Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Now Showing...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    AO - I "got" the whole allegory thing. Alright, not the cave one but the whole Christian/Judaic/Buddhistic thing. That isn't what bored me - what put my ass to sleep was the way they took so long to say what they were going to say. They could have added a few minutes to the first movie to wrap everything up and saved a few hours and a few tonnes of bullet casings.

    And dude, don't be dissing the Hobbits. I've got my TTT extended version and am going to geek out tomorrow and look at the non-gay Elf.

    Comment


    • #32
      They could have added a few minutes to the first movie to wrap everything up and saved a few hours and a few tonnes of bullet casings.
      Hee. I will buy the dvd when it's out and watch again. I didn't hate the movie, I just didn't love it. I liked some of the new elements in the middle movie like Merovingian-Persephone relationship, Oracle-Architect dualism, the freaky twins, the key maker and such. If they stuck to that shit, it would've been kewel. But a lot of the Zion crap just didn't do it for me.

      I've got my TTT extended version and am going to geek out tomorrow and look at the non-gay Elf.
      Me too! Me too! Though I'm more of a scruffy-king lover. And Gollum! I bought the super special edition for the super special dvd! Yay!
      It's all about me and my precious.

      Comment


      • #33
        We saw The Cat in the Hat tonight. It was so not good. Mike Myers is the worst thing about the movie. Seriously, the cat was so pointless. Too over the top. There were a couple of good throwaway lines, but otherwise eh. The best part is Alec Baldwin, and he was only in there about 20-30 minutes. But he was SO GOOD.

        Comment


        • #34
          I came in here to share in the Love, Actually (MmmmLiamNeeson), but keenai's post has utterly demolished all the good feelings it gave me.

          You went to see CitH voluntarily? And, like, paid, thereby putting money in Brian Grazer's pockets?

          *explodes*

          Comment


          • #35
            Aww! I saw Love Actually, too! What a big goofy bear hug of a movie!

            Emma Thompson and Laura Linney broke my heart! OMB. I LOVE Laura Lin! She's just SO GOOD.

            Stupid Alan Rickman! Stupid emotionally deranged relatives.

            Also, I love Hugh Grant. And I loved the chick that played Natalie. "I had a premonition I'd fuck up my first day." I her potty mouth.

            I also thought the porn stand-ins were sort of extraneous and seedy even though they were ridiculously NOT, if that makes any sense. Colin's sex subplot was sort of weird, too. Girls from Wisconsin are sluts! I knew it. I really think if those two subplots were cut critics would be less hard on the movie.
            Itís just really honestly so tiring and emotionally draining to have to get upset over reality constantly.

            Comment


            • #36
              Aww, I had the same problems with Love, Actually Isadora. Every time Colin or the porn couple were on, I totally lost interest. It's kind of a shame that they devoted as much time as they did to those two plots because the other stories were so much more compelling.

              I could have happily watched an entire movie based around any of the other characters, especially Colin Firth and his love on the lake story. I also would have liked to see Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant have their own brother/sister subplot because I just love both of them to bits.

              Comment


              • #37
                Roly, I was invited by a friend who paid my way and my daughter's way. I wouldn't have seen it in the theaters, but my daughter LOVES that book and kept saying she wanted to see it, and since I can't pass up a free movie...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Is it wrong that I want to see Timeline? Kermie was all "which WB boy do you want to see?" but I don't really like anyone in the movie. I don't know why, but it is calling out to me!
                  It's all about me and my precious.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I want to see that too! Not only because of the time-travel aspect, but because of the Michael Crichton connection (even though most of his books end up being horrifically awful movies) and because I Ethan Embry.

                    I've seen the trailer for Stuck On You about thirty times by now and I'm utterly baffled as to what Greg Kinnear and Matt Damon were thinking, other than "There's Something About Mary made a kajillion dollars!"

                    In other news, I completely blame keenai for this. Kidding!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I went and saw Gothika this weekend. Save your money, it was awful. Very over the top and not at all suspenseful. The story was way to much for a movie like this. Another friend of mine went to see it the same night and didn't like it either.

