Avatar -- no spoilers
Ovum
are -- *I* liked "The Abyss."
Avatar is not even as good as "The Abyss."
A guy "goes native"? Probably a cliche before I was born. A fight
scene with a guy strapped inside a giant robot? Jeff Bridges did it in
"Iron Man," and the South African guy did it in "District 9." Stick a
fork in it.
OK, the blue people with glow-in-the-dark freckles were cool-looking.
You could definitely see $500 million on the screen in the fully-
realized biome Cameron created. He gets extra credit for putting
Signourney Weaver, a 50+ year-old woman, in a non-stereotypical,
prominent role.
And for basically having a female cavalry (Michelle Rodriguez from
"Lost" and Zoe Saldana from the Star Trek reboot, save the day).
It's definitely worth seeing, especially in 3D. But this is no
"Abyss."
:-)
Steven J. Weller
Wow.
Not as good as 'The Abyss.'
Guess there's no way around it, then - I'm off for Michigan in a
couple of days, where I will be forced to sit throughat least one big-
budget H'wood catastrophy, as the price for hanging with some of my
younger relatives. Sounds like it's gonna be Avatar.
--
How Do You Do A
Signature, and Remain...
Nameless?
Avoid normal situations.
> Unlike other MWSMers who shall remain unnamed -- and you know who you
> are -- *I* liked "The Abyss."
> Avatar is not even as good as "The Abyss."
> A guy "goes native"? Probably a cliche before I was born. A fight
> scene with a guy strapped inside a giant robot? Jeff Bridges did it in
> "Iron Man," and the South African guy did it in "District 9." Stick a
> fork in it.
Weren't you just going on in another thread about alternative movies being
boring? Oh, uh, never mind. :-)
> OK, the blue people with glow-in-the-dark freckles were cool-looking.
> You could definitely see $500 million on the screen in the fully-
> realized biome Cameron created. He gets extra credit for putting
> Signourney Weaver, a 50+ year-old woman, in a non-stereotypical,
> prominent role.
> And for basically having a female cavalry (Michelle Rodriguez from
> "Lost" and Zoe Saldana from the Star Trek reboot, save the day).
> It's definitely worth seeing, especially in 3D. But this is no
> "Abyss."
I really like this film, too. I am pleasantly reminded of _Who Framed Roger
Rabbit_ -- yes, the story and characterizations have problems, but the visuals
are so fine that I didn't care that much. Let us not forget that movies are
a visual medium first and foremost, even though as screenwriters and screen-
writer-manques I'm sure we could poke holes in the plot until the cows come
home.
BTW: considering that _Avatar_ sometimes seems like some kind of Amerind
fantasy on steroids -- along with some hallucinogens added to the mix -- it's
quite appropriate that they had Wes Studi, once upon a time the star of
_Geronimo: An American Legend_, in the supporting cast.
_Geronimo_ also has Robert Duvall in the cast... who's also a supporting
bird in _Crazy Heart_, which is highly appropriate considering *his* turn
as a declining country music star a quarter of a century ago in _Tender
Mercies_. So perhaps the two pictures are more alike than they immediately
appear.
And I shall only get a life when I am convinced that it would be superior
to what I have now.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"It is providential that the youth or man of inventive mind is not 'blessed'
with a million dollars. The mind is sharper and keener in seclusion and
uninterrupted solitude. Originality thrives in seclusion free of outside
influences beating upon us to cripple the creative mind. Be alone -- that is
the secret of invention: be alone, that is when ideas are born."
-- Nikolai Tesla
Remysun
I haven't seen the OMG gushing some folks had over Transformers 2,
everybody pretty much knew what they were getting into when they
bought a ticket. No one feels poorer for the time or money.
Ovum
>
> � Weren't you just going on in another thread about alternative movies being
> boring? Oh, uh, never mind. :-)
You're just mad cause I dissed your flick.
And I didn't say *all* alternative movies are boring. I said *that
one* sounds boring.
But now that you mention it ... yes, I can't think of one
"alternative" movie I've ever seen that wasn't weird, disturbing and a
waste of time. I'm thinking of "David and Lisa," "My Life as a Dog,"
"Harold and Maude," etc.
Now, there are a number of "small" movies I thought were spectacular
that nobody on MWSM has seen: "Bulworth" with Warren Beatty and Halle
Berry; the Spike Lee movie "Bamboozled," and "Wag the Dog," for
starters.
Have you seen any of those?
o
Your Mom
as I'd imagined it. I think the spectacle was worth $15.
