Breaking the Waves
This was a very hard movie to see. It made me feel for the characters more than any movie, with exception of Schindler's List.
It is very unsettling.
Emily Watson was amazing in it. I can't imagine how you would prepare for that role.
Stelan Skaarsgard (SP) was very good. It seems to me that he really changed thr out the movie. I'm still not sure if he married her out of love or because she is someone easy to manipulate, but you can tell by the last scene how much she really ment to him.
This isn't the kind of movie where the word 'Like' applies, you can't say it in those
Jackie Brown
I really don't have much to say about it, but I loved it.
Jackson was great as usual, although I wish there would be more of a diference between this character and the one from Pulp Fiction.
I'm surprised Robert DeNiro took the role. He doesn't speek much. When he does, it's very softly, with out the feel he usualy has behind his words. It's certaainly an important character, but it's overshadowed by everyone else. I really had a sort of face that was somewhere between amazment and laughing when he actualy shot Bridget Fonda because she wouldn't shut up.
Robert Forster was great, but IMO not enough to diserve an oscar nomination.
I think I've seen to many movies (especialy Pulp Fiction) that shows you different point of views of the same scenes, or plays with time, so the climax of the movie was ot all that impressive.
Again, I don't much else to say about the movie plot wise, but it was great.
Movies I've seen lately
I have just suffered through one of the worst movies ever made- The Time Machine- which also probably the worst remake I've seen.
The special effects looked incredibaly fake- It was painfully obvious that the best views were paintings. Even The Mummy Returns looked real.
The movie uses so many cliches (the Einstein 'Joke'
), and offers nothing new beyond Wells' view or what the original movie had to offer.
It has the stupid future scenes where you have smeone from another world ignorant of what happend.
The Morlock's round up scene is extriemely reminicent of Planet Of The Apes (The Original of course)
The big skeletal head which is the door to the Morlock's lair looks like a paper cut-out.
The caves look like newly built sets on lot 34 at Warner Bros., not like a huge network of caves that have been around for 800,000 years.
The scene with his family looks identical to the one in Star Trek: Generations.
Probably my biggest complaint is what they did with Jeremey Irons. As far as I'm concerned, this is even worse than DnD, which is saying something.
He looks hideous- and not because he's suppose to, but because make up and cotume didn't do a great job.
He's in it for one scene, than dies- He's supposed to be this terrifying Menace, when all he did was talk very calmly with the our hero, than let him go.
Which brings me to the next point- story development. It's development is even worse than Plan 9 from Outer space.
First of all- it takes more than an hour and a half to adapt most books, much less a Wells' book.
The story sets itself up for an hour, resolves it in half that- it shoud be he opposite. The resolution is nothing huge, it's the hero goes into the enemy's lair , finds him, kills him and his henchmen using basicaly the same trick, than settles down for a touching ending.
A terrible movie, not a single thing in worth seeing.
On a personal note- the natural thing to think is that I loved the book so much and therefore picked my User Name out of it.
NOT SO! I still stand by my story that I came up with it on my own, without of even hearing of H.G. Wells.
Would you name youself after some of the ugliest beings ever conceptualized?
The special effects looked incredibaly fake- It was painfully obvious that the best views were paintings. Even The Mummy Returns looked real.
The movie uses so many cliches (the Einstein 'Joke'
), and offers nothing new beyond Wells' view or what the original movie had to offer.It has the stupid future scenes where you have smeone from another world ignorant of what happend.
The Morlock's round up scene is extriemely reminicent of Planet Of The Apes (The Original of course)
The big skeletal head which is the door to the Morlock's lair looks like a paper cut-out.
The caves look like newly built sets on lot 34 at Warner Bros., not like a huge network of caves that have been around for 800,000 years.
The scene with his family looks identical to the one in Star Trek: Generations.
Probably my biggest complaint is what they did with Jeremey Irons. As far as I'm concerned, this is even worse than DnD, which is saying something.
He looks hideous- and not because he's suppose to, but because make up and cotume didn't do a great job.
He's in it for one scene, than dies- He's supposed to be this terrifying Menace, when all he did was talk very calmly with the our hero, than let him go.
Which brings me to the next point- story development. It's development is even worse than Plan 9 from Outer space.
First of all- it takes more than an hour and a half to adapt most books, much less a Wells' book.
The story sets itself up for an hour, resolves it in half that- it shoud be he opposite. The resolution is nothing huge, it's the hero goes into the enemy's lair , finds him, kills him and his henchmen using basicaly the same trick, than settles down for a touching ending.
A terrible movie, not a single thing in worth seeing.
On a personal note- the natural thing to think is that I loved the book so much and therefore picked my User Name out of it.
NOT SO! I still stand by my story that I came up with it on my own, without of even hearing of H.G. Wells.
Would you name youself after some of the ugliest beings ever conceptualized?
"Veni,Vidi,vici!"
(I came,I saw,I conquered!) Julius Ceasar
(I came,I saw,I conquered!) Julius Ceasar
-
HighLordDave
- Posts: 4062
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
- Contact:
Today I went to see Star Trek: Nemesis, the latest installment of the venerable TV-turned-movie franchise. Being an even-numbered Trek movie, I expected it to be pretty good, but sadly, it's not.
