[Windswept]

I'm not sure what it is about her, but Uma has always given me the creeps.

*shudder*

Maybe the letter "u" makes me uncomfortable. *shrug*

Naw, that's not it.

Not sure 'what' it is, but... just...ick.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by AWR I wanna know how he got Uma to show her ugly feet for so long - close-up. Does Uma think her feet are cute?

No, but Quentin does.

Watch all his movies, and there's a foot scene of some sort, it seems. "From Dusk Til Dawn" has two...both with Quentin's character as the observer/benefactor (go figure).

And Uma is unbelievably sexy to me. Always has been.

[SKMDC]

From Dusk 'Til Dawn was a riot, when I saw it, way back when, I had no idea what it was about, I thought I was watching a little crime noirish drama, and all the sudden this whole other movie breaks out!

It was also Clooney's first starring gig, and I remember saying to my wife, "Man he is gone from TV!" He just pops out of the screen, as does Miss Hayek.

[psmith2.0]

Oh it's a complete hoot, isn't it? I saw it for the first time, years ago (rented it). I knew it was a "vampire movie", but you're totally right: it comes way into the movie, whose first half plays like a crime story. You have NO hint of what's to come. You keep thinking "did they mix the boxes up? Did I get the wrong movie?"

Did you ever see the little documentary they made while filming it? It's called "Full Tilt Boogie" and it's just as enjoyable as the movie. Behind-the-scenes, shots of the crew doing their thing, make-up tests, stunt work, interviews with all the principals (in front of and behind the camera), outtakes, Clooney being quite funny, shots of the crew relaxing together after a day of shooting, etc.

It shows the crew building this huge life-size facade of the Titty Twister (and accidentally setting it on fire) out in the desert near Barstow, CA. And footage of Juliette Lewis, Clooney, Tarantino and the crew at some local restaurant/bar, singing karaoke, dancing, getting drunk with (and signing autographs for) the locals. Great stuff.

It's a really good little feature in its own right, and is including on the second disk of the more recent DVD releases (I got mine at Blockbuster). Check it out...makes you enjoy the movie even more, if you watch the documentary first (or even afterwards).

But that was one of the things they talk about frequently: that long wait until the "vampire" part. You just think you're watching a standard (but well-written) crime/abduction story for nearly an hour. Then BAM! Instant nuttiness and mayhem!



Behold, one of the sexiest scenes in cinematic history, and the only time I've ever wished I was Quentin Tarantino. Or, toward the end, was sitting where Clooney was.

Perfect song, and when she takes her headdress off and start shaking her hair around...my gosh, look at those hips!

It's after this sequence that all hell breaks loose, and it becomes a "vampire movie". And a pretty disgusting one, at that!

[AWR]

Thanks for the gumball.

I like the way Salma serves a drink. Godessness-ness.

[Foj]

Originally Posted by AWR As far as gogo goes, she taken.

We're going to have to lower the steel cage on this one.

[Luca]

Bump.

Saw the beginning of The Protector yesterday. It stars Tony Jaa, the same guy who was in Ong Bak: Thai Warrior. It was so bad I actually walked out. I can't even remember the last time I walked out of a movie.

Everything about the movie was bad. The plot was nonexistent, the premise was entirely ridiculous, none of the scenes flowed together, and even the fighting (the only potential saving grace of the film) was poorly choreographed and filmed. Clearly, Tony Jaa is one of the best martial artists alive, but his talent was wasted on this movie. His moves are uncreative and the camera cuts are nonsensical and disorienting. Jaa will be in the middle of some incredible stunt, and then the camera cuts and everyone's position is different and he's not even doing the same stunt. Even the fight scenes were so boring that my friends and I just couldn't take it any longer and left after about 45 minutes.

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of those kinds of movies (martial arts). I can appreciate the talent and action potential (Jet Li and all the rest), but they all run together after awhile, especially the ones set in modern times, which seem to really go bonkers on the stunts/camera work. Done to such a degree that it's not even remotely grounded in reality (not that movies have to be, of course, but sometimes things can be too "over the top"...to the point it's distracting and aggravating. I find those kinds of movies often do that to me).

