What Movie Did You Just Watch? - Shh! It's Starting!

[ajmrowland]

Beetlejuice-this has to be Tim Burton's most outrageous film. I'd seen the movie before, but didnt know Winona Ryder nor the unrecognizable Alec Baldwin were in it. The effects were a bit dated, but not much that should be different if it were made today. Keaton's performance as the title character was off the charts. the things that guy could recite in a single shot......must've improvised a bit. The music was good, but not as drop-dead as Edward Scissorhands. the song choices were unusual too.

now, I might just hold off until a good blu-ray hits the market. The current one may not qualify.

[Margos]

While Spellbound isn't one of his best films, it's still really enjoyable. I agree with everything you said about the film. I have to mention the score by Miklós Rózsa, which I consider one of his very best (if not his best), and it comes close to matching Bernard Herrmann greatness. I'm thinking you may like Rebecca or Notorious, as they're a similar type of movie to Spellbound.

Thanks! I'll have to check those out! And I also forgot to mention the score, I liked it a lot too!

Anyway...

Smile - Kind of a satirical beauty pageant movie. It was odd, but it was really funny in its own way. I guess because the film seemed to take itself so seriously, despite how inane some of the goings-on were. I didn't like that everyone was so mean to the Latina, though. But I guess that was to show the cattiness of the girls, despite their faked comraderie. I enjoyed it a lot, all in all.

[Goliath]

The Shock Doctrine (2009)

Documentary based on Naomi Klein's influential and best-selling book 'The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism'. If I could make all people watch *one* movie, I'd be sure it was this one. The documentary had few new information to offer to me, but that's because I'm a news -and history buff. I'm sure the film would come as a revelation, yes, an epiphany, to many audience members. I was also impressed with the narrative Klein constructs in order to make her case, and it was executed very effective.

The basic thesis of 'The Shock Doctrine' is that governments, working together with big business, create 'shocks' to confuse the population (or take advantage of 'shocks' that have already occured) to push through (economic) policies that the people would have never accepted under regular circumstances. At the heart of this doctrine are the ideas of the late economist Milton Friedman.

I was going to post the trailer, but it doesn't do justice to the film.

[UmbrellaFish]

Smile - Kind of a satirical beauty pageant movie. It was odd, but it was really funny in its own way. I guess because the film seemed to take itself so seriously, despite how inane some of the goings-on were. I didn't like that everyone was so mean to the Latina, though. But I guess that was to show the cattiness of the girls, despite their faked comraderie. I enjoyed it a lot, all in all.

Ha, I DVR'd that. Haven't had an opportunity to watch it yet, however. I'm excited to watch it for two reasons- Number one, it sounds incredibly similar to one of my favorite dark comedies "Drop Dead Gorgeous" and I want to compare the two as I wouldn't be surprised if DDG took some of their material from this movie. Number two, it was also the basis for a failed Menken and Ashman musical which starred Jodi Benson.

All that talk about a movie I haven't watched yet.

[PeterPanfan]

Resident Evil - I randomly decided to watch this today -- I loved it! Milla Jovovich and Michelle Rodriguez were awesome, as usual. It wasn't really horror, which was good, since I was a little sick of watching scary movies, lol. Anyway, the action was intense, the acting and direction great; it was just all-around great! Can't wait to see the sequel!

[Margos]

Number two, it was also the basis for a failed Menken and Ashman musical which starred Jodi Benson.

Wait, really!? I knew the name seemed familiar! I think Menken mentioned that on the doc on the TLM PE when he talked about casting Jodi. Cool!

[blackcauldron85]

Grease: Sing Along- It was a free screening. It was very fun (I mean, I love the movie anyway), and I liked how the soundtrack had extra singing voices attached to it (don't worry- it wasn't obnoxious at all- I didn't think that it could be the soundtrack until a ways in- I thought the people behind me were just really into it!), so there are more voices to make you feel less nervous singing in a theater . I think that it'd be more fun if the audience was bigger- it was a HUGE theater, and it wasn't nearly full, but with a theater full of enthusiastic fans and if you're with good friends who you can be silly and unnervous with, it'd be such a fun experience!

