| Author |
Message |
    
Oh yeah? (Thezookieman)
Movie Star
Username: Thezookieman
Post Number: 4961
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 10:04 pm: | 
|
C'mon, people, it's Spider-Man! You know, our friendly neighborhood wall-crawler, local boy made good, etc.! You simply MUST support him! You MUST!!
Standing in the shadow of the One True City...
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3511
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 10:52 pm: |
|
I liked the first Spider-Man and loved the second one, so I'm naturally excited to see part 3. I just hope Raimi and co. don't botch the trilogy wrap-up like Ratner did with X-Men 3... 
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
fishstick (Fishstick)
Cinematographer
Username: Fishstick
Post Number: 1481
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 11:14 am: |
|
It isn`t X3 bad but it could`ve been so much better. Predicatbility, stretching plots that ran its natural course, totally pointless triangle and some beyond lame reset button solutions make SM3 the weakest of the 3, IMO.
Life`s a bitch and so am I!
|
Tim (Tim)
Cinematographer
Username: Tim
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 01:25 pm: |
|
Although I know next to nothing about George Reeve's and his death, I got the feeling Hollywoodland went out of its way to esatablish a false sense of mystery about it the whole thing. To a certain extent, it was a bit like Stone's JFK minus the historical importance and genuine intrigue. Throw a bunch of stuff to the wall and see if something sticks.
The casting of Ben Affleck was odd, although I think I know why they did it. During the course of the film it's hard to watch his sort of goofy personae and believe he was capable of suicide. Affleck doesn't come off as a troubled alcoholic, but a frat boy at a party. It's not until the final sequence that it even seems plausible he'd kill himself, and to me that is a cheat. C+ |
Nicola_D (Nicola_d)
Key Grip
Username: Nicola_d
Post Number: 687
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 03:00 am: |
|
Tim: That's an interesting take on that film. For me, it was Brody that almost totally ruined it for me. I did think, however, that Lane gave an excellent performance. |
Tim (Tim)
Cinematographer
Username: Tim
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Nicola I'm with you on Brody as well. This sounds like an odd critique, but the one thing they got wrong was the alcoholism of both characters.
Besides the not-so-compelling title, I thought Notes on a Scandal was a nice B-movie disguised as an intelligent drama. Two things jumped out at me: First was that they did a fantastic job of juggling the sticky morality of a teacher sleeping with a (much) younger student, and two, the performances by Blanchett and Dench. I wish there were more movies like this; smart trashy fun with a 90 minute run time! It didn't aspire to be more than what it was. B+ |
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3516
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 10:36 pm: |
|
In Theaters:
-Hot Fuzz: Frequently funny riff on Bruckheimer/Bay/Scott/Silver action flicks tranports the usual bombastic cliches to a rural British setting, where Nicolas Angel (Simon Pegg) has been banished from his station as one of London's top cops to a small, seemingly sleepy town where nothing much of importance sems to ever happen, crime-wise (early on he recieves a call to round up a local's missing goose). But when a series of particularly bloody "accidents" start claiming the lives of the local townsfolk, Nicolas teams up with a chubby fellow officer addicted to action-movie tropes, Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), the two put their skills to the test to take on a robed slasher knocking off innocent civilians left and right. The latest genre sendup by Shaun Of The Dead director/co-writer Edgar Wright, Hot Fuzz, like Shaun, eschews the literal scene xeroxing and dum-dum pop-culture referencing of the usual Scary/Date/Epic Movie spoofs in favor of a genuinely affectionate tip of the hat to the very action flick conventions it's so lovingly paying homage to. The film doesn't quite attain the non-stop hilarity of Shaun (it takes until the home stretch, with Pegg and Frost finally going all Dirty Harry on their antagonists, for the biggest belly laughs to accrue), but anyone who grew up on trashy 80's shoot-'em-ups will find plenty to laugh at here (former 007 Timothy Dalton is surprisingly spry and funny as a sinister supermarket managers under suspicion). B+
On DVD:
-Deja Vu: Intriguing sci-fi actioner features Denzel Washington as a New Orleans ATF agent named Doug Carlin assigned to investigate after a deadly bombing on a ferry claims the lives of hundreds of sailors and their families. Things start to get a bit wonky, though, when the burned body of a young woman named Claire Kuchever (the lovely Paula Patton) washes up in the river...discovered an hour before the blast. Washington in then approached by an FBI agent (Val Kilmer) with a fascinating proposition...using state-of-the-art technology, he's managed to set up a task force that can literally look four days into the past, and he asks Carlin's help to use this window to glance into the events leading up to the bombing in an attempt to catch the persons responsible (think Minority Report in reverse). But when Carlin sees a still-living Claire in the past, unaware of her rapidly-approaching fate, he becomes obsessed with preventing history from repeating itself, even if it means messing with the space-time continnuum itself. Okay, I'll admit it...I'm a sucker for these types of tragic time-loop thrillers where a man from the future tries to rescue a woman from the past (The Terminator, 12 Monkeys), and, until a denouement which mkes the often-repeated mistake of invoking the dreaded "grandfather paradox" (If Carlin managed to change history and prevent the bombing and Claire's death, then how could he possibly be motivated to travel back in time to save her in the first place?), Deja Vu is a slick variation on the theme, with a clever riff on the standard car chase sequence (with Washington driving down the freeway "now" while looking through a special pair of goggles showing the van he;s pursuing...four days in the past) and solid perfomances from the cast. Even better, director Tony Scott seems to have realized how insanely overcooked his last two films were in the editing department (Man On Fire, the awful Domino), and he adopts a blissfully more sedate visual style here. It's still shot like a sneaker commercial, but thankfully without the hiccupy "avid farts" that ruined his last two features. Deja Vu is hardly art, but it's a solid return to form for Scott, and more cleverly scripted than usual for the sci-fi angle. B