The bad guys for this movie are one of the most underused villainous races in the Trek universe: The Romulans. The movie opens with someone assassinating the entire Romulan senate and a mysterious figure named Shinzon assuming the Praetorate.
[soapbox mode on]Star Trek has always given the Romulans the shaft. They're horrible villains because no one never bothered to flesh them out and when someone did, Rick Berman et al reversed course for the TV show and they're still muddling through it. The best treatment the Romulans ever got was by Diane Duane in her books My Enemy, My Ally and The Romulan Way. She made the Romulans interesting and was very good at describing the "sundering" between the Vulcans and the people who became the Romulans. She gave them a rich cultural past, cool names for their planets (ch'Rihan and ch'Havaran) and depth that made them viable villains. Unfortunately, the Trek TV (and now movie) producers have thrown all of this away and turned the Romulans back into crappy bad guys.[/soapbox mode off]
The first scene featuring the Trek crew is at Riker and Troi's wedding reception in Alaska (but wait a minute! Weren't Troi and Worf involved? Oh, yeah, that's right! Worf dumped Troi when he joined DS9 and married Jadzhia Dax so Troi must have gone running back to Riker!). Speaking of Worf, he's inexplicably back in a Starfleet uniform, never mind that when we last saw him, in the series finale for DS9, he was the Federation's ambassidor to the Klingon Empire.
As if that weren't bad enough, Whoopi Goldberg makes a superflous cameo at the reception as Guinan and I'm told that in the original draft of the script, Wesley Crusher and his wife Robin Lefler Crusher (played in a cameo appearance by Ashley Judd; die-hard trekkies will remember that Judd played Lefler in two or three TNG episodes) appeared, but thankfully that scene either never saw the light of day or ended up on the cutting room floor.
After the reception, Picard and crew are off to Betazed for the second part of the Riker/Troi wedding, but their trip is sidetracked by the detection of positronic emissions a couple of star systems away. It turns out that the positronic emissions are coming from a disassembled Data robot that Dr. Singh just left lying around (sadly, it's not Lore). After picking up the android, Picard gets a call from Starfleet, in the person of Admiral Kathryn Janeway, who tells him that the Romulans want to talk and he's the guy to do it. (By the way, how the hell does Janeway make Admiral before Picard, or Riker for that matter?)
It turns out that Shinzon isn't a Romulan at all, he's a human, and not only that, he's a clone of Picard that the Romulans were going to use as an espionage agent, but then cancelled the program and left him to his own devices. If you're sitting in audience and don't have a big "WTF" look on your face by now, either you've fallen asleep or you don't care enough about the movie or Star Trek to pay attention.
As things turn out, Shinzon doesn't want to talk, he wants Picard, because he's dying and the only thing that can save him is a transfusion of his genetic original's blood. Oh, yeah, Shinzon also has a ship that can fire through it's undetectable cloak and a super-weapon that uses biogenic radiation and can wipe out an entire planet in one fell swoop Up until this point, as both a movie-goer and a Trek fan, I could willingly suspend my disbelief, but this was absolutely the last straw. Instead of the usual plausability that accompanies most Star Trek techno-babble, I can't bring myself to buy this explaination, nor any of the other plot holes I could drive a semi through.
Also, the Data android the crew conveniently found starts downloading information from the ship's computers and predictably turns out to be a Romulan plant. The rest of the movie involves escaping from the newest Romulan super-ship in an area of space that interferes with their sensors and long-range communications (there seem to be alot of these around; it also happened in The Wrath of Khan and Insurrection). In the movie's biggest plot twist and strongest indicator that this is the last TNG movie, Data blows himself and the Romulan ship up to prevent the crew of the Enterprise from being killed. [nitpickmode on]Data has a single transporter transponder on him so he can save either Picard or himself; he chooses Picard. Why no carry two transponders and save both of them?[/nitpickmode off]
At the end of the movie, Riker shows up wearing captain's pips on his collar with orders to take command of his own ship, the Titan. In some dialogue that was supposed to be at the wedding reception, but ended up on the cutting room floor, we also found out that Crusher and LaForge were also leaving the crew, so coupled with Data's death, it looks like the TNG franchise is no longer going to be on the big screen. Unfortunately, they don't get the send-off that the TOS crew got at the end of The Undiscovered Country and the movie abruptly ends.
I was very disappointed (but not very surprised) by how bad Nemesis turned out to be. The last two Trek movies were basically two hour episodes with bigger budgets and more stuff blowing up. To my dismay, none of the extra money was spent on a good script. It is my hope that the next Trek movie will be the DS9 movie that let's us know what happened to Captain Sisko and brings together a very strong ensamble cast to rescue a franchise that is rapidly going down the toilet. However, I do not know if there will ever be a Trek movie that doesn't somehow star the Enterprise (even Search for Spock and The Voyage Home had the ship in them).
The only reason why anyone should see this is because they are a Trekkie and they want/need to see every movie. The nicest thing I can say about it is, "At least it's not Star Trek V."