Ovum
We ordered Transformers II on pay-per-view. Slept through all but
about 15 minutes of it. Seemed even worse than Indiana Jones IV.
o
Remysun
> Now, there are a number of "small" movies I thought were spectacular
> that nobody on MWSM has seen: "Bulworth" with Warren Beatty and Halle
> Berry; the Spike Lee movie "Bamboozled," and "Wag the Dog," for
> starters.
I think I've seen Bamboozled, definitely seen the others, Wag at thee
first run.
Your Mom
> Now, there are a number of "small" movies I thought were spectacular
> that nobody on MWSM has seen: "Bulworth" with Warren Beatty and Halle
> Berry; the Spike Lee movie "Bamboozled," and "Wag the Dog," for
> starters.
I've seen all three and they're all pretty good. Bamboozled is maybe
the weakest of the three, because it's too long and falls apart at the
end, but holy shit is that first hour great. I'm really happy to know
that somebody besides me saw Bulworth. I rented it when it was first
out on video and really liked it, always wondered if I was stoned or
something (I was 23, its a definite possibility) and reading depth
that wasn't there into it. Wag the Dog is pretty great all around. I
always wanted to hear the song the fake special forces unit is singing
at the funeral. Thanks to the magic of the internet I'll probably be
listening to it within three minutes.
Alexei
Hercule Platini
"Ovum" <lk1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hgrqkd$5ti$1...@reader1.panix.com...
Transformers 2 isn't the worst film of the year - that's Bruno - but it is
pretty terrible.
When I went to see Terminator 4 - the other Giant Metal Things Smashing Into
Other Giant Metal Things And Blowing Up movie of 2009 - my expectations were
actually quite high. Mainly that's because it has a generally good, solid
pedigree; T1 is obviously a classic, T2 pushed forward on the development of
CGI (I never rated it as highly as most people do, but the action scenes are
terrific), and T3 is an entertaining enough spectacular. Plus, T4 has got
at least one proper actor in a lead role (Christian Bale). It was big and
noisy entertainment and I enjoyed it; it met my fairly high expectations.
Three weeks later, Transformers 2 came out and that has a very week
pedigree: the first one was rubbish and its inspiration derives from a
plastic toy and a kiddies' breakfast TV cartoon show, and it has no proper
actors in it apart from John Turturro as idiot comedy relief. When I saw it
the man in the booth told me "It's appalling", but "if you go in with very
low expectations, it might just be okay". And it wasn't - even though my
expectations were at rock bottom it still failed to reach those low
standards.
Weirdly, 2009 brought us not one but two Dumb Action Movies Based On A
Plastic Toy And A Kiddies' Breakfast TV Cartoon Show of 2009 - the other one
being GI Joe: The Rise Of Cobra. And that one worked because, despite
actually managing to be three times as dumb than Transformers 2, everyone
involved seemed to recognise that they were making a Dumb Action Movie. On
Transformers 2 everyone from Michael Bay down was under the impression that
they were making a proper piece of cinema and went about it far too
seriously, and the result was a humourless, bloated epic. On GI Joe Stephen
Sommers recognised the movie for what it was: a fun, popcorn piece of
entertainment nonsense, and it rattled along quite enjoyably.
Avoid normal situations.
> On Dec 22, 12:12???am, "Avoid normal situations." wrote:
> > ??? Weren't you just going on in another thread about alternative movies being
> > boring? Oh, uh, never mind. :-)
> You're just mad cause I dissed your flick.
Not really. You would have had to have seen it for it to have been a real
diss.
> And I didn't say *all* alternative movies are boring. I said *that
> one* sounds boring.
Well... that's kind of the thing about really interesting movies. It's hard
to sum up their appeal in one sentence. It's also hard to explain what exactly
makes them so fine without robbing them of a fair bit of what Harlan Ellison
calls "the frisson of discovery".
> But now that you mention it ... yes, I can't think of one
> "alternative" movie I've ever seen that wasn't weird, disturbing and a
> waste of time. I'm thinking of "David and Lisa," "My Life as a Dog,"
> "Harold and Maude," etc.
Oh, you poor dear. You poor, poor dear.
Besides, you say that like weird and disturbing are bad things. :-) _Harold
and Maude_ was my most favorite movie for years.
> Now, there are a number of "small" movies I thought were spectacular
> that nobody on MWSM has seen: "Bulworth" with Warren Beatty and Halle
> Berry; the Spike Lee movie "Bamboozled," and "Wag the Dog," for
> starters.
> Have you seen any of those?
