The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: pmcd9 on July 02, 2005, 06:45:57 am
-
I've just returned from seeing this and it was wonderful. I was a bit suspicious because it's a Speilberg and generally I dislike his movies. Probably the biggest impediment for me to the enjoyment of a movie is when the movie hard sells realism, yet isn't realistic. And generally this is my greatest complaint about a Spielberg movie. There's always too much that defies the logic or the laws of probability or just plain doesn't make sense. If i'm watching a movie and I find myself saying "wait a minute, that wouldn't go down like that" or "that's not the way that works" or "people don't act that way in that situation," well that movie has lost me. And at this Spielberg is one of the worst felons. But not in this case. This is a great movie. It's horifying and terrifying and totally exciting. I was sucked in from the start and spent 2+ hours on the edge of my seat and never once did I find myself not believing what I was seeing. Now I understand the concept of suspended disbelief, but once you accept and buy into the construct, in this case an alien invasion, everything else must be ring true. There are seveal very tense moments that really made the film. I actually felt myself tense up and then breathe a sigh when the crisis had passed. Now, i've gotta admit to being a huge Tom Cruise fan. He hasn't made very many films that I didn't really like a lot. And he's good in this. And there's Dakota Fanning who plays the weeping screaming child, a staple of Spielberg's films, but in this case isn't the most obnoxious character in the movie. You want to scream right along with her. I recommend this film very highly.
I saw the movie with the boy. You remember the boy? I got to give him the history of The War of the Worlds and how Orson Welles scared the entire nation with his radio play back in the '30s. He was totally fascinated by it. When we met up with my folks at the movie house he even told them as if they possibly had never heard about this.
Also, saw previews for a new Cameron Crowe film starring Kirstin Dunst which looks interesting. The new Peter Jackson directed King Kong starring Jack Black. It's gonna be kick ass!!! And last, but not least the new Bad News Bears starring Billy Bob Thorton looks to be funny as hell.
~Paul
-
Sucked.
-
Can't say I think I'm going to bother with this. Particularly after seeing Tom Cruise being INSAHANE the other night on the Daily Show (via Tonight Show). I've really never enjoyed anything that either Cruise or Speilberg have done, bar Magnolia regarding Cruise, but I haven't actually wanted to watch that in a few years.
-
It's interesting. I think Tom Cruise is a deeply flawed human being and the last few weeks he has been insane all over the place, not just on the daily show...but I thought he did a good job in "Minority Report" and I loved "Magnolia". I don't mind Spielberg films and the concept of "War of the Worlds" is one I wouldn't mind seeing.
But I don't want to see this movie...and I think Tom Cruise's amazing stupidity on the Today Show with Matt Lauer, and then attacking Brooke Shields for taking anti-depressants and undergoing pyscotherapy for post-partum depression really makes him less of a man and less of a human being in my book. That and his need to promote the cult that he belongs to is just about enough to overcome his talent and good work for me.
-
But I don't want to see this movie...and I think Tom Cruise's amazing stupidity on the Today Show with Matt Lauer
That's the one I meant. I got it the wrong way round!
It wasn't just the stupid shit he was spouting, it was the egocentric way he was saying it that made it not just offensive but made me decide I definitely dislike the man. I've always been wary (OK, downright against) scientology, but... those into it just seem to get stranger and stranger the longer it goes on.
-
The cool part is you can post all the shit you want about him because he isn't allowed to go on the internet (it's full of alien toxins).
-
That as much fun as making fun of the Amish on TV! Awesome.
-
http://movies.go.com/moviesdynamic/muppets/index
What more could you want?
-
Saw it on Saturday and I have to say: yikes, that is one bad movie. No offense to your tastes, Pmcd9, but I just felt so let down at the end. I won't spoil it for those here who might go see it but jeebus, that was bad.
In terms of action, Independence Day was better. That's all I have to say about that.
-
In terms of action, Independence Day was better. That's all I have to say about that.
This review might be the saddest thing.