Rating: 3.5 out of 10
The bad guys for this movie are one of the most underused villainous races in the Trek universe: The Romulans. The movie opens with someone assassinating the entire Romulan senate and a mysterious figure named Shinzon assuming the Praetorate.
[soapbox mode on]Star Trek has always given the Romulans the shaft. They're horrible villains because no one never bothered to flesh them out and when someone did, Rick Berman et al reversed course for the TV show and they're still muddling through it. The best treatment the Romulans ever got was by Diane Duane in her books My Enemy, My Ally and The Romulan Way. She made the Romulans interesting and was very good at describing the "sundering" between the Vulcans and the people who became the Romulans. She gave them a rich cultural past, cool names for their planets (ch'Rihan and ch'Havaran) and depth that made them viable villains. Unfortunately, the Trek TV (and now movie) producers have thrown all of this away and turned the Romulans back into crappy bad guys.[/soapbox mode off]
The first scene featuring the Trek crew is at Riker and Troi's wedding reception in Alaska (but wait a minute! Weren't Troi and Worf involved? Oh, yeah, that's right! Worf dumped Troi when he joined DS9 and married Jadzhia Dax so Troi must have gone running back to Riker!). Speaking of Worf, he's inexplicably back in a Starfleet uniform, never mind that when we last saw him, in the series finale for DS9, he was the Federation's ambassidor to the Klingon Empire.
As if that weren't bad enough, Whoopi Goldberg makes a superflous cameo at the reception as Guinan and I'm told that in the original draft of the script, Wesley Crusher and his wife Robin Lefler Crusher (played in a cameo appearance by Ashley Judd; die-hard trekkies will remember that Judd played Lefler in two or three TNG episodes) appeared, but thankfully that scene either never saw the light of day or ended up on the cutting room floor.
After the reception, Picard and crew are off to Betazed for the second part of the Riker/Troi wedding, but their trip is sidetracked by the detection of positronic emissions a couple of star systems away. It turns out that the positronic emissions are coming from a disassembled Data robot that Dr. Singh just left lying around (sadly, it's not Lore). After picking up the android, Picard gets a call from Starfleet, in the person of Admiral Kathryn Janeway, who tells him that the Romulans want to talk and he's the guy to do it. (By the way, how the hell does Janeway make Admiral before Picard, or Riker for that matter?)
It turns out that Shinzon isn't a Romulan at all, he's a human, and not only that, he's a clone of Picard that the Romulans were going to use as an espionage agent, but then cancelled the program and left him to his own devices. If you're sitting in audience and don't have a big "WTF" look on your face by now, either you've fallen asleep or you don't care enough about the movie or Star Trek to pay attention.
As things turn out, Shinzon doesn't want to talk, he wants Picard, because he's dying and the only thing that can save him is a transfusion of his genetic original's blood. Oh, yeah, Shinzon also has a ship that can fire through it's undetectable cloak and a super-weapon that uses biogenic radiation and can wipe out an entire planet in one fell swoop Up until this point, as both a movie-goer and a Trek fan, I could willingly suspend my disbelief, but this was absolutely the last straw. Instead of the usual plausability that accompanies most Star Trek techno-babble, I can't bring myself to buy this explaination, nor any of the other plot holes I could drive a semi through.
Also, the Data android the crew conveniently found starts downloading information from the ship's computers and predictably turns out to be a Romulan plant. The rest of the movie involves escaping from the newest Romulan super-ship in an area of space that interferes with their sensors and long-range communications (there seem to be alot of these around; it also happened in The Wrath of Khan and Insurrection). In the movie's biggest plot twist and strongest indicator that this is the last TNG movie, Data blows himself and the Romulan ship up to prevent the crew of the Enterprise from being killed. [nitpickmode on]Data has a single transporter transponder on him so he can save either Picard or himself; he chooses Picard. Why no carry two transponders and save both of them?[/nitpickmode off]
At the end of the movie, Riker shows up wearing captain's pips on his collar with orders to take command of his own ship, the Titan. In some dialogue that was supposed to be at the wedding reception, but ended up on the cutting room floor, we also found out that Crusher and LaForge were also leaving the crew, so coupled with Data's death, it looks like the TNG franchise is no longer going to be on the big screen. Unfortunately, they don't get the send-off that the TOS crew got at the end of The Undiscovered Country and the movie abruptly ends.
I was very disappointed (but not very surprised) by how bad Nemesis turned out to be. The last two Trek movies were basically two hour episodes with bigger budgets and more stuff blowing up. To my dismay, none of the extra money was spent on a good script. It is my hope that the next Trek movie will be the DS9 movie that let's us know what happened to Captain Sisko and brings together a very strong ensamble cast to rescue a franchise that is rapidly going down the toilet. However, I do not know if there will ever be a Trek movie that doesn't somehow star the Enterprise (even Search for Spock and The Voyage Home had the ship in them).
The only reason why anyone should see this is because they are a Trekkie and they want/need to see every movie. The nicest thing I can say about it is, "At least it's not Star Trek V."
Rating: 3.5 out of 10
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
Hey! I like Star Trek V is that the one where they all get naked?...am I perhaps thinking of something else?