I was rather disappointed with _Summer of Sam_, so I cooled on Spike Lee
and I never came around to seeing _Bamboozled_. I *have* seen the other two,
however. I really like _Wag the Dog_, but there's something just morally wrong
about a movie that features (a) Vittorio Storaro cinematography that's that
ugly and (b) Warren Beatty rapping.
Martin B
> Now, there are a number of "small" movies I thought were spectacular
> that nobody on MWSM has seen ... "Wag the Dog," ...
I saw WAG THE DOG in the theatre. It's totally overrated.
--
Martin B
Mysti Berry
That's funny, weird & disturbing doesn't always equal waste of time
for me.
Loved My Life as a Dog & Harold and Maude, and also Wag the Dog and
Bamboozled.
Bulworth was awkward in so many places, a good idea with a stiff,
bloodless execution.
Not sure that big or small is any predictor of quality or strength in
a film. Not like counting the number of credited writers or directors
(inverse relationship to quality) :)
Mysti
Your Mom
I think I saw it towards the end of my "never see a mainstream film"
phase and expected shit because it had big stars. I was pleasantly
surprised. It wasn't mind-blowing but how many films are? People
commend choppy tripe like Gladiator and glossy schmaltz like The Cider
House Rules, give them best picture nominations, and they're not much
smarter than Avatar, which everyone's ripping apart. Very few films
are deep, intelligent works of fiction, at least in my opinion. I can
count the number of times a film has really surprised me since I was
out of my teens on two hands. Maybe one. Considering that harsh
reality, I think Wag the Dog was pretty good. If you want to compare
it to the most likely glowing reviews that praise it's brilliance,
originality, and significance in our times, then it's probably
overrated.
Also gotta put this in here, Ovum referred to it as a small film and I
don't think a movie with De Niro, Hoffman, and Harrelson could have
been called small when it came out. Now, maybe. Not ten years ago.
Avoid normal situations.
[ stuff about _Wag the Dog_ ]
> People
> commend choppy tripe like Gladiator and glossy schmaltz like The Cider
> House Rules, give them best picture nominations, and they're not much
> smarter than Avatar, which everyone's ripping apart.
_Avatar_ still has an 83 on Metacritic.com. Who is this "everyone"?
Conservative talk radio? People who will never have James Cameron's level
of income?
> I can
> count the number of times a film has really surprised me since I was
> out of my teens on two hands. Maybe one.
See more films, sir. Real ones. It'll do you good. :-)
nmstevens
I couldn't get through Bulworth -- just didn't find it watchable. Saw
Bamboozled. Didn't care for it. Spike Lee at his most "should have
used western union to deliver his message".
And also saw "Wag the Dog" -- and though it had some fun moments, on
the whole, I also thought that it wasn't nearly as smart as it
obviously thought itself to be. Most especially, if you're going to do
something like that -- a piece of manipulative media about
manipulative media -- then you've got to get it right in the details
and the details about how they actually went about doing it were all
wrong. Maybe they didn't seem wrong to somebody who didn't know
anything at all about how these things work. But to anybody who did,
it was all just nonsense. And you can immediately start making excuses
about that sort of thing -- and maybe those excuses work when, for
instance, you're making an action movie and there's some action scene
on a train and the there's all sorts of stuff about stopping the train
that's all wrong and the people who know about trains all complain
about it. Oh, well. So they got it wrong.
But if the movie is all about trains -- if that's the subject itself
-- then you should get the stuff about trains right. And this is a
movie about the media. About the people who are in it, about the
people who use it, who make it, who manipulate it, about the way they
do it -- and if they get all that stuff wrong -- then in the end,
there's a sort of hollowness at the core, no less than if they make a
movie about how corrupt government is, or how corrupt business is --
but all of the stuff they show when they show the people in the
government or the people in business actually doing what they do --
and it's all phony and it's all wrong and it doesn't have anything to
do with the way real people in those real places actually do what they
do -- corrupt or otherwise.
Comedy or drama or what have you -- it has to be grounded in reality.
In the same way that a movie like Dr. Strangelove, fantastic comedy
that it is, is absolutely grounded in reality -- and in just exactly
the way that Wag the Dog is not.
NMS
nmstevens
That's just about the best way to see Transformers II. The only thing
that could have made it slightly better would have been to sleep
through the remaining fifteen minutes.
NMS
Your Mom
<byend.removethisbityousillyper...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> � _Avatar_ still has an 83 on Metacritic.com. Who is this "everyone"?
> Conservative talk radio? People who will never have James Cameron's level
> of income?