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3517
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:45 am: |
|
Night AT the Museum: Pleasant, toothless kiddie fantasy about a divorced dad (Ben Stiller) who takes a job as night watchman at the Natural History Museum in Chicago in order to stay close to his son, only to be shocked when the various statues, waxworks, and minatures within the display cases spring to life when the sun goes down (including a tail-wagging T-Rex skeleton, Robin Williams as a waxen Teddy Roosevelt, and Owen Wilson as a half-pint scale model cowboy). One tends o expect the worst from a Shawn Levy "film", but Night is a pleasing enough family diversion, with fine special effects and the usual family values message presented in a not-too-drippy manner. Plus, it's nice to see spry oldsters like Dick Van Dyke and Mickey Rooney(!) as Stiller's night watchman predecessors. Not many big laughs for adult viewers, but the film has a quaint charm that'll make it painless enough to sit through for parents. B-
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
AboutFilm host (Carlo)
Moderator
Username: Carlo
Post Number: 7115
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 04:57 pm: |
|
Stranger than Fiction: There are two ways to take this film. First way: literally, as a high-concept dramedy about a boring guy who breaks out of his shell a little bit, with some shenanigans involving the fact that he can hear narration of his own life. On that level...eh. Second way: Similar to Adaptation and in the tradition of the Pirandello play Six Characters in Search of an Author, this is actually a story about writing. It's not about Will Ferrell at all. Emma Thompson is the protagonist, even though we don't actually see much of her. Will Ferrell doesn't exist except in her head, but--like in the Pirandello play--he starts to have opinions on how his own life should go (specifically, not dying would be nice). I think this is the correct interpretation, particularly because Emma Thompson changes more than Will Ferrell does. On this level the film is much more satisfying and probably deserves a B-
The Pursuit of Happyness: Eh. Things just sort of get bad, then they get worse, then they get even worse, and then the film ends. It's basically about a determined guy who resists personal adversities to stick with an opportunity, but he doesn't change much. Biggest problem: why this guy? Why is he so brilliant? The film prefers to concern itself with his relationship with his kid and his money problems--i.e., qualities that make the story treacly instead of remarkable. Why should we believe in the protagonist? The film answers that question with a facile he-can-solve-a-Rubicks-cube-really-fast explanation. C
Hard Candy: Some things about this film were brilliant. Some things were not. I loved how minimalist it was. The acting was brilliant. The moral dilemmas and ambiguity--all good. But darn it... it was unpleasant, wasn't it? A cold, distant film. Even The Woodsman was warmer. The sort of film you enjoy thinking about later more than you do watching it. Somewhere in the B range.
AboutFilm President and Sugar Daddy (www.aboutfilm.com); OFCS Member (www.ofcs.org)
|
Tim (Tim)
Cinematographer
Username: Tim
Post Number: 1145
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 06:36 pm: |
|
Re: Stranger than Fiction
quote:It's not about Will Ferrell at all....On this level the film is much more satisfying and probably deserves a B-
Two problems for me....
At this point its impossible to have a film staring Will Ferrell that is not about Will Ferrell. If that was the intent it was a horrible casting decision. Right now there may not be another actor in Hollywood who is more singularly about their actual name, and less about their character, than him. Second, if the story was about writing, then it was dreadfully mundane. The irony to me is that other than the not-so-original premise, it's a completely conventional romantic comedy that is anything but strange. |
AboutFilm host (Carlo)
Moderator
Username: Carlo
Post Number: 7117
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 07:10 pm: |
|
Actually I thought that Will Ferrell did well. He was extremely understated; I think his only really animated moments were all strung together for the trailer. I didn't find it that mundane a story about writing at all... it's about a writer who finds a different story to tell than what she usually does, even though it may not be as good as her usual work, she's grown as a person... She's finally created a character that she doesn't have the heart to kill; she's become more optimistic about the world. The romantic comedy... now that was conventional. I think I'm settling on a B-
AboutFilm President and Sugar Daddy (www.aboutfilm.com); OFCS Member (www.ofcs.org)
|
Tim (Tim)
Cinematographer
Username: Tim
Post Number: 1146
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:49 pm: |
|
I see your point Carlo, (and grade-wise I think I said C+ so it's splitting hairs), but I think it could have been a much stronger film if the focus really was on Emma Thompson's character, and less on Will Ferrell "acting understated".