[Goliath]

Nobody knows (2004)

A deeply tragic story, based on actual events, in which a single mother abandons her four children. The oldest, a 12 year old, has to take care of his siblings. He doesn't dare to go to the authorities, because he's afraid their 'family' will be torn apart. While it's an interesting enough movie, it's almost an hour too long, and it needed a better ending. Not all films need a 'closed ending', but this one did --and didn't get it. It moved too slowly and that took away some of its impact.

[Black pearl]

The princess and the frog
I have to say that I am more than a little disappointed .
I am rather disgusted that Disney put voodoo in it especially when it is U rated, I feel that is not the kind of think that should be pumped into kids, or adults for that matter. It totally ruined the film for me and my entire family. Another Disney we will not be buying, we are glade we rented it before we wasted our money on it.
I though the animation was fantastic though! I enjoyed that part of it.

[Widdi]

The princess and the frog
I have to say that I am more than a little disappointed .
I am rather disgusted that Disney put voodoo in it especially when it is U rated, I feel that is not the kind of think that should be pumped into kids, or adults for that matter. It totally ruined the film for me and my entire family. Another Disney we will not be buying, we are glade we rented it before we wasted our money on it.
I though the animation was fantastic though! I enjoyed that part of it.

You realize the movie that is featured in both your avatar and signatutre deals very heavily with voodoo?

Seems a little hypocritical.

[blackcauldron85]

^ Well, she did mention TP&tF's rating...I see nothing wrong with TP&tF, just for the record, but just saying that she isn't hypocritcal when taking the rating into mind...

Last night Bobby & I watched one of his favorite films, A League of Their Own. I had never seen the whole film, but I had seen a decent amount in the past. It's a good movie. A lot of great talent in it.

[Goliath]

^ Well, she did mention TP&tF's rating...I see nothing wrong with TP&tF, just for the record, but just saying that she isn't hypocritcal when taking the rating into mind...

'Black pearl' said that she was disturbed by it, "especially" because of the rating, not soley because of the rating. She also added she thinks voodoo shouldn't be "pumped" into "adults, for that matter". I don't know how PotC connects with voodoo, but if it does, 'Black pearl' *is* being hypocritical.

That would not be my beef with her post. I simply think she is a drama queen.

[disneyboy20022]

Tia Dalma/Calypso is what I think the main voo doo part in PotC plus the talk of curses are like voo doo in some sorta category...

[ajmrowland]

The princess and the frog
I have to say that I am more than a little disappointed .
I am rather disgusted that Disney put voodoo in it especially when it is U rated, I feel that is not the kind of think that should be pumped into kids, or adults for that matter. It totally ruined the film for me and my entire family. Another Disney we will not be buying, we are glade we rented it before we wasted our money on it.
I though the animation was fantastic though! I enjoyed that part of it.

what makes your family not like voodoo?

and some kids will probably watch Lilo and Stitch and wonder aloud why she's puttng spoon people in a pickle jar.

Meet the Robinsons-okay, having not watched in about a year or so, I just got the blu-ray. I realize the legitimate reasons for criticism of this film. It has a standard middle-act and doesnt entirely break from the mold of animated movies. Having been saved from destruction by a nice first act and a very good closing 30 minutes, I like the movie and was always fascinated by the time-travel aspect and the ending is genuinely moving.


EDIT: a bit of trivia in the credits-rigging was done by a guy named Jesus Canal and one of the characters' name is Gaston.

[SmartAleck25]

Kung Fu Panda (2008)- 8.5/10
Still a great flick, I just thought it was a tad bit short. Awesome film though.

Imagine That (2009)- 5/10
An ok movie with some laughs, but the message isn't very strong or meaningful. A laugh or two, but some bathroom humor is uncalled for.

Prince of Egypt (1998)- 6.5/10
Decent, but somewhat overly dramatic.

[littlefuzzy]

I've been watching Mel Brooks movies.

The Producers (original version) - one of my favorite movies, although Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein slightly edge it out. All three get 10s at IMDB.

The Twelve Chairs - my LEAST favorite Mel Brooks movie, it was OK, I probably won't watch it again for a long while.

Blazing Saddles - another favorite, one I've watched over and over.

Young Frankenstein - ditto.

Silent Movie - I've only seen it once before, but it was very enjoyable.