Everyone I know. Everybody saw it this weekend, everybody's talking
about enjoying it despite how dumb the story was. I imagine a lot of
reviews are along those same lines.
> > I can
> > count the number of times a film has really surprised me since I was
> > out of my teens on two hands. Maybe one.
>
> � See more films, sir. Real ones. It'll do you good. :-)
Believe me, I see enough. Like most of us on here, I bet I can guess
what coming next in 95% of the films I see. I used to predict things
out loud to amuse my friends, now it annoys them because it spoils
stuff that they don't realize is coming. Honestly, considering how
many movies we see and my own mediocre story sense I'm shocked at how
shocked they are by things I saw coming ten minutes beforehand. Avatar
was just a never-ending festival of reincorporation so it made this
easy.
Your Mom
> That's just about the best way to see Transformers II. The only thing
> that could have made it slightly better would have been to sleep
> through the remaining fifteen minutes.
>
> NMS
I think both the TF movies actually have a pretty good first half with
only a little bit of the Michael Bay mental retardation and
sociopathic misanthropy. Then, right after the midpoint, they both
full descend into his world of spastic camera work and offensively
stupid plot, character, and dialogue and then never come back.
They're also the only movies I've ever seen where I was completely
impressed by CGI. Suck it, Bill Nighy. You looked like a fucking
cartoon.
nmstevens
How about David Lynch movies?
NMS
Martin B
> Believe me, I see enough. Like most of us on here, I bet I can guess
> what coming next in 95% of the films I see. I used to predict things
> out loud to amuse my friends, now it annoys them because it spoils
> stuff that they don't realize is coming. Honestly, considering how
> many movies we see and my own mediocre story sense I'm shocked at how
> shocked they are by things I saw coming ten minutes beforehand.
I read some research once where they discovered that housewives who
watched TV all day were the best at guessing how a story will progress.
They watch so much that eventually they subconsciously absorb the typical
story patterns that crop up in movies.
I know one woman who watches a *lot* of videos, and she's much better
than me at knowing what's going to happen.
(Not that I'm saying you sit around and watch TV all day, Your Mom. I
always thought you were a guy, anyway.)
--
Martin B
Avoid normal situations.
> On Dec 24, 1:14?pm, "Avoid normal situations."
> <byend.removethisbityousillyper...@eskimo.com> wrote:
[..]
> > ? _Avatar_ still has an 83 on Metacritic.com. Who is this "everyone"?
> > Conservative talk radio? People who will never have James Cameron's level
> > of income?
> Everyone I know. Everybody saw it this weekend, everybody's talking
> about enjoying it despite how dumb the story was. I imagine a lot of
> reviews are along those same lines.
"I enjoyed it despite how dumb the story was" is not the same as "ripping
it apart". "Ripping it apart" sounds more like the usual critical reception
of a Police Academy film.
nmstevens
On some level, though, the question of "knowing what's going to
happen" begs a question.
You always know what's going to happen in a given movie -- once you've
seen it. What might be called the literal surprise factor is over. And
yet, despite that, certain movies, even when you've seen them a
hundred times, can still be watched over and over again.
Now, I know that there are those who trot out this idea -- oh, ever
time you watch it, you can find something new. And I suppose, on
occasion, I'll watch some movie that I've seen many times before and
I'll see something that I haven't seen before -- but it really isn't
true that the reason I go back to movies that I've seen dozens of
times before is to have some brand new experience or to strain out
some new detail or some never interpretation.
No. It's to experience the *same* thing. And some movies have the
ability. It really doesn't matter whether you've seen the movie before
-- once, twice, ten times, twenty times, any more than whether you've
seen a great painting once, twice, or twenty times before. It still
retains the power to move, to inspire, to make you laugh, to scare
you.
It doesn't matter that I know what's going to happen in The Haunting
or Night of the Living Dead. It's still scary. And Rocky is still
inspiring, And A Tree Grows in Brooklyn is still moving.
Some movies don't even do that even once. And some movies, for reasons
that I can't quite explain, manage to do it once, and their power
fades. They don't stand up under repeated viewings. You go back
looking for what you felt when you first saw them -- and it's not
there any more.
But some movies seem to retain that original force. And maybe it was
predictable in some sense or maybe it wasn't. But ultimately, having
seen it, you're going to know it.
I mean, sometimes the outcome of the World Series is really
predictable too, and sometimes its not, and certainly it's much more
interesting when it's not.
But the number of World Series games that are really worth watching
long after they've been played and the outcome is known and part of
history are few and far between.