Well I saw Donnie Darko last night and very impressed I was, not a truly great movie but certainly cool and interesting. It was yet another look at suburban life but it seemed to tie together many of the adolescent feelings that we all went through, like depression, isolationism and the need to burn things (heeee heee!!!) Certainly a quality film and I throughly recommend it. I would go more in depth but I don't want to ruin it. I was lucky enough to see it without seeing a single preview/trailer/review, I did the same with The Man Who Wasn't There and it helps a lot that the movie wasn't ruined like so many have been before.
It makes you think.
Well I saw Donnie Darko last night and very impressed I was, not a truly great movie but certainly cool and interesting. It was yet another look at suburban life but it seemed to tie together many of the adolescent feelings that we all went through, like depression, isolationism and the need to burn things (heeee heee!!!) Certainly a quality film and I throughly recommend it. I would go more in depth but I don't want to ruin it. I was lucky enough to see it without seeing a single preview/trailer/review, I did the same with The Man Who Wasn't There and it helps a lot that the movie wasn't ruined like so many have been before.
It makes you think.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
The other night we went to see a Spanish movie called Sex and Lucia . It was one of the stranger films I have seen....
It was also one of the more sexually graphic flicks I have watched..yet the way in which it was done was not erotic at all...but instead almost technical. IMO..the movie was far too imbued with convoluted plot lines and post modernist theory at the expense of passion and creativity.
On the other hand...A couple of weeks ago we went to see Frida...which was absolutely fantastic. It outlines the life of Mexican painter Frida Kahlo...detailing her art, her absolute passion for life despite a crippling accident during her teens.. and her relationship with, painter, Diego Rivera.... One of the best movies I have ever seen, http://www.miramax.com/frida/.
It was also one of the more sexually graphic flicks I have watched..yet the way in which it was done was not erotic at all...but instead almost technical. IMO..the movie was far too imbued with convoluted plot lines and post modernist theory at the expense of passion and creativity.
On the other hand...A couple of weeks ago we went to see Frida...which was absolutely fantastic. It outlines the life of Mexican painter Frida Kahlo...detailing her art, her absolute passion for life despite a crippling accident during her teens.. and her relationship with, painter, Diego Rivera.... One of the best movies I have ever seen, http://www.miramax.com/frida/.
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Another film I've really enjoyed (not great, but...): Tout les matins du monde (All the Mornings of the World). Came out in 1990, instant hit in France. Set during the rule of Louis XIV, it basically is a reminiscence of one of the greatest viol players (somewhat like our modern cello; the most popular instrument at court at the time), and his interactions with his teacher, his teacher's daughter, and his own ambitions throughout his life. The gist of it is, believe it or not, you have to suffer to play the blues, even if you're a baroque viol player of genius. It's a film rich in visual imagery, with an enormous emotional impact. Lots of music, lots of historical accuracy (you'd expect that of the French).
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
HighLordDave
- Posts: 4062
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
- Contact:
-
HighLordDave
- Posts: 4062
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
- Contact:
I think after this week I am no longer allowed to see another movie in the theater for at least six months for fear of being accused of being a Harbinger of the Apocalypse. My wife and I took her youngest to see The Two Towers (not to the midnight showing); this coupled with my earlier review of Star Trek: Nemesis basically fulfills my movie quota until June.
First of all, I will offer this disclaimer: I have not read The Lord of the Rings, so I didn't have any expectations based on my preconceived notions of how the movie should look based on reading the book. This also means that I won't have all of the fanboy attitudes that many die-hard Tolkienites have, so don't flame me just because I didn't care for some parts of the film.
Before we went to see The Two Towers, we all watched the Fellowship of the Ring: Extended Edition which has about 30 minutes of additional footage in the form of added and deleted scenes which made some of the things in The Two Towers have a lot more sense than if you had just seen the standard theatrical release which clocked in at about three hours. Everyone should see the extended version of Fellowship of the Ring, especially if you don't know all that's going on (like about the gifts Galadriel gave the fellowship, which did not make the cut in the original release).
Warning: Make sure you see The Two Towers in a theater that has comfortable seating because your ass WILL fall asleep right about the time the battle for Helm's Deep starts.
I hesitate to make any sort of comment on the plot of The Two Towers because it isn't it's own movie. Rather, it's the second part of a three-act event which will form The Lord of the Rings. None of the three movies really make sense on their own and they are intended to be viewed as a nine (or more!) hour series.
Basically, if you liked Fellowship of the Ring, you will like The Two Towers. As I said before, it's not so much a sequel as it is a continuation. The fact that all three movies were made as essentially one great big production makes continuity a given. There is also no great lead in or scrolling credits to tell the audience "what has gone before". If you haven't seen Fellowship of the Ring, don't bother seeing The Two Towers; it won't make any sense.
The Two Towers is much more of an action film than its predecessor. There's lots of fighting and unlike Fellowship of the Ring, there are very few interludes or stretches of long, boring plot exposition. What I enjoyed most is the stunning production. Quite simply, at the most basic level, the movie (and indeed, the entire trilogy) is a gorgeous piece of work. From the scenery to the detail that goes into each shot (and often goes unnoticed by the audience), it is obvious that Peter Jackson and Miramax spared no expense to fully bring Middle Earth to life. Plus, there are very few scenes that are obvious blue-screen shots or CGI.