On the films terms, I don't think it was even in the same ballpark as adaptation., and as a career move (to get him away from being type-cast as the wacky funny guy) I don't think it was as solid as Jim Carrey in The Truman Show.
To quote the great Carlo..."Eh". |
AboutFilm host (Carlo)
Moderator
Username: Carlo
Post Number: 7118
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 12:44 am: |
|
Tim... I think we agree. I kind of think the idea of exploring Emma Thompson's journey from the point of view of her character is interesting, but it would have been better with a more interesting character played by a more interesting actor.
AboutFilm President and Sugar Daddy (www.aboutfilm.com); OFCS Member (www.ofcs.org)
|
fishstick (Fishstick)
Cinematographer
Username: Fishstick
Post Number: 1482
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 10:59 am: |
|
For Spidey fans, important announcement. The movie has 3 endings so don`t get up and leave after the first fading to black. There are 2 more scenes although many people left before the final ending even though they saw there was more. Without spoiling anything, final ending we can call All That Jazz. Don`t leave after Sunrise or Recycled Spiderman 1 Ending. Jazz is the real one.
Life`s a bitch and so am I!
|
Tim (Tim)
Cinematographer
Username: Tim
Post Number: 1147
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 10:18 am: |
|
I found this recent article by Roger Ebert to be fairly inspiring;
Ebert
Clearly he is not in good shape, and you have to admire the hell out of the fact he isn't hiding from the public. He is going to surround himself in the world of cinema until his last breath. I hate to talk about the guy in the past tense, but when he goes he is definitely the last of a dying breed. The internet opened up film criticism to anyone (and seemingly everyone), but he managed to maintain a professional career despite. |
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3522
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 10:44 am: |
|
Yeah, seeing the most recent pictures of Ebert was quite distressing. You've got to admire his spirit, though.
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
C.J. (Thief)
Movie Star
Username: Thief
Post Number: 3385
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 01:05 pm: |
|
Wow, I hadn't seen any recent pictures of him and I was frankly shocked.
JUST MARRIED! -- If you see me posting, my wife must be working.
|
C.J. (Thief)
Movie Star
Username: Thief
Post Number: 3386
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 01:07 pm: |
|
Anyway, back to films...
Last night I saw Borat, etc. Sporadic laughts, some chuckles, other hystericals... but still I was expecting more. I've never seen The Ali G Show, so mostly everything was new to me. I would've loved more interaction of Borat with people around the street and stuff like that. Still, I can say that I laughed a lot of times. Chenquieh! Grade: B
JUST MARRIED! -- If you see me posting, my wife must be working.
|
Tim (Tim)
Cinematographer
Username: Tim
Post Number: 1148
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 10:14 am: |
|
Re: Borat
I thought it was funny as hell, but the amazing thing to me was how he completely turned political correctness upside down. Besides just being funny, it's an interesting social commentary on the hysteria of being offended. |
Tim (Tim)
Cinematographer
Username: Tim
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 11:51 am: |
|
Reminding me a bit (in style and entertainment value) of Bay’s The Island, I was sort of surprised at my enjoyment of Déjà vu. Hate the film title, and the way they marketed it, but I found myself fully engaged during its two-hour run time. Not sure the film has a chance without someone equal to Denzel Washington in the lead (he really is a charismatic actor), and the supporting cast is equally compelling.
However, even in the world of Movie Logic, the science in this one is pushing it. It lacks the overall fantasy setting that similar movies have employed, so the suspension of disbelief is often challenging. B-
|
Cornuto Content (Coachk)
Production Assistant
Username: Coachk
Post Number: 419
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Catching up on some oscar fare...
NOTES ON A SCANDAL - good acting, bad movie. Too melodramatic. Too much narration. Could have been much better if they'd gone with a little more subtlety.
THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND - Whitaker is deserving of his accolades. I didn't hate McAvoy as much as some people around here, but I still didn't quite understand his character/motivations (or the motivations for centering a movie like this around a character like him). Reminded me a little bit of EMPIRE OF THE SUN - the protagonists had just a little bit too much fun for my comfort level, considering their surroundings, and by the time they become jaded and tough at the end, I didn't feel like they earned it.
THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS - yeah, it was heavy on the melodrama and schmaltz. I enjoyed it, but they really heaped on the obstacles. How many scenes do we need to see of Will Smith chasing some random persons who stole his bone density scanner? And how often do you run into the same people in a big city time and time again (the "best" was the random homeless guy who was still holding that thing FOUR MONTHS after he took it. If it's as heavy as they impluied, that guy would have dumped it long ago - this is a HOMELESS guy).
Anyway, TPOH reminded me of the infinitely superior HBO mini-series THE CORNER (and the even better book). The comparison made me sad. Gary (I think that was his name) is such a compelling and sympathetic character, obviously intelligent. Yet the drugs keep him down so low. He could have so easily been in a story like THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS if he'd somehow gotten clean and kept his act together. He just couldn't, which was tragic. |
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2114
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 08:28 pm: |
|
quote:NOTES ON A SCANDAL...Too much narration.
Really? I thought Dench's caustic narration was the best I've heard. Really added to the texture of the film, unlike say Little Children which, as Carlo pointed out, told you exactly what you were watching on screen. |
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8293
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Ditto on that Adam! Notes on a Scandal had superb narration, wryly elevating the tabloid subject matter with its 'sympathy for the devil' insight into the mind and emotions of the villain. Dench got it exactly right in both rythmn and tone.
"Never thought I'd get around to changing my siggy, did ya?"
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3524
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 10:15 pm: |
|
-Little Children: Wow...this film truly does have the most pointless, intrusive voiceover narration since Dances With Wolves. It's a shame, because the rest of director Todd Field's suburban drama is just peachy, with excellent performances from Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson as a pair of parents rebelling against the stifling confines of their marriages and especially Jackie Earle Haley as a deeply conflicted pedophile. I wasn't the biggest fan of In The Bedroom, but this haunting film definitely makes me want to go back and re-evaluate it. While there are some missteps (the aforementioned narration and Haley's gaunt, shifty-eyed physical appearence, the absolute cliche image of a pervert only redeemed by his performance), this is defintely one of the finest films of '06. A-
-The Last King Of Scotland: Forest Whittaker is superb as Ugandan president Idl Amin, but this is yet another in the endless line of dramas tnat funnel the depiction of African suffering through the viewpoint of a good-looking white audience surrogate (James McAvoy). While this film is undeniably well-performed, the fictitious subplot involving McAvoy's Scottish doctor is just too "Hollywood" for my tastes. It's still a worthwhile film, though, and it's nice to see Gillian Anderson again. B
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Kathy (Kk1024)
Cinematographer
Username: Kk1024
Post Number: 1852
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 11:04 am: |
|
Notes on a Scandal - I don't understand the raves at all. The narration was clunky and the plot was way over the top melodrama. It's like an A-list cast playing in a Carol Burnett skit.
I think one of the major faults of the film was we were never allowed to feel any true hate for the Blanchett character's actions with the schoolboy. Look how lovely she is, she has the hanicapped son and the older husband. She was framed as a victim more than as a child predator. I also think that if the sexes were reversed the film's defenders would be less accepting and sympathetic to the predator character. If this was Ian McKellen lusting after and blackmailing Hugh Jackman as art teacher having an affair with a nubile teenager while married to Helen Mirren with a handicapped child at home, I do not think people would be as accepting of that character. |
Nicola_D (Nicola_d)
Key Grip
Username: Nicola_d
Post Number: 688
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 11:21 am: |
|
...no raves from me. Yes, it was essentially well made trash IMO. Moral issues aside, not for a moment did I BELIEVE Blanchett's character. Maybe an actress with less gravitas than Cate could have pulled it off-maybe. |
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2115
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 12:14 pm: |
|
quote:I think one of the major faults of the film was we were never allowed to feel any true hate for the Blanchett character's actions with the schoolboy. Look how lovely she is, she has the hanicapped son and the older husband. She was framed as a victim more than as a child predator. I also think that if the sexes were reversed the film's defenders would be less accepting and sympathetic to the predator character. If this was Ian McKellen lusting after and blackmailing Hugh Jackman as art teacher having an affair with a nubile teenager while married to Helen Mirren with a handicapped child at home, I do not think people would be as accepting of that character.
Notes on a Scandal Spoilers
But why must she be a dastardly villain that you have to boo and hiss? Surely it's more realistic to present morally conflicted characters who know they are doing wrong but cannot help themselves? Was she really framed as a victim? She was brought to justice in court and brought to account by both the child's mother and her husband. The film ensured she got what was coming.
And by the way that's a nice bit of casting for the male version of the film Kathy, even if McKellen would be an obvious choice, he would be great to watch! |
Tim (Tim)
Cinematographer
Username: Tim
Post Number: 1151
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 01:09 pm: |
|
re: Notes on a Scandal
I enjoyed it the same way I enjoyed Femme Fatale. Both were fun B-movies that found a way to be smart enough to rise above the material and work on an unexpected level. Although I woudn't RAVE! about it, I absolutely wish there were more movies made like this.