There are many many movies that are well worth watching over and over
again and so the issue of predictability alone has to give way to
something else and I think that when we sort of shrug and reach for
the dial and say -- oh this thing is so predictable -- it's not simply
that we have a clear sense of where it's going, but rather that we
know -- and we also don't care.
I mean, I can't claim that there was ever a point in Apollo 13 that I
didn't pretty much know where the movie was going, and yet I've
watched that movie many times and I've always found myself caught up
in the people, the character, the drama of the situation -- I always
find myself holding my breath when the whole world is waiting at the
end for them to come out of blackout. Are they going to make it?
Well hell, of course they're going to make it. I knew when I first saw
the movie that they were going to make it. I've seen the movie twenty
times. They always have made every other time I've seen the movie so
it's a damned good bet that they're going to make it this time. But
that's not the point. The point is that the movie involves you in the
characters and the time and the place and the world that *doesn't know
that* -- and becoming involved and caught up, watching that scene, you
become caught up in it and it's an incredibly effective and powerful
scene leading up to that final emotional release.
The fact that it's predictable - that we know how it's going to end
coming in is really beside the point. The point is that the movie has
made us care.
I can give you a perfect example. We get a lot of screeners this time
of year and one of them was Crazy Heart. And I and my son and wife
were watching it and it was sort of okay. Great Jeff Bridges
performance and it's sort of going along. Not very much horsepower
driving it. Just sort of chugging along. And at a certain point -- and
it was the same point, I just turned to my wife and son and said,
"Well, I kind of know where this is headed. Anybody want to keep
watching this?" And they both said no.
Yeah, Another down beat "wrestler" style burned-out over the hill etc.
etc. etc. indie. etc. etc. been there, seen it. Sure. Great
performance. I didn't care. Maybe, ultimately, it was going to go the
place I expected, or maybe it was going to someplace amazingly
unexpected. Maybe Jeff Bridges was going to be kidnapped by Martians
in the third act.
To me, that wasn't the point. The point was -- I didn't care. The
movie didn't make me care. And if the movie makes me care, if it
involves me and keeps me involves, I'll stay with it. I'll stay with
if it takes me to places I've been before in the sense of conventional
Hollywood structure, or I'll stay with it if it takes to bizarre
unexpected places.
Or, if I don't care -- screw it. I'm reaching for the remote. I don't
owe it anything.
NMS
RonB
I think most mainstream stories pretty much follow set patterns. I used
to read Louis L'Amour westerns. Same story almost every time. Loner
rides into town almost always with a "past" he's "running" from, he
starts working his way into the society, meets a pretty woman (often a
widow), bad guys show up and nearly kill him, woman nurses him to health
and he straps on his guns and goes after them. I finally got tired of
them, but I read them as much as I did because I liked the characters,
L'Amour invented. Almost all action stories have that moment when the
hero "straps on his guns." (Yes, Mr. Martell, I read your book.) If you
watch an Action movie that's what you expect. It's how well it's done
that counts. Same with Romantic Comedies and about all genre movies --
it's usually the ones that try to "mix it up and be original" that fail,
because you go into the theater expecting a certain kind of movie to do
certain things. If they don't, the movie is unsatisfying.
I'm not saying there aren't good movies that go against "type" but it
better be done well and be an integral part of the story -- because if
you just tack on a "surprise ending" it'll suck.
(Gee, am I "chatty" or what?)
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
RonB
> Well hell, of course they're going to make it. I knew when I first saw
> the movie that they were going to make it. I've seen the movie twenty
> times. They always have made every other time I've seen the movie so
> it's a damned good bet that they're going to make it this time. But
> that's not the point. The point is that the movie involves you in the
> characters and the time and the place and the world that *doesn't know
> that* -- and becoming involved and caught up, watching that scene, you
> become caught up in it and it's an incredibly effective and powerful
> scene leading up to that final emotional release.
>
> The fact that it's predictable - that we know how it's going to end
> coming in is really beside the point. The point is that the movie has
> made us care.
Two movies that I've watched over and over -- and will probably continue
watching at least yearly -- are "My Cousin Vinny" and "While You Were
Sleeping." We watched "While You Were Sleeping" again this Christmas --
it's kind of becoming a tradition. I like the whole movie, the
characters, the family and the good will, but I watch it for the
hospital marriage scene -- as, Neal said, it's for the "final emotional
release." I watch "My Cousin Vinny" for the final courtroom scene when
Marisa Tomei testifies. I still think that is one of the most perfectly
filmed scenes ever made. I could go through a whole list of movies that
I watch over and over -- "It's a Wonderful Life" is another. We've even
watched Cameron's "True Lies" several times. "Some Kind of Wonderful" is
up there. They're not always deep or clever, but they somehow draw you
in and make you care what happens -- not necessarily the same movies,
but I'm sure everyone has at least a few they watch over and over.
