GameBanshee Forums

I love Spaceballs, and I actually own Spaceballs: The DVD

I agree with Mag- the whole point of the film was to show how silly Star Wars (and Star Wars mania) is. Like Yogurt says, may they all meet again in Spaceballs 2: the Search for More Money.

Shrek - One of the best and funniest animation movies I've ever seen. Hilarious performances by Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy, while the movie mocks with like all the famous fairy tales and a lot of other things. (4/5)

Shouf, Shouf Habibi! - Dutch comedy about the prejudices against Morrocan people in the Netherlands. Funny movie, with a good lead actor, though with sometimes quite corny jokes and a not really challenging storyline (3/5)

S1m0ne - Starts off nice, but drags on too long with more and more dull plot twists. Al Pacino still tries to make the best out of it, succeeds only half (2.5/5)

The Shipping News - Interesting calm movie. Nice camera work. Kevin Spacey does once again a great job, though he really should watch out for not getting stereocast as the sad loser always (American Beauty, Pay It Forward, The Usual Suspects (in a way)) (3.5/5)

Lost in Translation - Turned out as beautiful as I had expected. One of Bill Murray's best performances in his whole career. Scarlett Johansson and especially director Sofia Coppola have a lot of potential to deliver a lot of more wonderful work in the future. (4/5)

Hot Shots! - What I had seen from part deux was quite funny, though this was a big dissapointment. Lame jokes, with just one or two really funny moments. (2/5)

Primal Fear - Gripping court movie, with good performances by especially Laura Linney and a debuting Edward Norton. Nice twist at the end. (3.5/5)

From Russia With Love - Starts off slow, but gets just as a James Bond should be. Not as good as Goldfinger, but so, so, SO much better than the crappy Bond movies that are coming out nowadays. (4/5)

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]I agree with Mag- the whole point of the film was to show how silly Star Wars (and Star Wars mania) is. Like Yogurt says, may they all meet again in Spaceballs 2: the Search for More Money.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is my understanding of the movie as well. The problem is that Starwars is obviously silly to start with, nothing they say in Spaceballs adds anything to a critique that is already in plain sight for everyone. It's like making a parody of Hitler: completely pointless.

[QUOTE=Dottie]Yes, that is my understanding of the movie as well. The problem is that Starwars is obviously silly to start with, nothing they say in Spaceballs adds anything to a critique that is already in plain sight for everyone. It's like making a parody of Hitler: completely pointless.[/QUOTE]

*laughs* See, your an intelligent person though. Most people view Star Wars as an epic, new and exciting work of creative genius. People thought it was new, never done before, so on and so forth. They didn't bother to delve into things and notice anything else. Just like there's "Dummies Guides to:" books for just about anything under the sun nowadays, Spaceballs showed people how ridiculous the Star Wars craze was. Simply because that wasn't "already in plain sight for everyone".

I think the last movie I saw was Revenge of the sith, not sure, I 've seen a whole lot sence then.

Yesterday at a friend's I watched Not Another Teen Movie. It was pretty funny. My friend from high school is in it, his name is Sam Huntington. It was funny to watch someone I know on the Big Screen.

Starwars fans should download StarWars: Revalations.

Be Cool with John Travolta and Uma Thurman was good. Saw it last night. It's about this battle over a chick's record contract. All-star cast. Check it out. I also saw The Grudge the night before. It was weird. Also I'll probably watch the Boggie Man later. I want to see Mr. and Mrs. Smith really.

Just saw Fellini's 8 1/2 for the first time in about 35 years. It remains an amazing film, with its wonderful way of moving from reality into surreal dreams and back again with no transitions. Very funny, too, in that pleasant but sour way of Fellini's films. The Criterion release has a nice intro from Terry Gilliam, who speaks about the influence the film had on him and his style.

My wife saw it with me, for the first time. She said it was weirder than owl excrement, and that the best thing about it was that the second hour went quicker than the first.

@Athena,
speaking of John Travolta, I recently saw him in movie called "A Love Song for Bobby Long"

I was shocked... since I can't say I'd ever had the best impression of Travolta... but I really enjoyed it.

The story unfolds in a very atmospheric and literary way... set in a fading house in New Orleans.. Astonishingly well done, it's worth checking out.

Garden State-A great story of a young man struggling with family and his own identity, he comes back to his home for a funeral only to finally figure out who he really is. The setting is great, the whole movie takes place in about 4 or 5 days. I really liked this movie, one of my favorites.

Hotel Rwanda- Another Great movie, Don Cheadle plays the Manager of a Hotel the becomes a Refugee camp during the Tutsi Genocide. His performance is great, and it really is a sad reflection of the numbness society can show to horrendous acts.

I saw Mr. & Mrs. Smith last night. It was excellent.
(It's way better than any of the movies they're talking about.)

I wanted to see that so bad. Man I'm hungry.