I think it handled the moral conundrum perfectly. The problem is that there is a fine line between legal morality and ethical morality in this type of situation, and the reconciliation isn't as black and white as it seems. |
Kathy (Kk1024)
Cinematographer
Username: Kk1024
Post Number: 1853
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 03:06 pm: |
|
You don't have to boo and hiss, but by all accounts Dench is the villain of this piece while Blanchett was framed as a victim. She got a slap on the wrist by the court system, but Nighy forgave her (and I do not believe it would come that easily).
I just bought Little Children, a film I avoided, because suburbia was framed as the villain of this piece. I'll report back after I watch it. |
Tim (Tim)
Cinematographer
Username: Tim
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 04:20 pm: |
|
"There aren't evil guys and innocent guys. It's just... It's just... It's just a bunch of guys." - Ben Stiller The Zero Effect
In this case (Notes on a Scandal) it's gals, but the point is that I don't think Dench or Blanchett are meant to be villains or victims. That fuzziness is sort of why it worked for me. I thought Dench was more tragic and pathetic than evil or mean spirited. And Blanchett, although clearly "guilty" in a legal sense, and certainly for cheating on her husband, operates with a morality that is probably not that far removed from much of the viewing audience.
To be clear...she lacked the discipline to make the right decisions, but even President Jimmy Carter had impure thoughts - "I've looked on a lot of women with lust"! |
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2116
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 04:49 pm: |
|
quote:I don't think Dench or Blanchett are meant to be villains or victims. That fuzziness is sort of why it worked for me. I thought Dench was more tragic and pathetic than evil or mean spirited. And Blanchett, although clearly "guilty" in a legal sense, and certainly for cheating on her husband, operates with a morality that is probably not that far removed from much of the viewing audience.
Agreed.
Anyway, 'Notes' was my favourite film of last year and featured my favourite performance, although I thought last year continued a trend of appalling quality overall so it may not have cracked my top 5 in a different year. |
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3526
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 11:25 pm: |
|
Getting ready for the new wall-crawler flick this Friday...
-Spider-Man (2002): Winning adaptation of Stan Lee's classic Marvel comic book features Tobey Maguire as geeky high school student Peter Parker, who pines away for the literal girl next door, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). But when Peter gets bitten by a genetically-altered spider during a school field trip to the local scientific reasearch center, things start happening. His eyesight improves, he develops a buff physique overnight, he begins to sense oncoming danger before it happens...and, weirdest of all, he starts to spray a sticky white substance, akin the spider webs, from his wrists (the adolescent metaphor is obvious). At first, Peter is thrilled at his new powers, but when his beloved Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) is killed by a mugger that Peter realized he could have apprehended beforehand, he comes to the sober realization that "with great power, comes great responsibility". Now disguising himself in a skintight, cherry-red costume with sleek webbing highlights, Peter now patrols the city as it's new savior, Spider-Man. However, Peter quickly crosses paths with Norman Osbourne (Willem Dafoe), a brilliant scientist who's research into a revolutionary new wonderdrug and unleashed his dark side which manifests itself as the Green Goblin, a snarling supervillain who gives Spider-Man a run for his money. Maguire, with his endearing gawkiness, makes for the most relatable screen superhero since Christopher Reeve in Superman, Dunst is sweet and appealing as MJ, James Franco adds gravitas as Osbourne's conflicted son, Harry, and Raimi directs the film with slick panache, but David Koepp's screenplay has it's overly jokey tone, and the quality of the visual effects vary wildly from scene to scene. Still, for an "origin issue", Spider-Man offers terrific escapist thrills. B+
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
this space for rent. (Kermie)
Cinematographer
Username: Kermie
Post Number: 2182
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 11:49 pm: |
|
As a woman who "grew up" in the '80s, I've seen "Dirty Dancing" -- whole or in bits on TV -- more times than I could remember. Tonight, though, was the first time I got to see it on the big screen because a local theater (part of the Regal chain) was showing it for the *gulps* 20th anniversary.
It was, hands down, the most fun I've ever had in a movie theater. (Which may say something for my love life ...) There were a few husbands and boyfriends in the audience, but for the most part, it was like a big ol' slumber party, minus pizza and PJs. My friend K was on my left and a stranger was on my right, but you would have thought we'd all walked in together because no one was afraid of looking like a fool as we squealed and clapped and sang along.
Some of the lines are a touch cheesy now, but it was still so. much. freaking. fun.
And rest in peace, Jerry Orbach -- the original Baby's Daddy. |
Mistress Misanthrope (Scully)
Production Assistant
Username: Scully
Post Number: 430
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 12:46 am: |
|
"No body puts Baby in a corner."
TERRORISM is the poor man's WAR is the rich man's TERRORISM
|
AboutFilm host (Carlo)
Moderator
Username: Carlo
Post Number: 7120
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 03:08 am: |
|
quote:She got a slap on the wrist by the court system, but Nighy forgave her (and I do not believe it would come that easily).