(Again I ramble.)
Ovum
>
> People
> commend choppy tripe like Gladiator
First of all, "Gladiator" is one of my favorite films. You will do
well to speak of it only in the most solemn, respectful tone.
Secondly, it was a film that employed a large number of cutting
weaponry. Of course it was choppy
:-)
Ovum
>
> And also saw "Wag the Dog" -- and though it had some fun moments, on
> the whole, I also thought that it wasn't nearly as smart as it
> obviously thought itself to be. Most especially, if you're going to do
> something like that -- a piece of manipulative media about
> manipulative media -- then you've got to get it right in the details
> and the details about how they actually went about doing it were all
> wrong. Maybe they didn't seem wrong to somebody who didn't know
> anything at all about how these things work. But to anybody who did,
> it was all just nonsense. And you can immediately start making excuses
> about that sort of thing -- and maybe those excuses work when, for
> instance, you're making an action movie and there's some action scene
> on a train and the there's all sorts of stuff about stopping the train
> that's all wrong and the people who know about trains all complain
> about it. Oh, well. So they got it wrong.
What did they get wrong? Give an example.
o
Ovum
>
>
> Now, I know that there are those who trot out this idea -- oh, ever
> time you watch it, you can find something new. And I suppose, on
> occasion, I'll watch some movie that I've seen many times before and
> I'll see something that I haven't seen before --
It was either on the 3rd or 5th viewing of "The Matrix" that I noticed
that in that scene where Neo and Trinity have that massive shoot-out
with the security guards in the lobby of that building where Morpheus
is being talked to death by The Man in Black --
-- at the end of the shoot-out, when Trinity and Neo get on the
elevator, they both step in with their right foot and then
simultaneously turn to the right.
Yes.
We were watching that movie during a Girls Night Out one time, and
when that scene came up, I said -- seconds before it happened --
"Watch, they're both going to turn to the right at the same time" --
and then BAM, it happened -- one of the women looked at me like I had
three heads.
Some people don't appreciate the details.
:-)
Ovum
>
> Two movies that I've watched over and over -- and will probably continue
> watching at least yearly -- are "My Cousin Vinny" and "While You Were
> Sleeping." We watched "While You Were Sleeping" again this Christmas --
> it's kind of becoming a tradition. I like the whole movie, the
> characters, the family and the good will, but I watch it for the
> hospital marriage scene -- as, Neal said, it's for the "final emotional
> release." I watch "My Cousin Vinny" for the final courtroom scene when
> Marisa Tomei testifies. I still think that is one of the most perfectly
> filmed scenes ever made. I could go through a whole list of movies that
> I watch over and over -- "It's a Wonderful Life" is another. We've even
> watched Cameron's "True Lies" several times. "Some Kind of Wonderful" is
> up there. They're not always deep or clever, but they somehow draw you
> in and make you care what happens -- not necessarily the same movies,
> but I'm sure everyone has at least a few they watch over and over.
I have never seen Terminator II from opening credits to closing
credits, but if I happen to surf across it, I'll usually stop and
watch. I've probably seen it 20 times, partly because there's a cable
channel that's practically All-T-2, All-the-Time.
I watched "The Matrix" twice in the theater, and maybe 30 times (not
from credits-to-credits, but parts of it) on TV.
"The Last Samurai": twice in theaters, about 12 times on TV.
"Star Trek: First Contact" about 12 times, "Men in Black" and
"Independence Day" about 10.
I notice they show action flicks like these all the time on cable. A
12-hour "Yentl" marathon, not so much.
o
RonB
I've never seen "Gladiator" from front to back, but I think I've seen
most of it in bits. I probably should watch it sometime. I've watched
Braveheart three or four times and bits of it more. My wife doesn't like
that one much. It was pretty "choppy" too. :~]
RonB
> On Dec 26, 2:42�pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Two movies that I've watched over and over -- and will probably continue
>> watching at least yearly -- are "My Cousin Vinny" and "While You Were
>> Sleeping." We watched "While You Were Sleeping" again this Christmas --
>> it's kind of becoming a tradition. I like the whole movie, the
>> characters, the family and the good will, but I watch it for the
>> hospital marriage scene -- as, Neal said, it's for the "final emotional
>> release." I watch "My Cousin Vinny" for the final courtroom scene when
>> Marisa Tomei testifies. I still think that is one of the most perfectly
>> filmed scenes ever made. I could go through a whole list of movies that
>> I watch over and over -- "It's a Wonderful Life" is another. We've even
>> watched Cameron's "True Lies" several times. "Some Kind of Wonderful" is
>> up there. They're not always deep or clever, but they somehow draw you
>> in and make you care what happens -- not necessarily the same movies,
>> but I'm sure everyone has at least a few they watch over and over.