All in all, the movie is very enjoyable, if a little long. My wife, who is a big fan of the books, nitpicked a lot and said that much has been changed from what happens in the books, but as a movie fan and not a Tolkien devotee, I didn't notice. As it's own movie, The Two Towers suffers because it can't stand by itself, but that was never its intent. My only complaints are its length and that it expects viewers to have a basic knowledge of the books, so it doesn't necessarily appeal to a broad audience. Still, it's well worth paying full price to see.
Overall rating: 8 out of 10
First of all, I will offer this disclaimer: I have not read The Lord of the Rings, so I didn't have any expectations based on my preconceived notions of how the movie should look based on reading the book. This also means that I won't have all of the fanboy attitudes that many die-hard Tolkienites have, so don't flame me just because I didn't care for some parts of the film.
Before we went to see The Two Towers, we all watched the Fellowship of the Ring: Extended Edition which has about 30 minutes of additional footage in the form of added and deleted scenes which made some of the things in The Two Towers have a lot more sense than if you had just seen the standard theatrical release which clocked in at about three hours. Everyone should see the extended version of Fellowship of the Ring, especially if you don't know all that's going on (like about the gifts Galadriel gave the fellowship, which did not make the cut in the original release).
Warning: Make sure you see The Two Towers in a theater that has comfortable seating because your ass WILL fall asleep right about the time the battle for Helm's Deep starts.
I hesitate to make any sort of comment on the plot of The Two Towers because it isn't it's own movie. Rather, it's the second part of a three-act event which will form The Lord of the Rings. None of the three movies really make sense on their own and they are intended to be viewed as a nine (or more!) hour series.
Basically, if you liked Fellowship of the Ring, you will like The Two Towers. As I said before, it's not so much a sequel as it is a continuation. The fact that all three movies were made as essentially one great big production makes continuity a given. There is also no great lead in or scrolling credits to tell the audience "what has gone before". If you haven't seen Fellowship of the Ring, don't bother seeing The Two Towers; it won't make any sense.
The Two Towers is much more of an action film than its predecessor. There's lots of fighting and unlike Fellowship of the Ring, there are very few interludes or stretches of long, boring plot exposition. What I enjoyed most is the stunning production. Quite simply, at the most basic level, the movie (and indeed, the entire trilogy) is a gorgeous piece of work. From the scenery to the detail that goes into each shot (and often goes unnoticed by the audience), it is obvious that Peter Jackson and Miramax spared no expense to fully bring Middle Earth to life. Plus, there are very few scenes that are obvious blue-screen shots or CGI.
All in all, the movie is very enjoyable, if a little long. My wife, who is a big fan of the books, nitpicked a lot and said that much has been changed from what happens in the books, but as a movie fan and not a Tolkien devotee, I didn't notice. As it's own movie, The Two Towers suffers because it can't stand by itself, but that was never its intent. My only complaints are its length and that it expects viewers to have a basic knowledge of the books, so it doesn't necessarily appeal to a broad audience. Still, it's well worth paying full price to see.
Overall rating: 8 out of 10
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
Well friends, I've all but abandoned this relic of a thread, but a very special event has inspired me to start writing, probably not stopping for a while.
That event was 6 nights of Stanley Kubrick! Me and my friends have wanted to do this for a while, but last week was the first chance we got.
The first three nights we saw the movies none of us have seen, the other three nights we saw two movies each night, one of them was new to me, so that's four new Kubrick's in one week!
OK- Saturday night - Barry Lyndon (1975, 184 min.)
I didn't think I'd like this one at all, but I really did. I was surprised how normal it was, I thought it would have a really weird undercurrent, but nope.
I just wish there were more to it. At the end it didn't seem to be more than a historical epic. It was good, but simply didn't contain the stroke of genious that his best works have.
Sunday night - Lolita (1962, 152 min.)
A very good movie. It was a little hard to adjust to, but once I got used to it, I was in it for the ride.
Mason was brilliant. I've always loved him- 20,000 leagues under the sea was one of my favorite movies as a kid- and here especialy he shines, as it is his movie.
Although Peter Sellers was annoying during the rest of the movie, he was great in the opening. I loved his 'I am spartacus'.
Monday night - Eyes Wide Shut (1999, 159 min.)
Although I didn't like the idea of the movie, it was executed very well.
Kidman was great, I especialy liked the scene when they're stoned.
Near the end of the scene at the mansion, I came to realise something. I had stopped noticing whether or not a person was naked. It didn't matter any more. Because they used so much nudity, it stops becoming out of the ordinary, which is very important to the movie.
Although Kubrick DVDs usualy have no special features, The DVD had three great interviews with Cruise, Kidman and Steven Spielberg. It really touched me when they started crying. Also, this was one of the few times I heard someone talking about Kubrick the man, so it really made me like him more. When you hear about him you think of a very strict, very controlling, very unkind person, and this shows you misleading those rumers could be.