High Anxiety - a great spoof of Hitchcock. Unfortunately, I haven't seen that much Hitchcock, especially recently.

History of the World Part 1 - I haven't watched this one yet, this go around... I think I've seen it before, and I think I liked it.

To Be or Not To Be - I like the Jack Benny version, I think the Mel Brooks version is a little better (or different, anyway.) I haven't watched it in a couple of years, but I watched the Jack Benny version last month.

Robin Hood: Men in Tights - I think I had the laserdisc, I haven't seen the film since those days (back in the 90s.)

Spaceballs - Another favorite, It's either 8 or 9 at IMDB, it may help that I'm a Star Wars fan as well.

Life Stinks - haven't seen it.

Dracula: Dead & Loving It - haven't seen it, although I like Leslie Neilsen.

I saw Mel Brooks' old animated short "The Critic" on Youtube, I agree with the titular character's opinions

I'd like to check out The 2000-year-old Man some day.

[pap64]

^ Well, she did mention TP&tF's rating...I see nothing wrong with TP&tF, just for the record, but just saying that she isn't hypocritcal when taking the rating into mind...

'Black pearl' said that she was disturbed by it, "especially" because of the rating, not soley because of the rating. She also added she thinks voodoo shouldn't be "pumped" into "adults, for that matter". I don't know how PotC connects with voodoo, but if it does, 'Black pearl' *is* being hypocritical.

That would not be my beef with her post. I simply think she is a drama queen.

Voodoo is seen as black magic by a lot of people, and the Pirates series HAS tons of black magic, including bringing the death back to life, dealing with Gods and the like.

But my biggest issue with Black Pearl's post is the statement that adults shouldn't be exposed to Voodoo. I understand kids since they can get scared or doesn't get it. BUT adults have the right to know about it, make an educated opinion and see how it is used in the story.

So yeah, it is being dramatic.

[disneyboy20022]

The princess and the frog
I have to say that I am more than a little disappointed .
I am rather disgusted that Disney put voodoo in it especially when it is U rated, I feel that is not the kind of think that should be pumped into kids, or adults for that matter. It totally ruined the film for me and my entire family. Another Disney we will not be buying, we are glade we rented it before we wasted our money on it.
I though the animation was fantastic though! I enjoyed that part of it.

what makes your family not like voodoo?

and some kids will probably watch Lilo and Stitch and wonder aloud why she's puttng spoon people in a pickle jar.

.

well it could be her religon...she's a Christian from what her siggy says and I too am a Christian however when I see movies like Pirates or sometimes they have black magic in them..I simply say they are just movies and a movie is just a story being told. It's okay to have fun watching movies.. The Big hype about Harry Potter being evil and god says no to potter I think is silly. It's just a movie. I won't change my beliefs in the lord Jesus christ. Now for people with kids I understand they are entitled to what they let their kids watch...althoguh I one time was watching Return of Jafar at a friends house and they said turn that off when a big red Genie ka Jafar popped outta the lamp saying they will not watch it because it has the devil in it...which I think is overreacting.... I mean I understand it's very thin line about this kinda stuff but I say the movies are fiction and overall the movies I mainly watch the Good Guy beats the bad guy and good triumphs....it's only a movie though I don't like watching thinks such as Aliens, Predator or Freddy VS Jason or any movies like that just because I don't care for them

[ajmrowland]

^Okay, the jafar thing is new

But Harry Potter has more in common with WWII than religion.

[2099net]

Sherlock Holmes

Warning: Rant Follows
Now, fond as I am of the original Sherlock Holmes stories, I have no problem with the stories and/or characters being re-invented. That's partly the legacy of timeless creations. After all, Sherlock Holmes is (I think) second only to Dracula when it comes to the number of different screen/TV portrayals of a character. Some have been good, some have been average and some have been atrocious.

What I do have a problem with, however, is people re-shaping and re-moulding the characters and concepts while at the same time proudly and vocally proclaiming that they are returning to the original characters as written by Doyle, while doing the exact opposite.

Make no mistake about it, this film demonstratively took many elements from Doyle's works as "Canon" (before stomping all over the same "Canon"); Watson's army career in Afganistan; the introduction of Irene Adler in A Scandal in Bohemia; the introduction and Watson's courtship of Mary in The Sign of Four*; and while Lestrade was introduced in the original A Study in Scarlet, the working relationship between the pair indicates the film takes place several years later when Lestrade became more of a "regular" in the original tales.