I'll watch the occasional Jet Li flick on FX or USA and it makes my head hurt, halfway into a big fight scene.

[Luca]

I like Jackie Chan movies. Now, I know Jackie's getting a little old, but he can still kick ass. More importantly, he keeps things interesting. I never get bored watching him, and he's a halfway-decent actor to boot.

I'm going to have to see a Jet Li movie sometime. I never have. Something tells me they're not lighthearted and funny the way Jackie Chan's movies are, but maybe their production value, polish, and choreography is better than in the one I saw last night.

[psmith2.0]

I've seen about two Jet Li ones. There's one I like a good bit, just because it's fast-moving and has a neat story. I don't even know the name, but Bridget Fonda is in it (check IMDB). They play it on FX quite a bit (that's where I've seen it).

Jackie Chan is okay. His stuff seems to be more geared to the light, humorous fare. Great stunts and action, no doubt. He doesn't do the "dark/violent" thing (not saying that's bad, mind you...but you go into his movies knowing pretty much what's what: some cool fights, a few chuckles, elaborate stunts/fights, no gore or heavy violence, usually some annoying, dipshit Western co-star - Chris Tucker, Owen Wilson, etc. - to "ground" the thing and "broaden the appeal", etc.).



Not being a genre I follow much, I'm really only aware of the above two performers (Li and Chan). I've seen snippets of other movies on TV but I usually bail (unless Michelle Yeoh is in there somewhere...rowrrr).

[SKMDC]

Originally Posted by Luca I like Jackie Chan movies. Now, I know Jackie's getting a little old, but he can still kick ass. More importantly, he keeps things interesting. I never get bored watching him, and he's a halfway-decent actor to boot. I'm going to have to see a Jet Li movie sometime. I never have. Something tells me they're not lighthearted and funny the way Jackie Chan's movies are, but maybe their production value, polish, and choreography is better than in the one I saw last night.

Jackie Chan is the most talented person to make movies since Fred Astaire. Remember he started making movies in America in his 40s, and he could still do all that stuff. Only now (he's 52) is he starting to cheat a bit. I'm not saying all his movies are good, some aren't, but they are a cut above a lot of action stuff.
Mostly because of his intelligence and his incredible work ethic.

[Dorian Gray]

Wallop!

I watched a rather powerful film yesterday called Dogville. This is the first part of a trilogy called USA - Land of Opportunities, by Lars von Trier (he of Dogme95 fame, although von Trier didn't adhere to the Dogme95 "Vow of Chastity" in making Dogville). Dogville was on Roger Ebert's list of worst films of 2004, so that alone should arouse your curiosity! It certainly did mine.

The film is set on a huge sound stage with very basic props, which lends it the atmosphere of a theatre. The outline of houses and other items are drawn on the ground with chalk, and the actors act as if the lines were walls, etc. So we see people opening invisible doors when they walk out of their house, and interacting with a chalk-drawn dog. But it's all very easy to follow.

In brief, the film charts the arrival, integration, and eventual rejection of an outsider (Grace, played very well by Nicole Kidman) in a small rural village. Along the way the villagers commit horrible acts, although they always have an excuse or reason for their behaviour, and therefore Grace finds herself forgiving them each time, even when her own person is violated. But towards the end an event occurs which causes her to reconsider her stance and instead hold the villagers to the same moral standards she herself maintains. Therefore the film is at its heart a rejection of moral relativism and an argument in support of universalism. The late great Bernard Williams left me in no doubt as to which side of the universalist-relativist fence I reside, but the film is a powerful prompt in the universalist direction if you haven't made up your mind.

Dogville is also a very interesting film in its own right. It was widely expected to win the Palme d'Or at Cannes in 2003 but Elephant took that prize. Elephant is a good film but I think Dogville has more to say. So I look forward to the rest of the trilogy: Manderlay and Wasington.

[AWR]

Interesting DG.