>
>
> I have never seen Terminator II from opening credits to closing
> credits, but if I happen to surf across it, I'll usually stop and
> watch. I've probably seen it 20 times, partly because there's a cable
> channel that's practically All-T-2, All-the-Time.
I think I've seen most of Terminator 2 but (like you) I don't think I've
ever watched it entirely. We've got cable, but I never watch TV -- I
either go to Hulu or rent a DVD.
> I watched "The Matrix" twice in the theater, and maybe 30 times (not
> from credits-to-credits, but parts of it) on TV.
I've watched "The Matrix" three or four times. I refuse to watch the two
sequels because I don't want to ruin the first one.
> "The Last Samurai": twice in theaters, about 12 times on TV.
I'm one of the few others here who actually liked this one. But I've
never had any desire to watch it again.
> "Star Trek: First Contact" about 12 times, "Men in Black" and
> "Independence Day" about 10.
"Star Trek: First Contact" once... "Independence Day" once. Both of the
"Men in Black" movies several times. As a matter of fact I was just
thinking of some of the scenes in the original "Men in Black" today for
some reason. About time to watch it again.
> I notice they show action flicks like these all the time on cable. A
> 12-hour "Yentl" marathon, not so much.
Never saw "Yentl," never was much of a Babara Striesand fan.
nmstevens
What's important to understand is that this what this movie was a
badly fictionalized version of reality -- and if they'd simply told
the real story it would have been a devastatingly smarter, funnier and
more tragic story than what they ended up making.
The real story -- the story of a fake war designed to boost the
ratings of a shit president -- is the story of Granada.
You ever hear of Granada? Do you know that the United States fought a
war there? Our men died there? Other people died there. It didn't take
long. Only a couple days, actually.
You see, that's the real problem with Wag the Dog -- because it just
makes countless assumptions that push the whole thing into the realms
of utter absurdity -- that make it all completely senseless,
unworkable silliness. Instead of being a smart comedy -- instead of
being Dr. Strangelove, that pulls its comedy out of the absurdity of
smart people trying to make sane decisions in a situation that
inherently crazy -- it ends up being a dumb comedy, that starts dumb
and tries to keep its dumb premise afloat by adding more and more dumb
things.
Sorry to say -- if there's a war, you can't just give it to a producer
and say -- here, you control the whole thing. Other news agencies,
newspapers, news media, here and abroad, will notice the tiny little
fact that the U.S. has at least *claimed* that it's at war. And the
reality is, even if our news media is reasonably dull-witted and
pliable, it isn't literally under the control of the U.S. government,
or under the control of a single media outlet.
If the U.S. says -- we've gone to war with Backstabistan, the
political correspondents at all the networks and news agencies and
newspapers are going to go to their maps and look. Even if the average
American is too fucking stupid to know that there is no such place and
isn't going to bother to look -- they will look and even those who
don't already know that there's no such place will know in a matter of
moments that there isn't.
And whatever the government might claim and where ever they might
claim that it is, big news agencies have correspondents all over the
world, and somebody is just going to say -- there ain't no "here"
here. There's no such place. There's no such war.
It would be like the faked moon landing. To make it work, the entire
world would have to be in on the conspiracy. It's one thing to suspend
your disbelief. It's another thing to just park your brain out in the
theater lobby.
This is how it really works. I mean, not in the movies, but in real
life.
A completely amoral president. Say for instance -- Ronald Reagan, one
of the most titanic pieces of shit ever conceived since this big old
earth began -- fucks up royally and manages to get a few hundred
Marines slaughters because he parks their asses out on an airstrip,
rendering them completely unprotected, whereupon they get blown up by
some Arab Terrorists. He then proceeds to show just how decisive and
macho a leader he is by immediately pulling our asses out of Lebanon
(i.e, running with our collective tails between our legs, which was
exactly what they wanted us to do, thus demonstrating to our enemies
that they could influence American policy through acts of terror --
thanks for that, Reagan, you gutless fuck).