[QUOTE=blake]Hotel Rwanda- Another Great movie, Don Cheadle plays the Manager of a Hotel the becomes a Refugee camp during the Tutsi Genocide. His performance is great, and it really is a sad reflection of the numbness society can show to horrendous acts.[/QUOTE]

I saw it some months ago, and it's an ok movie, although I was disturbed by the sentimentalisation of some very, very horrible events. In my opinion, sentimentalisation cheapens the story and this story is more worth telling than most.

Obviously the movie is not a documentary and thus, it does not show things as horrible as they really were but a soft movie version, but like the real Paul Rusesabagina said, you can't make a movie showing the real events, it's too horrible, you can't show it.

Apparantly, Rusesabagina has been approached by many movie makers and writers who wanted to make something out of his story, but he wasn't happy with the circumstances before. For Hotel Rwanda, Rusesabagina was involved in the production as an advisor, and he had a lot of contact with Don Cheadle. In an interview, Rusesabagina said he thought Cheadle was doing the role perfectly, in a Hollywood way, but perfectly.

Ok, I saw Dracula 2000 and Dracula II (Wes Craven's) last night. Neat, but I liked the first one better. I never made a connection between Judas and Dracula until now..

I saw the Clockwork Orange today. A very very strange movie. Good, just very very very very very very strange.

And later I will see the Boogey Man

[QUOTE=Athena]I saw the Clockwork Orange today. A very very strange movie. Good, just very very very very very very strange.[/QUOTE]

One of the best films ever made. But what in it did you find strange? I think it is pretty straightforward although Kubrick of course has a special style and the novel it is based on contains this language that is English with made-up slang and a few Russian features.

I saw Boyz in tha Hood, and Tales from tha hood last night. Two differevt movies. Boys in the hood is about a group of kids (african american) growing up ina Stareotypical neighberhood, Compton I think, and when they face challenges, like Murder, Deaths of friends, Drugs, Alchohal etc... Tales from the hood, well, I only see it when the story really begins, 3 african americans are trying to purchas Marijuana from an old guy, I don
t remember his name, but some how die in the process, with out knowing it, the movie has a few stories in it, showing at least something that might have to do with their lives (or so I think) then they see that they are in hell, and they died. The old man reveals himself to be Satan.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]One of the best films ever made. But what in it did you find strange? I think it is pretty straightforward although Kubrick of course has a special style and the novel it is based on contains this language that is English with made-up slang and a few Russian features.[/QUOTE]

I don't think the Clockwork orange film was that great - in fact I don't think it does the book much justice.
I was rather disapointed when I watched it some years after reading the book, but then again - I recognize it is a very hard book to actually make into a movie due to the setting.
But I'd advice all that watch the movie to read the book as well

(By the way I saw the Boogey Man and it sucked.)

Why did I think the Clockwork Orange was strange? Let me count the ways... Oh, maybe the fact that there is a guy that goes into some nice lady's house and kills her with a giant ceramic ****. It could also be the part where they beat some guy and rape his wife while he watches.
Not to mention the whole 'reconditioning' thing that happens to the guy, getting his eyelids sewn open and whatnot. Also, the part where he gets locked in that same guy's house/room and what happens thereafter with him deciding what to do next...A very interesting movie.

Xandax wrote:I don't think the Clockwork orange film was that great - in fact I don't think it does the book much justice.

Really? Amazing! I thought the book was absolute crap, and that the film is the only exception I know where the film is better than the book. I've actually never heard anyone who likes the book much.

The reason I did not like the book is mainly because I find it more superficial. In my opinion, it's not much more than a common dystopia story about a violent gang of young kids in a violent society. The broader questions are there in the background, but Kubrick put much more focus on them. Plus I find Burgess in general boring and unengaging due to his plain writing style.

I think the book lacks the of depth in the characters I found Kubrick added in the film, and the questions about the limits, integrity and rights between the individual and society, and ultimately also what is human and not and whether society can or should change human traits, are much more demonstrated in film. Kubrick makes perfect use of the film media, he uses scenography, choreograhy, sound and cutting to convey these complicated issues.

Athena] Oh wrote:
You mean the kind of things that happens every day in our society?

Not to mention the whole 'reconditioning' thing that happens to the guy, getting his eyelids sewn open and whatnot. Also, the part where he gets locked in that same guy's house/room and what happens thereafter with him deciding what to do next...A very interesting movie.

The "reconditioning" when society tries to change a "learning pattern" it itself has imposed on the individual is an interesting angle, in my opinion. The film was made during an era when it was believed that society could make anything out of any individual with behaviouristic methods, such as aversion conditioning as is seen in the movie. In the novel, Burgess orginially had the "unhappy" ending, same as in the movie, ie Alex it is highly doubtful whether Alex is cured, it seems his horrible traits remain despite all that has happened to him. In the US this version was censored by the editor thought, so in the US version of the novel Alex becomes a good non violent citizen who understand he has done wrong after the treatment.