I contemplated seeing this movie when it came out, but was put off by David Denby's New Yorker review. Denby is a slightly more respected member of the film critics guild than Ebert, and he didn't seem to appreciate Dogville's finer points either.

[The full length version, which I read at the time, is not available online; I pasted his brief excoriation for your amusement. ]


Dogville (2004)

"Pedantic, obtuse, and unwatchable, this three-hour exercise in inept avant-gardism, written and directed by Lars Von Trier, is set in a town without walls, streets, or air—a conceptual Depression-era nowheresville in the American Rockies in which obvious allegories of conformity and viciousness are acted out by a cast reciting an inhuman language into the dead silence. We might be present at a nightmarish school play. With Nicole Kidman as the poor waif who eventually takes her revenge, Paul Bettany as a weak-willed artist, and a variety of other excellent actors submitting to Von Trier's solemnly stupid rituals of betrayal. The pompous narrator is John Hurt, who sounds like Henry Fielding wishing he had a tankard in his hand."


That said, I might pick it up now and judge for myself.

[SKMDC]

Originally Posted by AWR Interesting DG. I contemplated seeing this movie when it came out, but was put off by David Denby's New Yorker review. Denby is a slightly more respected member of the film critics guild than Ebert, and he didn't seem to appreciate Dogville's finer points either.

I'll take exception to this comment, first Ebert has won a Pulitzer, second if you don't read the New Yorker you don't know who Denby is. Ebert (along with Siskel) has done more for film than than any other critic Since Pauline Kael.
I just don't know how you can say slightly more respected, what is your yardstick? Certainly not their Wikipedia entries or their Journalistic credentials.

As to Dogville, it certainly is interesting to watch for a few minutes, but three hours? I got up to about an hour. Every actor in it raves about it, and it does have a great cast.

[AWR]

I only know Ebert from his TV program, which I was no fan of. I think that due to its popularity, Ebert (and Siskel)was not entirely honest in his assessment of a lot of the drivel that he gave a "big thumbs up" to.

Having looked at Ebert wikipedia entry however, I see that he has had quite a career outside of his show; thus my comment of comparing Denby's reputation and Ebert's is not fair - I made the mistake of comparing Denby's New Yorker work with Ebert's thumbs up television program.

[Dorian Gray]

I can't guarantee anyone will like Dogville, but I certainly found it anything but boring. I was riveted to the screen for the full three hours (was it really that long?). That said, unless I'm watching a paint-by-numbers blockbuster I do not generally get bored even if I dislike a film: my mind is always racing through "slow" parts trying to make sense of what I'm watching and questioning every production decision such as the use of a wide-angle lens or the lighting. I reject the unthinking idea that "slow" means boring: should we skip through the slow movements of Mozart's string quartets too? If you are bored by Mozart's slow movements or every character- or plot-driven film you see, then it is you who is boring, not the music or film.

Regarding David Denby's comments, the film could only be "obtuse" (or "naïve", as another reviewer whose name I forget described it) if you completely ignore the metaphor behind every word and action. If you try to take a film like Dogville at face-value of course it will seem simplistic!

Let me just say I'm also disgusted that every film that doesn't tread a well-beaten path gets branded pretentious or pompous by the mainstream critics. These guys should be tearing down that pointless barrier and getting people who wouldn't consider themselves "arty" into the arthouse cinemas. What does pompous even mean in this context? It seems to simply mean "different" (in that it aims at making the viewer THINK) which is not a crime! Pompous is the last thing that came to my mind while watching this film and I'm sick of critics who instinctively react like that every time a film worth seeing comes out.

[SKMDC]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Let me just say I'm also disgusted that every film that doesn't tread a well-beaten path gets branded pretentious or pompous by the mainstream critics. These guys should be tearing down that pointless barrier and getting people who wouldn't consider themselves "arty" into the arthouse cinemas. What does pompous even mean in this context? It seems to simply mean "different" (in that it aims at making the viewer THINK) which is not a crime! Pompous is the last thing that came to my mind while watching this film and I'm sick of critics who instinctively react like that every time a film worth seeing comes out.