You could criticize the film for this, though I love the film. In the book there is no reconciliation and in fact it ends with Blanchett's character totally broken and in the power of Dench's character, which is probably a more resonant ending thematically, but a less satisfying one emotionally.
AboutFilm President and Sugar Daddy (www.aboutfilm.com); OFCS Member (www.ofcs.org)
|
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8300
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 09:28 am: |
|
Kathy re:
quote:"but Nighy forgave her (and I do not believe it would come that easily)."
This was explained, or at least accounted for, by one key feature of his character...a measure of residual guilt. He was a considerably 'older' man when he had married her, and it was suggested that this came after a clandestine courtship while she was at a borderline legal age of consent herself. So in a sense, this was a 'chickens coming home to roost' thing for him. Actually, he seemed more upset by her publicly messy handling of the affair than her impulse for it.
As for your fantasy casting of a gender flip-flopped version, I want to see that movie! They should make it, just for the comparisons of male vs. female behaviour in such a situation. The perfect way to do a sequel...as an 'equal'?
"Never thought I'd get around to changing my siggy, did ya?"
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3530
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 10:30 pm: |
|
Spider-Man 2 (2004): Smashing sequel finds Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker in a rut, his extracarricular activities as Spidey cutting into his work delivering pizzas, his college time, and especially his social life. He can't even make time to catch the latest play featuring Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) whom he's still desperately in love with. But things are about to get even busier for Peter when a brilliant scientist named Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred "Thow me the idol!" Molina), in an attempt to create a vast and limitless source of power for Peter's friend Harry Osbourne (James Franco), ends up hopelessly fused to a quartet of homicidal metallic tentacles, who's artificial intelligence programs start to scramble poor Otto's mind. He breaks out of the hospital (in a terrifying scene that will make fans of director Sam Raimi's Evil Dead movies giggle with delight) and becomes determined to rebuild his machine bigger and better than before. So now Peter is torn between his duty to prevent "Doctor Octopus"' mad scheme from coming to fruition and his own desires to put aside the suffocating mantle of hero and make a play for MJ's affections full-time (not to mention the subplot involving Harry's growing frustration to avenge his late father, whom he believes Spidey offed in the previous film). It's pretty thickly-plotted, but Raimi and screenwriters Michael Chabon, Miles Millar and Alfred Gough (Smallville) and Alvin Sargent manage to juggle the various threads of the plot with remarkable skill, deftly weaving a sturdy web of rousing action, sly comedy, and achingly sincere human drama (Peter's confession to Rosemary Harris' Aunt May about what really happened he night Uncle Ben passed away is particularly squirm-inducing). It's not only a great sequel (ending with perhaps the best set-up for a third sequel since The Empire Strikes Back), but it's just a fantastic movie, period. A-
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3532
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 10:08 pm: |
|
In Theaters:
-Spider-Man 3 (moderate SPOILERS): Final(?) installment in the Spidey series, despite a surplus of subplots, brings a satisfying sense of closure to the relationships of Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) and Harry Osbourne (James Franco)that have been building to a head over the past two films. Harry, now fully determined to avenge his late father by taking on the mantle of the Hobgoblin, takes on Peter in a brutal slugfest early in the film, only to end up with a bump on the noggin that temporarilly erases his short-term memory(!), resetting their antagonistic relationship to zero. Which is good for Peter, as he's finally working up the nerve to ask MJ for her hand in marriage. But, as one would expect, there are many roadblocks on the road to happiness. There's the ooky, parasitic black oil that seeps out of a meteor that crashes in Central Park and affixes itself to one of Peter's Spidey costumes, turning it jet-black and causing Peter's agressive dark side to manifest itself. There's also Flint Marco (Thomas Haden Church), the carjacker who really killed Peter's Uncle Ben years before and has now, thanks to a technological abberation, become the supervillain The Sandman, new-photographer-on-the-block Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) who muscles in on Peter's gig as Spidey's press agent for the Daily Bugle and Gwen Stacy (an appealing Bryce Dallas Howard) as Eddie's girlfriend and Peter's college lab partner (and "Evil" Peter's love interest). For the first time in the series, Sam Raimi (who scripted with brother Ivan and Alvin Sargeant) crams the film with the "multiple villain" syndrome that eventually crippled the Batman franchise, but, seeing as how the Peter/MJ/Harry plotline from the previous films has been satisfactorilly resolved (with a particularly lovely, melancholy final sequence), the superhero smash-'em-up stuff is just gravy. The black oil "symbiote"'s effects on Peter gives Maguire a chance to cut loose