Recently viewed films

This is for all non-EC or peripheral-EC topics. We all know how much we love talking about 'The Man' but sometimes we have other interests.
Post Reply
Misha
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:59 pm
Location: Northern Cold England, and Los Angeles, CA

Post by Misha »

Oh, and saw Bad Santa in a failed attempt to see LOTR.....it wasn't good....I'm not sure what it was...but it wasn't good. It was wrong. Any movie involving a bloody wooden pickle is wrong. Large potholes in the script, like none of us could see that coming.....I think they were going for a wierd Something About Mary kind of humor......didn't make it. Too bad, again...
Where are the strong?

Who are the trusted?
ice nine
Posts: 1213
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:54 pm
Location: A van down by the river

Post by ice nine »

Saw In America on Christmas Day. Watching this film was like reading a great short story. If there is any justice in the world, or Hollywood, this film should take something home.

Also saw The Station Agent earlier this week. (I haven't seen two movies in one week ever before!) This was a good one if you are into character driven films.
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think that you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt
- M. Twain
bobster
Posts: 2160
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:29 am
Location: North Hollywood, CA

Post by bobster »

taz wrote:Saw Return of the King Sunday, I gotta say, if they are going to continue making three+ hour movies they will HAVE to bring back intermissions.
I completely agree!

I almost had a fit when I went to the recent screenings of the extended versions of the first two films, which are about 3:30 or more each. I was astonished that, even for special event screenings, where they only had three shows a day (and had at least an hour between showings), they STILL couldn't fit in an intermission. Especially galling because "Fellowship" has a perfect mid-way stopping point, with a great little joke and everything. (It's the place where the first DVD ends).

At 3:20 (3:30 with credits, I think), ROTK is nearly that long. In my own case, the early morning screening and a lack of night-before sleep required a "vente" coffee from the hated-and-beloved Starbucks, and I was required to leave for the bathroom twice rather than risking my enjoyment, my kidneys and possibly the theater seats. So what if I stepped on a couple of toes on the way! (This despite my long established tradition of visiting the movie bathroom during the most objectionable of movie theater commercials -- the longstanding L.A. Times trailers.)

The supposed excuse for this is that long movies cut down on screening and they need every single second to try and fit in another show to make "enough" money. I'm not sure what another 15-20 minutes would make all that big a difference, though, and it would allow the theaters to make more money on their all-important concessions. Of course, the really villains are undoubtedly the studios, who make no money on this end, and collect a disproportionate amount of the money during the first two weeks (which is why they essentially don't care that so many movies suck so bad that no one wants to see them after two weeks and word of the sucking has thoroughly spread).

To me, it's just another symptom of a business culture which basically hates and despises the consumer, assuming we have no choice but to suck at their particular teat. Boycott everything!
Last edited by bobster on Fri Dec 26, 2003 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
bobster
Posts: 2160
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:29 am
Location: North Hollywood, CA

Post by bobster »

Misha wrote:Oh, and saw Bad Santa in a failed attempt to see LOTR.....it wasn't good....I'm not sure what it was...but it wasn't good. It was wrong. Any movie involving a bloody wooden pickle is wrong. Large potholes in the script, like none of us could see that coming.....I think they were going for a wierd Something About Mary kind of humor......didn't make it. Too bad, again...
I see your point, but I enjoyed the wrongness. Actually, the movie this most reminded was of was Abel Ferrara's "Bad Lieutnanant". It was almost a comedy remake -- and a lot more enjoyable.

Still, I did find the more traditional pleasures of "Elf" more pleasurable.