In short, whichever way you look at it, the film takes place during Doyle's official canon, not before. In no way does presenting a more youthful, physical Holmes hinted at in the original stories (as claimed by Richie). While Holmes did boast of skills in Bare Knuckle fighting and Japanese wrestling, both claims were met by surprise by Watson.

In no way was this film going back to the roots of the characters and the intent of the original stories. The intent of the original stories has always been, and always will be the strength of deduction and logic over any physical strength or violence. To read otherwise into the tales is - quite frankly - an insult.

It's strange, because if Richie et al wanted to make this Holmes have more relevance to the modern audience, as well as present a somewhat edgier Holmes, the means to do so are clearly present in Doyle's writing.

There's strong evident that Holmes suffered from what we now would call bi-polar disorder - experiencing incredibly high emotional peaks and incredibly low emotional lows, including clinical depression. Doyle's works also never shy away from the fact that Holmes is a drug addict, perhaps a result of his moments of depression (morphine being his drug of choice).

Of course, such issues were barely mentioned or hinted at in Richie's film. Showing a lead suffering from a mental disorder would be too much of a downer for a thrill seeking audience, and of course, drug abuse would raise the certificate and limit the box-office takings. [sarcasm]So much easier to simply show Holmes bare-chested and punching himself out of trouble[/sarcasm]

And I won't even mention what they did to Irene Adler...
Rant over

It's a shame, because despite the ill-will created by the ludicrous claims of the film makers (which not only turned their announcement press conference into a farce, but they still persist with on the DVD/Blu-ray) there's much to like about this film. In fact, had they simply admitted that they were making a Sherlock Holmes film to appeal to a 21st Century audience I'd have very little to complain about**.

I'm actually surprised how much I did like it, as not only did I go into the film with lots of personal negative bias, but I've always found Richie's films to be vastly over-hyped.

It was the trailer which first made me think "Hang on, I could actually enjoy this". Sadly, like most films, it couldn't live up to the promise of the trailer, but I still did enjoy it for what it was.

I actually think that considering what we got was a popular perception of what Sherlock Holmes stories were, as opposed to what they were in actuality, they could have played up the supernatural element more, and most certainly done more with the hints of steampunk.

Of course, the biggest crime is that in the inevitable sequel, there won't be a place for Mark Strong - an actor who more so than Downey or Law dominated the film with his performance IMO.

* Although, shouldn't Holmes already know Mary, being as she first appeared to both Holmes and Watson as their client in The Sign of Four?

** Although I'd still complain about the shoddy and cynical use/caricaturisation of Irene Adler.

The Book Of Eli

Now this is strange. I always thought that The Book of Eli was based on a comic. But I've seen no credit as such on the Blu-ray case, nor did I see one when I (somewhat haphazardly) scanned the credits. So I'm no longer sure if it was or not.

But I certainly feels like an adaptation of a comic/graphic novel.

I didn't really know what to expect from the film, my main reason for seeing it was because a couple of friends of mind had commented that it had a strong "Fallout 3" feel to it. Which was certainly true, but I guess there's only so many variations on the aftermath of a nuclear attack you can do - especially when it comes to landscape features. Fallout 3 takes place in a sort of alternative universe where technology is based on the 1950's idea of the future. The Book of Eli takes place in a "real word" should it have been exposed to nuclear devastation. Both are remarkably the same - I guess because ultimately both deal with society de-evolving.

It took me a little while to get into the film, but when I did, I was rewarded by a film which although dealing with a high-concept notation, did so in an intelligent and logical way. Characters were clearly defined, motivations clear, and while I personally doubt the central concept, the desire of Gary Oldham's character to obtain the book had its own logic. I also liked that although the film was dark, it found time to include the humour and eccentricity of Michael Gambon and Frances de la Tour's characters, although of course, even these two have a darkness about them.

Most importantly, and most rewarding is that there's a twist at the end which out-twists M. Night Shyamalan's recent efforts and does so without a single cheat or misdirection. While the film may not be classed as a "summer blockbuster", its pleasing to see a film with a mid to high level budget actually credit it's audience with some intelligence.