 08:38:58 pm
Leslie, why do I get the feeling that I'm a the glass is half full type of person, and you're a the glass is half empty kind of person?   :laugh:



In general, I think I am a glass half full person, but when it comes to movies and books, that's the wrong yardstick to use.

Books: if a book doesn't pull me in quickly, I very rarely plow through it. People who say to me, "Oh keep going, it will catch you by page 160..." sorry that doesn't work for me. I need to be caught by page 10. This is probably part of the reason I never took a literature course in college. I knew there would a problem with must read/can't plow through.

If I like a book, I am likely to read and re-read it over and over. My "pendulum" swings all the way the other way.

Movies (in the theater): I think long and hard about going to see a movie in a theater. I read reviews and want to make sure it is a movie I want to see. If, in that case, I don't care for it, I am sorely disappointed. Probably my best/worst example of this is "The Family Stone." That movie got good reviews (from some reviewers) and I loathed it. In fact, it is one of my all time WORST movies. Even so, in the movie theater, I very rarely walk out. I stick it out til the end....painful. LOL

Most of the time, though, I do a good job about picking movies to see in the theater, probably because of my advance research.

Movies...on DVD/HBO/TV: I can be a little more reckless here. I'll watch something I heard about but that didn't meet my "gold standard" for the theater. In this case, it is more like a book: if it doesn't catch me quick, I turn it off. On the other hand, there are many movies I enjoy and watch all the way through. If I really really like something, I'll watch it endlessly, just like I'll read a book repeatedly.

This all applies to fairly new movies. Historical films or films that are new to me, I am willing to give a try, and am often wildly surprised. That is how I discovered "Wages of Fear" (1953) a few months ago.

This is probably way too much information and way too analytical for you, isn't it? Oh well, it gives you an idea of how my mind works and why it is hard to reduce me to a half full/empty glass. LOL

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on March 04, 2008, 09:40:39 pm
Leslie, why do I get the feeling that I'm a the glass is half full type of person, and you're a the glass is half empty kind of person?   :laugh:

Either of those is fine. It's the people who see the glass as empty who annoy me.

When it comes to movies, I'm a glass-is-just-about-full person. I'll see almost anything. And what I won't see in theaters, I'll definitely see on DVD. With the exception of violence-for-the-sake-of-violence movies, like Saw, or anything where it's all about the car chases and explosions and gun battles (though I'll even make an exception here if they're fairly well done, like that most recent Die Hard).

Which brings me to the movie I saw on Sunday: Vantage Point. I haven't posted anything because I'm not sure I have anything worth saying about it. It was an interesting concept, it held my interest, there were suspenseful moments ... but, ehh. In the end, kind of a car-chase-explosion-gun-battle kind of movie.

I've decided that Dennis Quaid, like Kevin Costner and Nicholas Cage, is an actor I like in light, fairly cheerful movies and don't really like in more serious dramas or action roles. What are some other examples of this? And who is the opposite? I'm tempted to say Russell Crowe -- I don't think I'd like him in anything too light.

Probably my best/worst example of this is "The Family Stone." That movie got good reviews (from some reviewers) and I loathed it.

I had the same experience. I believe we've both ranted about the terribleness of TFS before.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: belbbmfan on March 05, 2008, 03:01:02 am
In general, I think I am a glass half full person, but when it comes to movies and books, that's the wrong yardstick to use.

Books: if a book doesn't pull me in quickly, I very rarely plow through it. People who say to me, "Oh keep going, it will catch you by page 160..." sorry that doesn't work for me. I need to be caught by page 10. This is probably part of the reason I never took a literature course in college. I knew there would a problem with must read/can't plow through.

If I like a book, I am likely to read and re-read it over and over. My "pendulum" swings all the way the other way.

Movies (in the theater): I think long and hard about going to see a movie in a theater. I read reviews and want to make sure it is a movie I want to see. If, in that case, I don't care for it, I am sorely disappointed. Probably my best/worst example of this is "The Family Stone." That movie got good reviews (from some reviewers) and I loathed it. In fact, it is one of my all time WORST movies. Even so, in the movie theater, I very rarely walk out. I stick it out til the end....painful. LOL

Most of the time, though, I do a good job about picking movies to see in the theater, probably because of my advance research.