                      Hee. None of the critics liked it, either.

                      I did enjoy Kill Bill a few weeks ago.

                      As for the Matrix -- It was okay. I was bored through most of Revolutions. After being spoiled by good effects in prior movies I hated the war scenes and didn't find the last fight between Neo/Smith to be all that fantastic. Overall, I got the message which was okay, but I agree that you could have just added a few minutes onto the first movie and finished it up.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        OMB. Save your money, do NOT go see Timeline. The script was bad. Casting was bad. The acting was horrific. Plot holes the size of Texas. Bad bad bad. It wasn't even so bad it's good bad. All of the characters were whiney bitches who needed a good smackdown. OMB. BAD.

                        Ethan Embry is only in there for a little bit any way. Sniff. But he did look good in his glasses, but not so much the fuzz on the chin.
                        It's all about me and my precious.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          This is probably long gone in US theatres, but we went to see Spellbound tonight, the doco about the 8 kids in the 1999 National Spelling Bee in Washington D.C.

                          I absolutely loved every second of this film. It was so funny. We dont have a competition of that magnitude here so it was really interesting. I had no clue about some of the words that they were asked to spell.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Ok, the Matrix? I liked the first two. I liked the philosophy stuff. But, as has been said, I just felt like nothing was resolved satisfactorily in the third--as if the writing fell back on a standard Judeo/Christian sort of ending rather than taking those really interesting questions and working them out somehow. Ho-hum, Neo's come to save Zion. Ho-hum, look how he sacrifices himself for us. Hey! There's a Christ-on-the-cross pose! The questions of how we see reality and what reality actually means were much more interesting to me.

                            Also, I felt as if the editing needed to be tighter in the third to improve the pace. Death scene? Way too long. The extended scenes in Zion left me wondering what the other two plots were up to. Couldn't they have been intercut somehow to keep things moving?

                            Writers just seemed to drop the ball a bit. Sure, playing up with the cliches is one way to wrap it up, but wasn't there a better way?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              i certainly agree with the third matrix needing editing. all the flying around hovercraft stuff got annoying quickly.

                              but the philosophy, i think, is dead on. here is why--->

                              i like the fact that near the end we get glimspes of the judao-christ phyloes; however, the very end is VERY eastern in its presentation. what it is saying is that there are no black and white answers. NOTHING is as it seems. we find reasons but no answers. THINGS ARE. we can make changes but in making those changes you must also being willing to continue the up keep in those changes because forces do not allow for anything to be a constant. does this make any sense? the reason it may not is because we often see things as a beginning and an end result. when we read a book we love a "Once upon a time..." beginning and an end that has a ribbon around it. but that comes from how we learn in the west. things do not have a beginning nor do they have an end....they are all degrees of ChanGinG. and in that you will find answers to moments but you will not find the overall answer.

                              the two points to walk away from the films are as follows:
                              1. the architect needs the oracle to not only survive but to legitamize his role as an individual self. and the oracle needs the arch. for the same. they are not opposites they are complimentary of each other.
                              2. the answer question........at the end of the movie....the big enchillida is............
                              well the best way i can put it is that the world is unreal, which means that if we view life as if we ourselves were the center of it, we cannot develop a knowledge (true knowledge) of the world as it really is. But if we can pierce the clouding veil of Self, we can squarely face true Reality.

                              or may be i just don't know what i'm talkin' 'bout.
                              Torn from my jungle paradise!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                AO, I'd agree that the bit at the very end was quite Eastern, and that was likely the whole point of it. But it seemed to me that we get much more than glimpes of the Judeo-Christian stuff previous to that, and that for me at least seemed to derail the rest because it was so evident. The very end wasn't quite tacked on, but it didn't entirely wrap things up for me, either. (Perhaps that was the point?)

                                Of course, I may not know what I'm talking about either! I'll admit I'm not as up on Eastern philosophy as I could be, and that I may not have caught references and the like that would have made it seem more balanced to me.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X