So if you were a president utterly devoid of any moral compassed who'd
shoved your head up your own ass in a really public way and you needed
a boost in the opinion polls -- what would you do?
You'd do what Reagan did. You'd stage a nice quick painless little war
that you'd be sure to win.
And that's what they did. They invaded Granada. A real place. A real
war. Real people died. A real government was toppled.
Only the whole thing was bullshit. I mean not that it wasn't "real."
It's just that the whole thing was invented. It was done to boost the
faltering ratings of a ratings-conscious President.
And if they wanted to tell that story -- they should have told, if not
that story precisely, then that story in essence. You have to have a
real place, a real war -- because there's no way you can just shoot it
on a soundstage and make it stick.
And that, as with Dr. Strangelove, is where the dark humor of it, and
the horror of it -- and the truth of it, would really have come from.
NMS
Avoid normal situations.
> Ovum wrote:
[..]
> I've watched "The Matrix" three or four times. I refuse to watch the two
> sequels because I don't want to ruin the first one.
Sound idea.
_The Matrix Regurgitated_ is a highly questionable film. However, it's
distinguished by two outstanding action sequences (the second has been
posted in two parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dROyIwJ8_wE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKaT2WWHM_o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXv4sevp3co
There. That's all you need to see of the Matrix sequels. That's what driving
in Los Angeles is actually like, too.
Say, this is a good idea for a thread. What other movies are y'all hesitant
to recommend, but from which you can share just the good parts thanks to
YouGoogleTube and other video sites?
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"The first requirement of a statesman is that he be dull. That is not always
easy to achieve." -- Dean Acheson
Your Mom
> How about David Lynch movies?
>
> NMS
Mulholland Dr. is on the two hands. So is the ending of Up in the Air,
which I saw tonight.
Your Mom
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
I should append that: I still called most of the plot twists. But the
last ten minutes were nothing like the feel-good affirmation I was
expecting.
Your Mom
I know I'm the only one who hated it. I hate that jump-cut action, I
hate the stiff acting, and I hate the familiar story. I remember
everybody talking about how the well-received version screened for
critics was re-cut into an action movie instead of a clever tale of
political intrigue before the theatrical release and I figured that
was the problem. Then I watched all the deleted intrigue scenes and
thought they were stiff and creaky just like the rest of the film.
Also, I hate you. No, I kid, my friend, I kid! I've got a legitimate
anger management problem especially where it concerns things that I
feel are unjust and this film's success, as sad as it is that to say
that something so insignificant affects me like this, really fucking
pisses me off.
Alexei
Alan Brooks
I'm a fan of "Gladiator" and have watched it maybe 4 or 5 times. Great
fight sequences and pretty decent characters in spite of all the
clenched-jaw over-earnestness. The only thing that bothers me in that film,
and it gets worse for me every time I see it, is how intrusive all the CGI
is. The dream/death visions in bluish-grey, Crowe's body hovering in some
magical way over the ground as he glides toward Elysium, the impossible
Sense-A-Round shots of the Colosseum... They should have given all those
scenes over to Nick Park to do as claymation.
FWIW, if you hated "Gladiator" you are really going to hate "Gladiator
II"... er, I mean the new Russell Crowe version of "Robin Hood" --
http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/robinhood/ -- which looks like
Gladiator Goes To Brighton. From the trailer it looks like they might have
reused some of the cut footage.
Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- We Who Are
About To
Spend $9.00
Salute You!
MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html
Avoid normal situations.
> On Dec 24, 3:22???am, Your Mom <alex.s.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
[..]
> First of all, "Gladiator" is one of my favorite films.
Have you seen the 1959 _Ben-Hur_, _Spartacus_, _The Fall of the Roman
Empire_, and _Zulu_? All the good stuff in _Gladiator_ is stolen from
those movies.
--
alt.flame "just saying" Special Forces
Ovum
<byend.removethisbityousillyper...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> � Have you seen the 1959 _Ben-Hur_,
Nope.
_Spartacus_,
Nyet.
_The Fall of the Roman Empire_,
Nein.
_Zulu_?
Naw.
>All the good stuff in _Gladiator_ is stolen from those movies.
Then I thank the filmmakers for concatenating them all in "Gladiator"
in such an entertaining way.
o
Martin B
> Have you seen the 1959 _Ben-Hur_, _Spartacus_, _The Fall of the Roman
> Empire_, and _Zulu_? All the good stuff in _Gladiator_ is stolen from
> those movies.
I've seen three out of four, and I loved Gladiator.
You'd complain about Picasso because Rembrandt used just that shade of
green already.
--
Martin B