Actually, both movies had mildly problematic endings.
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
johnfoyle
Posts: 14852
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 4:37 pm
Location: Dublin , Ireland

Post by johnfoyle »

`Saw In America on Christmas Day. Watching this film was like reading a great short story. If there is any justice in the world, or Hollywood, this film should take something home.`

You are so right , Ice Nine ; I was crying like a girl by the end of it. I met Gavin Friday- he did the music for In America - at a book signing before Christmas and told him how even hearing the music since gets me all emotional , particularly the Andrea Corr sung song over the end credits. He told me that it`s getting to be the most listened to end-credit song ; everyone is too busy blowing their noses and generally getting themselves composed.
Verbal Kint
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:41 am

Post by Verbal Kint »

Purchased "Memento" Special Edition DVD. Watched it carefully. There are more than a few interesting scenes that play out after repeated viewings. Is it me, or is this back-to-front, chronically juxtaposed film completely riveting from the get go.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
- Verbal Kint
User avatar
pip_52
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 10:45 am
Location: brooklyn

Post by pip_52 »

Went to see The Station Agent today which I thought was pretty good. It had kind of an abrupt ending though. But great characters.

And not long ago I saw Something's Gotta Give with my sister. Diane Keaton is great, but Jack Nicholson . . . I like him, but I dont know about him in this movie. Maybe it just seems like he's always playing some version of himself these days.

Though my mom did say that Something's Gotta Give was the first movie ever in which she did not loathe Keanu. That must count for something.
Goody2Shoes
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:24 pm
Location: bouncing over a white cloud

Post by Goody2Shoes »

We finally got around to seeing Master and Commander over the weekend--it takes us a long time to get a babysitter. I was dying to see In America, but I lost the coin-toss, and truly, the former is better suited to the large-screen experience.

Anyway, someone else here said that you could almost taste the salt in M&C; true, and I would also go so far as to say that you almost start getting a little seasick as well. I liked it, but then I like almost any movie that doesn't involve dragging little kids along. I will say this though--it was sufficiently interesting to keep me awake past midnight, which is saying something, as you parents of little kids can attest.

VK--I love Memento, have seen it several times, and notice something new every time, though this may be more an indictment of my short attention span than expert film-making. My favorite part is when Leonard is talking about Sammy in the hospital, and you see Sammy sitting in some chairs, watching people passing by, and just for an instant, it is Leonard sitting in the chair, then back to Sammy. I'm sure there is a technical name for this, which some of our more film-savvy posters will know.
It's a radiation vibe I'm groovin' on
User avatar
miss buenos aires
Posts: 2055
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 7:15 am
Location: jcnj
Contact:

Post by miss buenos aires »

Saw LOTR last night, with my secret boyfriend. That's a lot of sitting. The battle scenes were nice, but other than that, it was a little not captivating, except for the scene with the giant spider, which I honestly hid my eyes during.

Was it just me, or
-was there some intense hobbit homoeroticism going on?
-was the Arab-looking enemy riding on elephants, with facial tattoos and tribal war paint, just a little bit "Other" compared to the uniformly blue-eyed band of heroes?
User avatar
El Vez
Posts: 2085
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: Heart Attack & Vine

Post by El Vez »

Freaky Friday. I have an eternal crush on Jamie Lee Curtis and it was nice to see her in something other than a cell phone ad or House Arrest. Still, for all of the "Hey, this is actually a pretty good flick" reviews I have read on it....kinda disappointing.

Cold Mountain. This shall go down as the first movie I have ever gotten my money back on. Not because the film itself wasn't good (it was, suprisingly) but because Foothills Cinema in Maryville, TN creates a serious partial vacumn with its mouth. They didn't have anyone in the projection booth so we had to endure this headache-inducing split screen during all of the previews and then in the last ten minutes of the movie.....the splitscreen came back. Infuriating.

School of Rock. I loved this movie. There was an exuberance about it that was infectious as all get out and seeing Jack Black score in a good role was the icing on the cake. Or was Joan Cusack stealing every scene the icing on the cake? Plus, I love Richard Linklater's work as a director.