with some darkly funny riffs on Peter's goody-two-shoes persona even as it mutates into an ugly amplification of Peter's thirst for revenge for his Uncle (which thematically dovetails with Harry's own unquenchable need for vengeance). Church's Sandman is actually a rather sympathetic antagonist, his need to rob not born of greed but to help provide for his gravely ill daughter (Perla Haney-Jardine from Kill Bill Vol. 2), although that doesn't stop him from beating the tar out of Spidey at every opportunity. While every plot thread doesn't get the full attention it requires (Howard's Gwen is just sorta there as a device to drive a wedge between Peter and MJ, and as thus doesn't get any real payoff), Raimi still gets across everything to make this a fine final installment in his Spidey trilogy in a way that the third X-Men movie botched so spectacularly. A great way to kick off the summer movie season. B+
On DVD:
-Alpha Dog: Compelling drama about a gaggle of gangbangers who kidnap the younger brother of a hophead in order to make him pay his drug money owed, only to see themselves looking as serious jail time, evoking a tragic response. Writer/director Nick Cassavetes' film drives home the idea of crime as something that's often stumbled into indirectly, often with the perpetrators unaware of just how serious the stakes are until it's too late, and the film's cast is uniformly fine (even Justin Timberlake convinces). B
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3535
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 11:26 am: |
|
The Hitcher: "Why bother?" remake of the effective 1986 thriller features a couple of photogenic twentysomethings (Zachary Knighton, Sophia Bush) terrorized by a psychotic hitchhiker (Sean Bean) across the lonely highways of the South. While hardly the genre classic it's often reffered to as, the '86 version had a dusky, haunting beauty to it's photography, and Rutger Hauer made for a memorably unhinged opponent for C. Thomas Howell's besieged protagonist. But by splitting Howell's role in two here, we're denied the possibility suggested by the original that perhaps "John Ryder" is merely a figment of Howell's imagination, his dark side given physical form. Here, Bean never quite seems insane enough, and Knighton and Bush are post-Gen-X ciphers (Bush's ass looks great, though  ). Mainly, what makes this reasonably well-shot rehash so perfunctory is that, like last year's Omen redux, it's a virtual scene-for-scene xerox of the first film, with every major memorable setpiece rom the original copied with Gus Van Sant Psycho-level exactitude (no "finger in the french fries" scene, though). If I had never seen the first film, this would have been a reasonably taut 83 minutes, but I just sat there mentally anticipating and ticking off every scene from the original. Plus, it makes my blood boil to see Hitchcock's The Birds playing on a motel TV set, especially knowing that it's the next remake target for Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes production company. C+
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Dave Lister (Normanv)
Cinematographer
Username: Normanv
Post Number: 2780
Registered: 06-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 03:03 pm: |
|
On cable...
The Ice Harvest - I enjoyed this one for the way it took the usual conventions and clichés of the heist/love-triangle story and turned them on their heads. John Cusack was good, but Billy Bob Thornton was almost phoning it in. I'm getting a little tired of seeing Oliver Platt playing an obnoxious drunk, but he sure is good at it. Connie Nielsen turned in a nice performance, too. B.
WARNING/GUARANTEE: This post doesn't contain anything useful.
|
Dave Lister (Normanv)
Cinematographer
Username: Normanv
Post Number: 2781
Registered: 06-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 03:36 pm: |
|
Monty - Ughh, they're letting that hack Bay remake The Birds? Forgive them, Alfred, they know not what they do.....
WARNING/GUARANTEE: This post doesn't contain anything useful.
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3536
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 10:20 pm: |
|
Well, not Bay himself, but his production company (which has previously produced such awful remakes as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Amityville Horror). I can just see scenes of birds flying through plate-glass windows in slow motion (shot from multiple camera angles) causing houses to burst into flames... 
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
Nicola_D (Nicola_d)
Key Grip
Username: Nicola_d
Post Number: 689
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 12:44 am: |
|
Remake The Birds? NO NO NO!! That's just plain wrong. I hope they gather en masse and smother Bay in turd...
Spider-man 3: Eh. Two and one-half stars, mostly for Tobey Maguire. |
kiwiboy (Lighthouse_boy)
Movie Star
Username: Lighthouse_boy
Post Number: 3192
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 12:59 am: |
|
S3 = B- .. C excluding Banks, Campbell & Simmons scenes.
Going to Ireland and not just to kiss that stone
|
C.J. (Thief)
Movie Star
Username: Thief
Post Number: 3387
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 01:49 pm: |
|
On DVD...
Saw III Decent sequel to what has become slightly above-your-average run-of-the-mill horror flick. I wasn't truly expecting much and the movie just delivers what one might expect. Not much in terms of acting, lots of gross moments, and a twist that's not so twisty in the end. Still it was sorta fun. Grade: C+
On theatres...