Tuesday night - Full Metal Jacket (1987, 116 min.)
Clockwork Orange (1971, 137 min.)
I already wrote about FMJ some months back, so I won't repeat myself, except to say again that R. Lee Ermey is brilliant.
Clockwork Orange-
This was my first time seeing this masterpiece, and it is already one of my favorites.
It's hard to find a lot to say about any of his movies, and this one is harder than most.
Although it is undeniably a very different movie, I was prepared for that, so like Magnolia, for example, I went in with a totaly open mind, and it was one of the greatest movie experiences of my life.
As a classical music lover, and specificaly a Beethoven lover, with the 9th symphony being my 3rd favorite symphony, I could really symphathize with someone who would not be able to listen to 'Ludwig Van' ever again.
I think Kubrick used the music perfectly. I loved the idea that Alex was drawn back to th writer's house because of the doorbell, which is Beethoven's 5th.
The classic use of a synth version of The William tell overture during the sex scene was great.
An amazing movie. Together with Dr. Strangelove, my favorite Kubrick.
Wednsday night- 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, 156 min.)
The Shining (1980, 146 min.)
I still don't get 2001, making it one of the most boring movies I've seen (although nowhere near as boring as The Thin Red line)
The Shining is still one of the great movies. 'Nuff said.
Thursday night - Spartacus (1960, 198 min.)
Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb (1964, 93 min.)
I've always found Spartacus a bit tedious, but it's never the less a great movie.
As I've already seen this- Great acting by Olivier, Douglas, Ustinov, Laughton and Curtis, Great scenery, great Alex North score, and I still love the 'I am Spartacus' scene.
This is the first time I've seen the restored version, including the infamous bath scene,with Anthony Hopkins dubbing Olivier's lines. I think it's worth the extra 7 minutes. I wonder how Olivier felt about the scene.
Dr. Strangelove is probably my favorite comedy of all times. It is such a brilliant movie, with so many great performances, great lines and great charcaters, and is so perfectly built, that the world being distroyed is such a happy ending- a very weird statement, that could only be attributed to Stanley Kubrick.
A perfect end to an amazing week.
So, I've reached my goal of seeing all the Kubrick movies since 1960. His first 7 are impossible to find. I'm dying to get 'Paths of Glory'
My score to his movies (There are some differences from my original scores, as I've had time to adjust to the movies):
Spartacus- 8/10
Lolita- 7.75/10
Dr. strangelove- 9.75/10
2001: A space Odyssey- 2.5/10 (Still havn't found anything I liked)
A Clockwork Orange- 9.75/10
Barry Lyndon- 7/10
The Shining- 8.5/10
Full Metal Jacket- 8/10 (First have gets a 10, but the second half doesn't do it for me)
Eyes Wide Shut- 7/10
Now, I'm starting to see the winter movies, so should I continue with this thread, or should I start a new thread to try to draw new blood?
That event was 6 nights of Stanley Kubrick! Me and my friends have wanted to do this for a while, but last week was the first chance we got.
The first three nights we saw the movies none of us have seen, the other three nights we saw two movies each night, one of them was new to me, so that's four new Kubrick's in one week!
OK- Saturday night - Barry Lyndon (1975, 184 min.)
I didn't think I'd like this one at all, but I really did. I was surprised how normal it was, I thought it would have a really weird undercurrent, but nope.
I just wish there were more to it. At the end it didn't seem to be more than a historical epic. It was good, but simply didn't contain the stroke of genious that his best works have.
Sunday night - Lolita (1962, 152 min.)
A very good movie. It was a little hard to adjust to, but once I got used to it, I was in it for the ride.
Mason was brilliant. I've always loved him- 20,000 leagues under the sea was one of my favorite movies as a kid- and here especialy he shines, as it is his movie.
Although Peter Sellers was annoying during the rest of the movie, he was great in the opening. I loved his 'I am spartacus'.
Monday night - Eyes Wide Shut (1999, 159 min.)
Although I didn't like the idea of the movie, it was executed very well.
Kidman was great, I especialy liked the scene when they're stoned.
Near the end of the scene at the mansion, I came to realise something. I had stopped noticing whether or not a person was naked. It didn't matter any more. Because they used so much nudity, it stops becoming out of the ordinary, which is very important to the movie.
Although Kubrick DVDs usualy have no special features, The DVD had three great interviews with Cruise, Kidman and Steven Spielberg. It really touched me when they started crying. Also, this was one of the few times I heard someone talking about Kubrick the man, so it really made me like him more. When you hear about him you think of a very strict, very controlling, very unkind person, and this shows you misleading those rumers could be.
Tuesday night - Full Metal Jacket (1987, 116 min.)
Clockwork Orange (1971, 137 min.)
I already wrote about FMJ some months back, so I won't repeat myself, except to say again that R. Lee Ermey is brilliant.
Clockwork Orange-
This was my first time seeing this masterpiece, and it is already one of my favorites.
It's hard to find a lot to say about any of his movies, and this one is harder than most.
Although it is undeniably a very different movie, I was prepared for that, so like Magnolia, for example, I went in with a totaly open mind, and it was one of the greatest movie experiences of my life.