Movies...on DVD/HBO/TV: I can be a little more reckless here. I'll watch something I heard about but that didn't meet my "gold standard" for the theater. In this case, it is more like a book: if it doesn't catch me quick, I turn it off. On the other hand, there are many movies I enjoy and watch all the way through. If I really really like something, I'll watch it endlessly, just like I'll read a book repeatedly.

This all applies to fairly new movies. Historical films or films that are new to me, I am willing to give a try, and am often wildly surprised. That is how I discovered "Wages of Fear" (1953) a few months ago.

This is probably way too much information and way too analytical for you, isn't it? Oh well, it gives you an idea of how my mind works and why it is hard to reduce me to a half full/empty glass. LOL

L

hehehehe

I agree about the books. I have a number of books that I have started and never finished. I used to feel guilty about that, like I hadn't tried hard enough. But now, I feel, if I don't care about the characters from early on in the story, I'm not going to keep on reading.

Same with movies, I read a lot of reviews so I pretty much know what to expect before I go see a movie. Of course, that's no guarentee. I saw Juno on sunday. It was ok, but I couldn't see what all the fuss was about. It had a few funny moments, but the foul language got old after about 15 minutes.


Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on March 05, 2008, 07:29:07 am

I really liked Dennis Quaid in Far From Heaven.  That was a pretty serious role.  Did you see him in that?


Yes, I did, and I thought he was great.

I liked Dennis Quaid from the very first time I saw him, in Breaking Away. Have you seen that, Gary? There's a good daydream movie! I also liked him in The Long Riders, The Right Stuff, The Big Easy (oh yes, for that one! "Watch out for the  gator, baby!"), Everybody's All American, Great Balls of Fire, Undercover Blues, The Parent Trap, The Rookie....do you get the feeling I am a Dennis Quaid fan? Lately, though, it seems like he is picking stupid roles just to make a buck: The Day  After Tomorrow, Yours, Mine, and Ours and now, Vantage Point. Sigh....
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on March 05, 2008, 07:34:19 am
I didn't like The Family Stone either.  I thought the way the mother treated her son's girlfriend was both mean-spirited and weird.  But the story never confronted that.  It was as if we were to think her attitude was sympathetic, and it wasn't.  It was nasty.

And then the way they sprang that bit about the mother dying there at the end seemed really strange.  That came out of left field.

I love Diane Keaton, but I sure didn't like her character in this film.  I kept wanting Sarah Jessica Parker's character to give her a good smack.   :P  So what if she's this man's mother, and she's dying?  She doesn't get to decide who he's going to marry. 


I wanted to wring Diane Keaton's neck. What a witch of a mother...grrrr....I hear that Diane hasn't been a very nice character in her other recent movies (Because I Said So and Mad Money). They say that women of a "certain age" have a hard time finding decent roles but look at Helen Mirren. She's the same age as Diane and doesn't seem to have accepted the fact that she has to be a bitch on screen to keep working. Jane Fonda is another one who seems to be falling into the same trap.

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on March 05, 2008, 09:44:13 am
I really liked Dennis Quaid in Far From Heaven.  That was a pretty serious role.  Did you see him in that?

Did you see Nicholas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas?

Oh, there you go, finding exceptions to what I thought was a perfect rule of thumb.  ::)   ;) You're right, I loved Dennis Quaid in FFH, too. And I thought Nicholas Cage was good in LLV (though I wasn't exactly happy I'd seen the movie). So maybe I should amend that to say, I like them in light comedies or in character dramas, but not in action films.

I defy you to find an exception in Kevin Costner's case, though. A week or so ago, I watched the first 10 minutes of Mr. Brooks and knew I wouldn't be able to stand it. I switched it off. Too horrible. I watched The Heartbreak Kid instead, which I thought was going to be stupid but turned out to be kind of (emphasis on the kind of) funny and cute.


I wanted to wring Diane Keaton's neck. What a witch of a mother...grrrr....I hear that Diane hasn't been a very nice character in her other recent movies (Because I Said So and Mad Money). They say that women of a "certain age" have a hard time finding decent roles but look at Helen Mirren. She's the same age as Diane and doesn't seem to have accepted the fact that she has to be a bitch on screen to keep working. Jane Fonda is another one who seems to be falling into the same trap.