That's a pretty broad reaching condemnation. And I think fairly untrue.
The two reviewers mentioned here are great advocates for different movies. The New World springs to mind, Ebert championed this movie even though it throws just about every movie convention aside. Whale Rider is another The Fast Runner is yet one more. These are all far from the mainstream films that critics (not just Ebert) have been able to shine a light on for a greater audience to see.
For the record Ebert doesn't say Dogville or von Trier are pompous, he says they are audacious, but his reason for not liking it is it's length.
Lars von Trier (the Director) carries some baggage, he IS fairly pompous and pretty proud of it. He denigrates America every chance he gets, in his work (Dogville is his anti-america manifesto) and in his interviews, yet he has never been here.

[AWR]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Regarding David Denby's comments, the film could only be "obtuse" (or "naïve", as another reviewer whose name I forget described it) if you completely ignore the metaphor behind every word and action. If you try to take a film like Dogville at face-value of course it will seem simplistic! Let me just say I'm also disgusted that every film that doesn't tread a well-beaten path gets branded pretentious or pompous by the mainstream critics. These guys should be tearing down that pointless barrier and getting people who wouldn't consider themselves "arty" into the arthouse cinemas. What does pompous even mean in this context? It seems to simply mean "different" (in that it aims at making the viewer THINK) which is not a crime! Pompous is the last thing that came to my mind while watching this film and I'm sick of critics who instinctively react like that every time a film worth seeing comes out.

What Denby gets at - and, again this isn't his full review - is that many of the metaphors and symbolism used in Dogville were inaccurate, inappropriate or obtuse. I don't think Denby has ever sat through a movie and taken the topical story at face value. I'm quite sure that he would love more art house cinema but not at any price. He faulted Lars for simply not really understanding his topic, which one can sympathize with for the reason SKMDC stated: he's never been to the States (although I don't think that automatically condemns him).

Denby is not a mainstream critic by any stretch; in fact his cinematic preferences lean towards experimental and fresh thought. He is not easily pleased - that's why I like him. HE didn't like this movie because he saw nothing new or insightful; he saw no skillful direction. And on and on.

Typically, I agree with what he has to say, but not always. I'll have to see for myself with Dogville.

[Meli]

So today I was flipping channels and saw that Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers: The Movie, was on HBO. I remembered watching that movie over ten years ago. I'll be honest. I was a fan and grew up watching them on TV everyday . Anyway, decided to check it out to see how lame it really was...

The gist of the story is that the evil Ivan Ooze has been released from a hyperlock chamber floating somewhere in space, after thousands of years. So he's pissed at his imprisoner who is none other than Zordon, the Rangers' mentor. He wants to conquer earth and get revenge . He strips the Rangers of their powers. So they go to a distant planet and get new ninja powers to help them restore their old powers . Then the Rangers must return to save Earth (never heard that one before)!

I LMAO!! I can't believe I used to love this stuff! The skydiving opening sequence is cool enough. And then comes the rollerblading (is there anything they can't do). One of the funniest parts is when they're at some construction site fighting guys made of ooze who splatter everywhere when they're defeated. I couldn't stop laughing! The rangers are flying through the air and cart-wheeling all over the place all the while making bad jokes and puns .

And then, no matter how spread out everyone is, they each do a high flip in the air and land perfectly assembled next to each other . Oh! And I love when they're talking while in their Ranger suits. They have to make all kinds of head and hand motions (which in turn make all kinds of swoosh sounds). And lets not forget the pink ranger running around screaming "TOMMY!" throughout the entire movie . That took me back.

I don't mean to bash this movie because I realize that I grew up on this stuff and thought it was the most awesome thing ever. But watching it ten years later made me realize that it was and still is a kids movie. And because of that I forgive the bad puns and overly unrealistic fighting sequences. Overall, I'm glad I saw it again because for an hour and a half I was lost in nostalgia for those simpler days...

[hiltond]

Is anyone else excited about the new Rocky movie.

I know, I know, he is 60, but is that so far fetched today? The record for career points in the NFL was just set this week by a 47 year old. Might Foreman have one more fight in him?