As a classical music lover, and specificaly a Beethoven lover, with the 9th symphony being my 3rd favorite symphony, I could really symphathize with someone who would not be able to listen to 'Ludwig Van' ever again.
I think Kubrick used the music perfectly. I loved the idea that Alex was drawn back to th writer's house because of the doorbell, which is Beethoven's 5th.
The classic use of a synth version of The William tell overture during the sex scene was great.
An amazing movie. Together with Dr. Strangelove, my favorite Kubrick.
Wednsday night- 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, 156 min.)
The Shining (1980, 146 min.)
I still don't get 2001, making it one of the most boring movies I've seen (although nowhere near as boring as The Thin Red line)
The Shining is still one of the great movies. 'Nuff said.
Thursday night - Spartacus (1960, 198 min.)
Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb (1964, 93 min.)
I've always found Spartacus a bit tedious, but it's never the less a great movie.
As I've already seen this- Great acting by Olivier, Douglas, Ustinov, Laughton and Curtis, Great scenery, great Alex North score, and I still love the 'I am Spartacus' scene.
This is the first time I've seen the restored version, including the infamous bath scene,with Anthony Hopkins dubbing Olivier's lines. I think it's worth the extra 7 minutes. I wonder how Olivier felt about the scene.
Dr. Strangelove is probably my favorite comedy of all times. It is such a brilliant movie, with so many great performances, great lines and great charcaters, and is so perfectly built, that the world being distroyed is such a happy ending- a very weird statement, that could only be attributed to Stanley Kubrick.
A perfect end to an amazing week.
So, I've reached my goal of seeing all the Kubrick movies since 1960. His first 7 are impossible to find. I'm dying to get 'Paths of Glory'
My score to his movies (There are some differences from my original scores, as I've had time to adjust to the movies):
Spartacus- 8/10
Lolita- 7.75/10
Dr. strangelove- 9.75/10
2001: A space Odyssey- 2.5/10 (Still havn't found anything I liked)
A Clockwork Orange- 9.75/10
Barry Lyndon- 7/10
The Shining- 8.5/10
Full Metal Jacket- 8/10 (First have gets a 10, but the second half doesn't do it for me)
Eyes Wide Shut- 7/10
Now, I'm starting to see the winter movies, so should I continue with this thread, or should I start a new thread to try to draw new blood?
"Veni,Vidi,vici!"
(I came,I saw,I conquered!) Julius Ceasar
(I came,I saw,I conquered!) Julius Ceasar
I saw the 1926 classic Metropolis a few days ago, the restored version which includes a lot of the scenes which were originally intended by director Fritz Lang but were left out as the movie was deemed too long to show in theatres. The restored version isn't as disjointed as the original, I wish a copy of the original still exists however as the restored one is reportedly still shorter then Lang intended. The movie still holds its imposing aura, however it pales rather poorly compared to the 1922 Nosferatu, which is still my favourite movie from that period. It does however beat a lot of the trash being shown at the cinema though
!
-
KidD01
- Posts: 5699
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
- Location: In the bunker underneath your house
- Contact:
Ringu aka The Ring - Trilogy
Hollywood just remake this Japanese movie, which trigger curiousity among my gang IRL. After some searching we found the Original version of "The Ring". Apparently Ringu or original "The Ring" consist 3 movies : Ringu 0, Ringu, Ringu 2. The one which was Holywood-nised is Ringu.
Now off to the movie. All in all the story is very very confusing. Yet if you see only one movie you can still live with the story ending. But the root of the problem is not The horrid video tape which can make you die in 7 days. The story focus on Sadako, who was believe to have a cursed gift. How and why she end up haunting the video tape ? the 3 movies tell the story about it.
Generally the story telling for each movie seems hops around that I require to watch them again to finally understand the main story line. As for horror genre movies the movie stress on "shock factor" rather than great effect or good make up effect for the ghost. The ghost make up seems like a cheap horror movie. Several things are seems obsurd even after you see these movies two or three times. The best bet is to read the original novel "Ringu" by Suzuki Koji which explains other unexpalined things - though some factors in the novels were altered on the films.
The only consolation is you can see great looking girls as Yukie Nakama (on Ringu 0), Nanako Matsushima (on Ringu), and finally Kyoko Fukuda (on Ringu 2)
Hollywood just remake this Japanese movie, which trigger curiousity among my gang IRL. After some searching we found the Original version of "The Ring". Apparently Ringu or original "The Ring" consist 3 movies : Ringu 0, Ringu, Ringu 2. The one which was Holywood-nised is Ringu.
Now off to the movie. All in all the story is very very confusing. Yet if you see only one movie you can still live with the story ending. But the root of the problem is not The horrid video tape which can make you die in 7 days. The story focus on Sadako, who was believe to have a cursed gift. How and why she end up haunting the video tape ? the 3 movies tell the story about it.
Generally the story telling for each movie seems hops around that I require to watch them again to finally understand the main story line. As for horror genre movies the movie stress on "shock factor" rather than great effect or good make up effect for the ghost. The ghost make up seems like a cheap horror movie. Several things are seems obsurd even after you see these movies two or three times. The best bet is to read the original novel "Ringu" by Suzuki Koji which explains other unexpalined things - though some factors in the novels were altered on the films.