TFS was one of those watershed roles that changed my whole view of Diane Keaton. She'd better do a nice sympathetic or at least funny role, fast.

Jane Fonda has fallen into the same trap, but I think that's because she felt it was a hurdle to get back into movies at all.



L
[/quote]
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on March 05, 2008, 09:53:32 am

TFS was one of those watershed roles that changed my whole view of Diane Keaton. She'd better do a nice sympathetic or at least funny role, fast.

True. On her biography on IMDb, it doesn't even list anything as being in production. Maybe she is taking a break to reassess the disaster her career has become at the moment.

Quote

Jane Fonda has fallen into the same trap, but I think that's because she felt it was a hurdle to get back into movies at all.


Yes, this is true. And why did she have to get back into the movies, anyway? Georgia Rule and Monster-in-Law certainly aren't shining stars in the cinematic firmament. LOL

L
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on March 05, 2008, 11:00:19 am
I don't mind Diane Keaton and Jane Fonda (etc.)  playing unsympathetic characters, I just wish they did it in movies worth seeing, lol!
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: southendmd on March 05, 2008, 11:16:16 am
I defy you to find an exception in Kevin Costner's case, though. A week or so ago, I watched the first 10 minutes of Mr. Brooks and knew I wouldn't be able to stand it. I switched it off. Too horrible. I watched The Heartbreak Kid instead, which I thought was going to be stupid but turned out to be kind of (emphasis on the kind of) funny and cute.

I agree KC has done a lot of junk.  But he was irresistible in No Way Out in 1987, and, I'm still a sucker for Field of Dreams  (just try  watching that with your father...)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: MaineWriter on March 05, 2008, 11:20:21 am
I agree KC has done a lot of junk.  But he was irresistible in No Way Out in 1987, and, I'm still a sucker for Field of Dreams  (just try  watching that with your father...)

Oh, No Way Out. I forgot that one. I loved that movie! And to be honest, I liked Dances With Wolves the first time I saw it, but now it seems sort of trite.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on March 05, 2008, 11:33:33 am
I am a long-time Costner fan.  I love him in Dances with Wolves and No Way Out, and even (I admit it) Waterworld and Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves.

My favourite KC films are Dances With Wolves and Tin Cup.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: ednbarby on March 05, 2008, 11:59:13 am
Oh, Susie - here we have our first lovers' spat:  I cannot stand Kevin Costner.  I remember thinking he was good at the time in No Way Out and Bull Durham, but on watching them years later on TV, I could see him acting the whole time.  I'm a sucker for Field of Dreams, though, but I don't think he does any acting in that - he's just being Kevin Costner, albeit a considerably less boring version.

The only movie I think he was ever good in and still do is American Flyers.  I thought he stole every scene he was in in that one, when it was really the other guy's (I can't even think of the actor's name - that's how much he stole it) show.

I've been referring to KC for many years now as "The most boring man in America."  If you've ever seen him interviewed, you'll see why.  He's not quiet and introverted and mysterious like Robert DeNiro - he's BORING.


*backs slowly out of room*
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: serious crayons on March 05, 2008, 02:03:48 pm
Wow, so much to respond to!

Re Jane Fonda:

Yes, this is true. And why did she have to get back into the movies, anyway? Georgia Rule and Monster-in-Law certainly aren't shining stars in the cinematic firmament. LOL

I know! They're tarnishing her reputation more, in my view, than her visit to Hanoi!  ;D  She was once a really good actress. So why bother to come back at all, just to be in crap? So much better to go the Julie Christie route, and come back only for a really good role. It's not like she needs the money, is it?

I don't mind Diane Keaton and Jane Fonda (etc.)  playing unsympathetic characters, I just wish they did it in movies worth seeing, lol!

Exactly! The problem with Diane in TFS was that she wasn't supposed to be unsympathetic, she was supposed to be a wise, beloved matriarch. That movie was soooo deeply flawed. For me, it was also the last straw for Sarah Jessica Parker, who gets on my nerves anyway. And let's throw in Dermot Mulrooney, whom I sometimes like but don't feel very attached to. Even Claire Danes didn't come off looking great. Rachel McAdams and Luke Wilson are the only ones I don't like less after that film, and only because I've seen them in enough other things where I do like them.