For fans of Jack Black (as well as Mr. Show) I also recommend Melvin Goes To Dinner. Unfortunately, the film's non-existent budget prevented it from getting any press whatsoever but it easily makes my top ten of the year.
martinfoyle
Posts: 2502
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 5:24 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Post by martinfoyle »

Was it just me, or
-was there some intense hobbit homoeroticism going on?
I got that vibe as well, this is probably some homage to Neil Jordan, all his films are full of that sort of stuff, Michael Collins being a perfect example.
User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Post by noiseradio »

The Hobbit "homoeroticism," whatever it may seem, could not be a sendup to Neil Jordan, as Tolkien died a bit beofre Neil Jordan made his first film. The strong emotional bond between Frodo and Sam (right down to the kiss on the forehead) is taken directly from the pages and is not the creation of Peter Jackson. I don't think it's homoeroticism at all. Sam is clearly gaga over Rosie throughout. The fact is that love between men, even intense love, is not necessarily erotic, and thousands of years of literature bears this out. The Frodo/Sam relationship is very much like the biblical relationship between David and Jonathan. David was a huge ladies' man, but they are described as being knit together at the soul. There's nothing erotic at all in that. And it's a shame when modern society is such that two men who love each other strongly is automatically interpreted (either positively or negatively) as gay. They're war buddies. These are two men who have gone to hell and back together and who know each other at their worst. They are eternally bound to each other. Why does that automatically indicate that they're gay?

The rider on the elephant is very "other" and that's also directly from the pages of the books. Tolkien was Superbritish. He wrote those books after WWI and WW2. There are lots of references to the Nazis and the Ottoman Empire. No accident, there.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
bobster
Posts: 2160
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:29 am
Location: North Hollywood, CA

Post by bobster »

Just to enlarge (no pun intended!) a bit on Noises point, it's also important to remember that, in Tolkien's day, homosexuality was incredibly taboo (though somewhat weirdly tolerated in the confines of English Public boarding schools, or so I've been told by various English authors, etc.).

Anyhow, since it was so taboo, people would probably never leap to the conclusion that Sam and Frodo were gay simply because they showed love for each other rather floridly -- sort of the same way that brothers can say they love each other but it takes one a really outre mind to see incestuous homoeroticism in that today. In fact, I wonder if the word "homoerotic" had even been invented.

Actually, as I recall, the whole business with Rosie is only mentioned in the final pages of the book. The book seemed to me completely devoid of sexuality in re: Hobbits and I distinctly remember wondering just how they reproduced before the marriage of Sam was trotted out in the final pages.

In any case, I would bet big $ that Jackson beefed that part of the story up slightly to establish Sam's heterosexuality for the benefit of today's tragically hip audiences -- though obviously the scheme didn't work. Today's sophisticates would assume that Sam is either bi-, sublimating, or closeted. (Marrying a woman and having 15 kids, or however many it was in the book, though, is pretty impressive closeting. That Rosie is one hell of a beard!)

Anyhow, this comes up a lot in today's investigations of whether Lord Alfred Tennysson had a "thing" for his dead friend, the subject of "In Memorian" (a poem I can remember reading, but can't remember one word of!), or whether Eleanor Roosevelt was a closeted lesbian. The question is, just because she wrote gushy letters to female friends, was that a definite sign of sexual hijinks. (Probably the first time Mrs. Roosevelt's name has been used in connection with hijinks, sexual or otherwise.)

In a way, it's kind of sad that today's still antsy but increasing tolerance of awareness of gayness has led straights -- guys in particular -- to have to worry about some act of friendliness being misinterpreted as gay. In some ways, those intolerant times were oddly less homophobic, if you follow me.

I mean, I should be able to have a little boy sleep in my bed without that being misinterpreted as something sexually creepy, right?
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Post by noiseradio »

Only if you're a Hobbit.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
ice nine
Posts: 1213
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:54 pm
Location: A van down by the river

Post by ice nine »

John -

I have to admit that I was teary-eyed at the end of In America, too.
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think that you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt
- M. Twain
Misha
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:59 pm
Location: Northern Cold England, and Los Angeles, CA

Post by Misha »

Verbal,

Thanks for bringing up Memento. The first time I saw it, I saw it three times. We had it on dvd, and played it three times in a row, just compelled to wrap our heads around it.