The only consolation is you can see great looking girls as Yukie Nakama (on Ringu 0), Nanako Matsushima (on Ringu), and finally Kyoko Fukuda (on Ringu 2)
I'm not dead yet
-
Maharlika
- Posts: 5991
- Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Wanderlusting with my lampshade, like any decent k
- Contact:
KYOKO!!!!
*drools*
I have yet to see the Japanese versions, KidD. Yukie caught my attention because of other reasons. :rolleyes;
I assume that they have them available in subtitles? I rather have the movie subtitled than have voice overs.
Honestly, I did not like the Hollywood version. Too many questions left unanswered. For first timers, it is already obvious that there would be (actually there should be) a sequel.
If the movie was made to scare the audience and have your date put her arms around you in anticipation of scary scenes, then the movie made a bad job on it.
Ahhh... Kyoko...*sigh!*
*drools*
*drools*
I have yet to see the Japanese versions, KidD. Yukie caught my attention because of other reasons. :rolleyes;
I assume that they have them available in subtitles? I rather have the movie subtitled than have voice overs.
Honestly, I did not like the Hollywood version. Too many questions left unanswered. For first timers, it is already obvious that there would be (actually there should be) a sequel.
If the movie was made to scare the audience and have your date put her arms around you in anticipation of scary scenes, then the movie made a bad job on it.
Ahhh... Kyoko...*sigh!*
*drools*
"There is no weakness in honest sorrow... only in succumbing to depression over what cannot be changed." --- Alaundo, BG2
Brother Scribe, Keeper of the Holy Scripts of COMM
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/"]Moderator, Speak Your Mind Forum[/url]
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/sym-specific-rules-please-read-before-posting-14427.html"]SYM Specific Forum Rules[/url]
-
KidD01
- Posts: 5699
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
- Location: In the bunker underneath your house
- Contact:
Well we got local company released all 3 of them in subtitles (thank God ! I hate dub versions ) While the story really confusing (as one of my friend says), it seems the novel and manga is far better than this whole movie. With the Hollywood "Ring" storming Asian cinemas I believe your local comapny will also release those in subtitle, you can also try your luck on Amazon - Last time I saw they got some of these for sale, and have subtitle too
Ringu hits TV first before silver screen. And from Ringwold it seems it's better on the story telling
) While the story really confusing (as one of my friend says), it seems the novel and manga is far better than this whole movie. With the Hollywood "Ring" storming Asian cinemas I believe your local comapny will also release those in subtitle, you can also try your luck on Amazon - Last time I saw they got some of these for sale, and have subtitle too Ringu hits TV first before silver screen. And from Ringwold it seems it's better on the story telling
I'm not dead yet
Saw a great film the other day: Shaolin Soccer (orig. title "Siu lam juk kau")
Must say that this film was a bit of a surprise actually. A rather original plot (mixing Kung Fu and soccer) made this quite an exciting film and a nice change from "Hollywood Action-Comedy".
Has anyone else seen this film?!?
Must say that this film was a bit of a surprise actually. A rather original plot (mixing Kung Fu and soccer) made this quite an exciting film and a nice change from "Hollywood Action-Comedy".
Has anyone else seen this film?!?
“Child abuse doesn’t have to mean broken bones and black marks. Young growing tissues are far more vulnerable to carcinogens than those of adults.
Knowingly subjecting children to it is child abuse.”
Knowingly subjecting children to it is child abuse.”
-
KidD01
- Posts: 5699
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
- Location: In the bunker underneath your house
- Contact:
"Shaolin Soccer" is another film starred by Stephen Chow. The guy known for numerous comedy and spin off films. In most of his films there is at least one scene which take from anime which literally gonna make you laugh so hard that you hurt your stomach in the process. Try check his other films on http://www.imdb.com if you want a real laughing storm on your way
I'm not dead yet
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Originally posted by Tamerlane
I saw the 1926 classic Metropolis a few days ago, the restored version which includes a lot of the scenes which were originally intended by director Fritz Lang but were left out as the movie was deemed too long to show in theatres. The restored version isn't as disjointed as the original, I wish a copy of the original still exists however as the restored one is reportedly still shorter then Lang intended. The movie still holds its imposing aura, however it pales rather poorly compared to the 1922 Nosferatu, which is still my favourite movie from that period. It does however beat a lot of the trash being shown at the cinema though
Have you tried Lang's M? It's frequently called the first film noir. It was also the first film role of Peter Lorre, who looks incredibly young. Fine work with a great deal of tension.
If you like fantasy/sci fi films, check out Dreyer's Der Vampyr, though I'm not sure if a restored DVD version is ready yet. I know that this spring a newly restored version of Cocteau's Belle et la Bete (Beauty and the Beast) is planned for release, which remains my favorite fantasy film of all time. The extraordinary atmosphere he achieved is remarkable, particularly when you consider the limitations he was working under; yet he accomplished far more than many modern multi-million dollar budget that rely upon expensive computerized effects.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.