Re Kevin Costner:

He's always totally delightful in romantic comedies: Bull Durham, Tin Cup, The Upside of Anger. He's also good in dramas with a mostly lighter tone: Field of Dreams, Silverado, the way-underrated A Perfect World. I'd put Dances With Wolves in that category, too, though I'm afraid that like Leslie I might find it trite at this point.

I don't like him in movies where he has to frown the whole time. I thought he was out and out bad in JFK. I don't recall him adding much to The Untouchables. No Way Out I don't remember very well, but from what I do recall I kind of suspect I'd like it better for the screenplay than for Kevin.

As for what he's like in real life ... I can't say I've ever read or seen an interview with him. If so, it must have been boring, because I don't remember it!  :laugh: But with a few exceptions (are you listening, Mel Gibson?) I don't care what people are like in real life as long as they entertain me onscreen. Though they do get extra credit for being appealing in real life.

Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Meryl on March 06, 2008, 10:18:21 pm
I just watched Day Zero.  It takes place in the near future, and the draft has just been reinstated.  Three young men have just gotten a notice in the mail telling them to report to duty within 30 days.  The film explores their reactions to this news. 

I think the film could have been better if the writer had worked on the characters a bit more and hadn't relied on cliches so much.  But I did like the film.  However, I'll admit this might have something to do with the fact that it stared Elijah Wood.  He played one of the characters that was unexpectedly drafted.  I could watch Elijah do almost anything for a hour and a half -- scrape gum off the bottom of his shoe, pick his nose -- and I'd be a happy camper.  He's sooo cute.   ;D

I'm a big fan of Elijah Wood, too, Gary.  His radiant, exquisitely beautiful Frodo in LOTR sent me running to the message boards for those movies.  I saw Day Zero purely because of him, and I thought it was okay but wished it were a better vehicle for him.  He's had a string of small movies since LOTR, the best of which I think is Everything Is Illuminated.  That's a movie more people should have seen; Liev Schreiber directed it beautifully.  I have hopes that Elijah's upcoming The Oxford Murders will be more successful, particularly since it co-stars John Hurt, one of my favorites.
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on March 06, 2008, 11:04:25 pm
Last night I discovered yet another young movie hunk, the ridiculously handsome Andreas Wilson from Sweden.  He plays the lead in the film EVIL(Ondskan) which is based on a popular autobiographical coming of age novel set in an elite boarding school in fifties Sweden.  It's a wonderful and qute disturbing film looking at how violence breeds violence.  It brought to mind REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE.

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/EVIL-01.jpg)(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/andreas_wilson_02b.jpg)

I just ordered another movie of his called ANIMAL by Roselyne Bosch.  In that, he plays a "brilliant young geneticist" who does DNA altering experiments on a sadistic killer in an attempt to increase his empathy and make him less violent.  Of course things go awry...I can't wait!

(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/oilgun/Animal01.jpg)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on March 08, 2008, 12:52:55 am
I just watched a terrific movie, and then searched for a mention of it on BetterMost. But, how is it possible that there is no mention of this movie anywhere on BetterMost?? Can you guess? It is B...
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on March 08, 2008, 01:03:55 am
Here's a hint. A scene I snapped when I visited Times Square for the very first time last October!

(http://www.divshare.com/img/3975350-f41.JPG)
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: oilgun on March 08, 2008, 01:06:00 am
Here's a hint. A scene I snapped when I visited Times Square for the very first time last October!

(http://www.divshare.com/img/3975350-f41.JPG)

Well, that's a pretty obious hint, lol!  BEOWULF? 
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on March 08, 2008, 01:24:18 am
Yes, oilgun, you are rite!! And I agree, that hint was as big as the breasts on Angelina Jolie's enhanced body!! I have a crying need to talk about this awesome overreaching film! Have you seen it? Are you game??
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on March 08, 2008, 01:35:02 am
Of course, the movie was a big overarching epic (Oh where oh where are you when we need you moremojo???????)

But the main point for me was the collision between the pagan religion and the Christian era. In the end, Beowulf vanqusihed the dragon but SHE lived on....
Title: Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
Post by: Front-Ranger on March 08, 2008, 01:46:47 am
Yes, gary and meryl, I liked Everything is Illu