Rocky V was so bad, Rocky VI couldn't be any worse.

For those that have Comcast all five Rockys to date are on ondemand under free movies. You can catch up before the wide release.

[spotcatbug]

Originally Posted by hiltond Is anyone else excited about the new Rocky movie.

I think I might be. When I first heard about it, I laughed. Then I saw the preview for it in front of Casino Royale. It looks like it might actually be good.

[Moogs]

Some recent viewings I thought I'd share...

Little Miss Sunshine
What a cool movie. So many great true-to-life moments, and a few surreal ones too but definitely a good movie to rent if you haven't seen it! Alan Arkin is funny as hell, and so many good "modern prototype" personalities. Someone please tell me they don't do those freaking mutant mini-pageants anymore... man the parents that put their kids through that... I won't even go there. Anyway, very worthwhile.

PS - Olive kicks Dakota Fanning's butt anyday! What a little girl should be like if you want MO. Dakota strikes me as a little girl trying to be grown up in many of her movies, all wise beyond her years, etc. I mean she's OK but Olive cracked me up.

The DaVinci Code
I didn't read the book so no surprise that I was not as disappointed as many who did. Overall it's a good movie and unlike most 2.5 hr flicks, it moves pretty fast / seems over quickly. I didn't really like the way Hanks' character assimilates so quickly to the situation and the woman, and I think some plot details could've been left out in favor of developing others more deeply, but overall it's worth seeing. Not worth buying IMHO (usually those Tom Hanks / Opie as Director movies are). Also, Ian McKellen does an admirable job as always.

The Good Shepherd
This movie is like Syriana in many ways, aside from the obvious plot comparisons (both about the CIA and covert stuff, etc). It's long and very detailed, and the kind of movie where you really have to pay attention because the timeline is not linear. That said, it IS easier to follow than Syriana because not nearly as many disparate characters are introduced to you as the movie goes along. It's basically the same 3 or 4 cats, shown over and over in different time periods / conflicts. IOW, it's easier to figure out the relationships between people whereas in Syriana, even though the acting and script is very good, you have to watch it at least twice before you really see what the hell is going on.

Matt Damon does a very good job though his character is sort of emotionally stunted so you don't see a lot of emotion displayed; but he does his usual convincing work. Alec Baldwin actually has a fairly major part too and also does a good job; the character he plays was built for him basically. Sort of a shadier version of Jack Ryan from the Hunt for Red October. Won't give more than that away but he makes the movie worthwhile too.

The story to me was a little dry and overdone at points, almost too life-like and so not that exciting or interesting in some ways. I don't know how true any of it is (how much it mimics a real person) but you get a good bit of history lesson to AFA how the CIA came into being. But again definitely worth seeing, especially when compared to a lot of the mind-numbingly bad plots/scripts that are put out these days. Joe Pesce makes a brief appearance too, in what is actually one of the more memorable dialogs in the whole movie.

[scratt]

We watched The World's fastest Indian last night...

What an awesome movie.. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Bascially it is set around the time of the Vietnam war, and a bike enthusiast from New Zealand (played by Anthony Hopkins) travels to the Bonniville salt flats to try and set / break the land World speed record for (I think) his kind of bike.. It is set during 'Speed Week' there.

Apparently the record stands today, and (as the movie's blurb says) is based on 'One hell of a true story'.

Great movie as although it is a 'racing' movie, it is one that both petrol heads, and the familly in general, can draw great pleasure from..

Right now it's my favorite movie of 2007!

[NosferaDrew]

I'll jump in and recommend Stranger Than Fiction.
Will Ferrell is quite good and Maggie Gyllenhaal, man , I think I love her!

Great flick, interesting story, fantastic music (much by Spoon) and really well shot.
This one really snuck up on me.

I watched The Holiday also and that was horrible!
What a contrived POS.