Spider-Man 3 A very, very flawed film, but still better than what I expected. Like I had thought about a year ago, the excess in villains harmed the films quality. They should've nixed Venom and probably put Brock and the symbiote on just as a door to a fourth installment. Gwen Stacy's character is a mess and should've been left out too. The performances, especially from Maguire, are nothing to write home about. Honestly, a very messy film, but like I said, that didn't stop it from being better than I expected (which means that I was expecting poo!) Grade: A B-
JUST MARRIED! -- If you see me posting, my wife must be working.
|
fishstick (Fishstick)
Cinematographer
Username: Fishstick
Post Number: 1483
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 01:12 pm: |
|
The Invisible, yet another Crap Movie You Won`t See But Fish Did of the Week.
In a nutshell: If the whole movie had been invisible, it would`ve been a better movie.
The Invisible is starring the creep who had his lucky break in War of the Worlds, where he was convincing as the son of the totally unconvincing father/anything supposedly non-Tom Cruise (Tom Cruise) and brother of the totally unconvincing human being (Dakota Fanning). Here, however, he`s unconvincing as the leading boy carrying the movie of invisible quality and fist-in-the-eye visible craptacularity.
Since you won`t even bother to rent this thing, I`m giving you spoilers galore:
Nick is a fatherless teen with moma`s issues (she appears to be a cold bitch) and a thing for a school`s No.1 bully, some chick in a took (important later for a Herbal Essences-like slo-mo of took-ditching and hair-loosing). Bully chick in a took, OTOH, is a motherless teen with father issue (he appears to be a cold son of a bitch),and a thing for our hero (because, you know, they are parentless teens with other parent issue making them match made in highschool movie cliche heaven). But since her thing for him is reluctant because she`s so tough and street (read: bad actress with only 1 facial expression which is a blank stare), she beats him up due to misunderstanding (she thinks he tipped her off to the police), thinks she killed him, throws him into some pit...and than he walks out like nothing happened, except he`s now invisible to everyone in the movie but very visible to the audience, unfortunately.
It takes a good half an hour that seems like 2 hours before the movie gets to the point of its title and just when you think it cannot get any worse, it does! Now invisible Nick figures out he`s still alive and has to hurry up with finding a way how to communicate where his body is hidden to whoever can take him to the hospital. But he`s invisible so communication doesn`t work and he also doesn`t seem to be in any hurry at all. Rather, he`s spying on people he knows fidning out clichedom`s favorite reveal, which audience could see from miles away, that his cold bitch mom really loves him. OMG, she`s having a breakdown! She`s crying a river! She has feelings! AAaaaaaaaaaaaaa! he`s also stalking his love interest-turned-(almost) his killer Tough-Tookin` Chick who is guilt-ridden and due to guilt trip can actually hear him! Yay, help is on the way! Well, not so fast, cause this movie is more ambitious than telling a crappy linear story. It`s a crappy sobplot-heavy story where subplots disappear and reappear depending on whether a drunk editor used sisscors or tape between tequila shots. So due to some big-ass complications that include Tough-Tookin`s jailbird ex (who, like any movie jailbird has tatoo`d biceps), she gets shot in her guts but for reasons unexplained in the movie she is the only one who can revive Nick whose body is now lying in the hospital bed. So he who was pissed at her for almost killing him is now letting her bleed to death to save him. Which is precisely what happens. She crawls on his bed, says she`s sorry, dies of hemorrhage and he wakes up and thanks her for saving him. Than he takes care of her little brother, who is one of those come-and-go subplots mentioned above. Apparently, when you die you disappear, when you`re comatose, you`re invisible. Whatever. So he doesn`t feel guilty for actually killing her to save himself but insisted she had to feel guilty for almost killing him. Well, i`m lost here but if you get the moral of the story, do enlighten me. Worst movie ever.
Life`s a bitch and so am I!
|
Tim (Tim)
Cinematographer
Username: Tim
Post Number: 1153
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 02:24 pm: |
|
quote:-Alpha Dog: Compelling drama about a gaggle of gangbangers who kidnap the younger brother...
I'm with you on your B grade MJ. What I liked about it was that these guys aren't that far removed from your typical male youth. Not to suggest all young males deal drugs or anything, but these were clearly not evil people or professional criminals. Obviously the skin-head nut-case was outside the norm, but some of the others were not any different than the cast of characters I used to hang with back in the day.
What I didn't like was the editing and a conclusion that played out longer than it should have. It ended like an episode of America's Most Wanted - which I believe featured this actual story years ago when it was happening. |
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2122
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 01:26 pm: |
|
Nice review fish, never heard of that film though. Is it new? Sounds much worse than anything you've reviewed lately which is saying a lot. |
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 3545
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 02:40 pm: |
|
The Invisible came out a few weeks ago and promptly vanished. It was directed by screenwriter Davis S. Goyer (Dark City, Batman Begins).
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.
|
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2123
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 06:42 pm: |
|
Ah. Cheers. Doubt it'll get released over here even if I wanted to see it. |
|
Discussion Archives 