It is definetly compelling, and a breath of fresh air in the regular structure of movies.

I'm going to get that out again.!!!! :D


As for the whole Homo Hobbit debate, I'm with Noise and Bobster on this. Just because men show affection for one another in a very average way, we don't have to jump on the homo train. That "we" do is a sign of our homo alert system working too hard. I thought that the affection at the end was touching, and if men would care a little bit more about one another in real life, maybe we would fight less. The odds of American men kissing one another, in tough times or not, are astronomical. Viva Europeans!!! or, Las Vegas, baby....
Where are the strong?

Who are the trusted?
User avatar
bambooneedle
Posts: 4533
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:02 pm
Location: a few thousand miles south east of Zanzibar

Post by bambooneedle »

Don't mean to get too off topic, and I have not seen ROTK yet, but was just thinking & asking myself: At what point would male to male affection be gay then, if: it isn't sexualized, and if it wasn't necessarily compared to the dudes' general degree of affection to women?...would those things be the criteria? I mean, I'm sure it's possible for two straight dudes to have more affection than two others who are actually gay partners.
User avatar
noiseradio
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Post by noiseradio »

Bamboo,

That's a good question, and I don't have an answer. I suppose it would be homosexual if the affection was romantic/erotic, as opposed to any other kind of love. Affection is not the measuring stick, as attraction may have nothing to do with feelings of tenderness (e.g. I have been attracted to women I felt no affection for, while I feel great affection for my brother, but no attraction...).
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
laughingcrow
Posts: 2476
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:35 am

Post by laughingcrow »

I hug my mates and my dad, but I tend not to kiss my male friends in public, not because people might think Im gay, but because they might think Im in the mafia.
User avatar
so lacklustre
Posts: 3183
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: half way to bliss

Post by so lacklustre »

Took my 5 yr old to see Brother Bear today. One of us enjoyed it. The other thought it was very poor as far as Disney goes, and a load of moralistic rubbish. I also thought that it would have been hard to follow for the tiddler but as she enjoyed it maybe I'm wrong, or maybe she enjoyed it because she didn't follow it. I'm rambling, shut up.

Don't bother unless you have to.

Considering a family outing to see Peter Pan, anyone seen it yet?
signed with love and vicious kisses
User avatar
mood swung
Posts: 6908
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 3:59 pm
Location: out looking for my tribe
Contact:

Post by mood swung »

I saw the trailer for Peter Pan, does that count?

Disney has another movie coming out that looks absolutely awful-a dog who wants to be a real boy. does that sound familiar?

must every paragraph end in a question?
Like me, the "g" is silent.
User avatar
mood swung
Posts: 6908
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 3:59 pm
Location: out looking for my tribe
Contact:

Post by mood swung »

went to see RoTK yesterday and waited with much interest for this kiss I've been reading about. My thoughts, humble as they are and like anybody really gives a shit , are as follows: Noise pointed out the biblical relationship--I'd take it a step further and say that was the kiss a master (you could say Jesus) gives his disciple. Think of the Ascension. And that kiss is meant to echo the kiss Pippin gave what'shisname's ring when he foolishly swore his allegiance.

Oh, and there were waaaayyy too many closeups of Frodo looking pensive. I found myself wondering just how he gets his skin so smooth.

but it's a very cool movie.