[Artap99]

Children Of Men is beautifully shot. It has incredible atmosphere, making it more of an experience than a movie. It's one of the first movies I've seen in a while that after watching it, I realized why it was made and why it was a movie rather than anything else. Well...I didn't really enjoy the story all that much, but the movie itself is wonderful.

Pan's Labyrinth is gorgeous. I'm going to need to see it again before passing any sort of judgement. Del Toro makes me drool like no other.

The only other movie I've seen recently is The Pursuit Of Happyness. Will Smith is quite good in it, but he always is. There isn't much interaction with anyone else in the film. Though there are hundreds of people around, everything is completely isolated. The only feedback comes from his son, who doesn't speak much. It's like an urban Castaway. In some respects, that's good...it made me feel as though I was really watching this man's life. But the very last title card made me wonder what it was that the people who made the movie were trying to say.

[Jamie240]

Originally Posted by Artap99 Well...I didn't really enjoy the story all that much, but the movie itself is wonderful.

Hmm. That statement is a bit confusing - but interesting nevertheless.

[Artap99]

Originally Posted by Jamie240 Hmm. That statement is a bit confusing - but interesting nevertheless.

I had no interest in the characters. I thought the acting was fine, but I just never cared much for anything going on in the movie. It had beautiful photography, so it was just a long, pretty slide show for me

[Moogs]

Just got done watching an Inconvenient Truth (the movie about Global Warming)... there is definitely some annoying political baggage in there, but there is a lot of useful information that everyone should be armed with when talking to the head-in-the-sand crowd. Watch it.

Also saw the ham comedy RV. Pretty good stuff. Standard Robin Williams fare in some regards but worth seeing. I don't like corn-ball humor usually but this movie was pretty well done for that category IMO.

[Windswept]

Well, here's a Russell Crowe flick that's a bit different from his 'Gladiator' and 'Master and Commander' roles. It's called "A Good Year".

This film is based on Peter Mayle's books about Londoners moving to the south of France. I've mentioned these books before, but no other AN members seem to have read them. I liked the first volume a lot. It made me laugh out loud many times.

I just watched the DVD of 'A Year in Provence' last month, so the story is fresh in my mind. Many changes have been made for this version of the tale. Crowe is a bond trader who inherits property in Provence, 'and' he's single. The latter aspect could add an entirely new dimension to the original story.

Since I own all the Peter Mayle books, as well as the aforementioned DVD set, I think you could say that I am an enthusiast with regard to these stories. I am looking forward to seeing this movie, even if the reviews suck, which they do. Some reviewers just can't handle the idea of Crowe in a different kind of film, apparently. Oh well. C'est la vie. And it seems that the French reviewers *really* hate the film.

Review of movie (brief excerpt):

But the movie is out of sync with the times -- a desultory entertainment, rote even in its ideas of beauty, set in a place that by now has been overharvested as a holiday destination, about a greed-is-good character type that has become a cliche (and worse, a joke), played in a light, heterosexual-male comedy style that by now looks like something out of the 19th century and was already wearing thin in the early 1990s when getting off the career treadmill and stopping to smell the grapevines was considered something new and marvelous in a man. Even Hugh Grant isn't doing the Hugh Grant shtick anymore, which makes Crowe's dutiful stomping around on the way to sensual enlightenment all the more miscued.

(Dang! That's quite a run-on sentence.)

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/...ear/index.html

Unfavorable French reaction:

...a pitiful Anglo-Saxon caricature of France.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/...eut/index.html

[scratt]

I have to say I find the whole Russell Crowe thing a bit tired now, just like I would probably find the whole Mel Gibson Patriot formula movie a bit of a drag now...

Don't get me wrong I have loved both of their movies in their time... but they should move on. Mel has, even Mr. Waterworld did.. Russell seems to be floundering.

Also when you know that Russell is a mullet / pony tail touting, male chauvanist pig with an ego the size of a house, his pseudo English accent and gentle demeanor in the trailers I have seen for this make me want to puke.. and it's not really that much of a departure for him when you consider his movie 'A Gentle Mind'.

Sorry, Carol.. But I have to agree with most of what the reviewers are saying about this - even though I have not seen it yet.