And that's all I have to say about that. I'll be going now.
Like me, the "g" is silent.
User avatar
miss buenos aires
Posts: 2055
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 7:15 am
Location: jcnj
Contact:

Post by miss buenos aires »

Saw Mona Lisa Smile last night. I know none of the menfolk here were planning to go see it, but for the womenfolk: don't go. It's not very good. My friend and I were discussing afterwards how no girls' school movie can resist breaking down the students thusly: slut with father issues, good girl who's also nice and smart, rich bitch, fat girl who is perceived as being totally undesirable, even though she's the most appealing character in the movie. At least no one committed suicide. And Julia Stiles and Kirsten Dunst were terrible, and terribly lit. Oh well.
User avatar
so lacklustre
Posts: 3183
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: half way to bliss

Post by so lacklustre »

So which one were you mba? :lol:
signed with love and vicious kisses
bobster
Posts: 2160
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:29 am
Location: North Hollywood, CA

Post by bobster »

I've been catching up on my big ol' holiday movies, so here are a few ultra-quick mini reviews (well, opinions, more like):

The Last Samurai -- Longish -- it could have been a great movie if writer/director Ed Zwick had nailed the inherent insanity of the situation a la "The Wild Bunch", but he's ultimately way too polite and it comes off looking like he's simply lionizing the samurai -- who may have had many good points, but also had many bad ones (at least that's what the Japanese films say). Also, Ken Watanabe blows Tom Cruise off the screen. A great performance followed by a typically whiny Tom Cruise drama-school moment. I only like Cruise in light comedy. He was perfect (or good, anyway) for "Jerry Maguire" -- he was perfectly wrong for this. For the movie to work, it would have needed a star with real authority. Henry Fonda, John Wayne -- hell, even John Cusack would have been better. Actually, the rest of the cast pretty much blows Tom Cruise off the screen too -- especially Billy Connelly (who's part is too small) and the kids.

Cold Mountain -- I was basically praying for death through most of the early stages of this one. The thing is deadly and utterly humorless until the arrival of Renee Zellweger's character, when suddenly the movie remembers there is such a thing as humor. Then there some great, funny small performances by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Brenden Gleeson, Giovanni Ribisi and several others, and suddenly the thing starts to work pretty well. There's also a really nasty villain, which is kind of cool. All in all, not bad. Nicole Kidman and Jude Law were fine, but there parts are pretty badly written IMO. Still, they're get the Oscar nominations because this is the kind of movie Oscar smiles on.

Also, wasn't sure which one was the one co-written by Henry (T-Bone) Burnett and EC, but it's one of two songs during the end credits. I liked the first one more than the second, so I'm assuming that's the one, but I could have it backward. I'm glad EC didn't actually sing -- esp. during the movie proper. No matter how tasteful and "period" it might have sounded, it would have been distracting. Also, Jack White from the White Stripes has a small part, and sings. He acts pretty well for a newbie.

Mystic River -- Finally caught up with this one. Terrific movie, though I have questions and quibbles, mostly stylistic. (At times the movie tries to hard to be significant, laying the music in too much, too many crane shots, etc.)

Stuck on You -- Fun little movie from the Farrelly Brothers's. Maybe tries to pull the heartstrings a bit much for such a silly movie -- it doesn't seem to be sure whether it's a silly balls-to-the-wall comedy or not -- but it all works, more or less. Great conjoined twin arguments ("I just can't be with you right now!" and fight scenes). Fun Hollywood jokes. All in all, about what you'd expect if you like the Farrellys.

And on DVD --

Owning Mahoney -- Based on what apparently was a huge Canadian scandal back in the earily eighties, Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays a repressed banker in a very uptight, by-the-book bank who embezzled millions to support his gambling addiction. Starts out as a bit harrowing in its depiciton of compulsive gambling, but the movie eventually becomes fun in a dark sort of a way. Great work from Hoffman, but also Minnie Driver as his convincly frumped-up girlfriend and John Hurt doing a pretty good Southern accent as a carnivorous casino manager who sees Mahoney as just another big fish...

***

Boy, those last couple of sentences sure read like back-of-the box copy.... :oops:
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
Post Reply