-
In terms of action, Independence Day was better. That's all I have to say about that.
This review might be the saddest thing.
I can't agree more, V. editor, if you didn't like the ending, you need to take it up with H.G. Wells.
This was the first movie I've seen in the theater since my daughter was born. I liked it. Very much. Let me put it this way--I have now forgiven Spielberg for A.I.
-
In terms of action, Independence Day was better. That's all I have to say about that.
This review might be the saddest thing.
I can't agree more, V. editor, if you didn't like the ending, you need to take it up with H.G. Wells.
This was the first movie I've seen in the theater since my daughter was born. I liked it. Very much. Let me put it this way--I have now forgiven Spielberg for A.I.
Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I should have made myself clearer. It's not the original ending I have a problem with. I had a problem with the way the ending was handled. I thought it was rushed and poorly done.
As far as the action, it wasn't Spielberg's best work considering his past films. Perhaps comparing Independence Day to War of the Worlds may ruffle some feathers but I'm guessing that has nothing to do with Pmcd's original intent for this thread so, meh.[/i]
-
Thanks Virgie, it's good to know that i'm not the only one who enjoyed that movie.
~Paul
-
I must admit I was embarassingly vulnerable, being a fairly new parent. I was crying during most of the first 1.5 hours of the movie.
I am sad to see so many people unwilling to see this movie merely because Tom Cruise is a barking moonbat. This is why I never follow "entertainment news". I don't want to hear Tom Cruise say one fuck*ng word that wasn't written down in a script, nor without someone directing him how to say it.
-
This is why I never follow "entertainment news". I don't want to hear Tom Cruise say one fuck*ng word that wasn't written down in a script, nor without someone directing him how to say it.
RIGHT
THE FUCK
ON
-
Let me put it this way--I have now forgiven Spielberg for A.I.
Why would you need to forgive someone for making one of their best films?
I mean, shit, forgive him for Howard the Duck, or Saving Private Ryan or something.
Of course, there can be no penance to forgive him of 1941.
-
Let me put it this way--I have now forgiven Spielberg for A.I.
Why would you need to forgive someone for making one of their best films?
Did the world really need another retelling of Pinocchio?
-
Did the world really need another retelling of Pinocchio?
Certainly not after Roberto Benigni's masterful film.
-
Jough, I never mean to antagonize you. I know I come off the wrong way sometimes.
That said, I hereby nominate myself for (and hope I win) the 2005 Chris Connelly Award for Notice-of-the-Most-Ironic-Post-on-TOUAMB for calling you on that one.
Spielberg's films, in order of directorial quality, are as follows:
1. E.T.
2. Jaws
3. Empire of the Sun
4. Duel
5. Schindler's List
6. Raiders of the Lost Ark
...
10. 1941
...
16. Jurassic Park
...
29. The Lost World
...
33. Catch Me If You Can
34. The Terminal
35. A.I.
Of course I'm neither counting his pre-Hollywood pieces nor assuming that War of the Worlds is worse than Catch Me If You Can, which was a surprisingly enjoyable film if you count its terrible direction of two of the most versatile commercial actors in the business (Hanks and DiCaprio). Walken saves the filmi, as usual.
A.I. started as Kubrick's interpretations on some of the most influential sci-fi literature written (most of it by Philip K. Dick, an immensely successful, popular, thought-provoking, and enjoyable author) and ended up one of the most laborious, formulaic pieces of dreck I have ever seen in a movie theater. I've read Kubrick's screenplay and notes, and was dismayed at what was released.
I have yet to see WotW, and I won't until I have a friend from whom I can borrow it on DVD (and whom I will promptly disown for owning it), because I know that Tom Cruise has a share of the gross and I have a very difficult time respecting people whose money goes to Tom Cruise for any reason whatsoever. This is most certainly not a recent development.
-
Spielberg's films, in order of directorial quality, are as follows:
1. E.T.
2. Jaws
3. Empire of the Sun
4. Duel
5. Schindler's List
6. Raiders of the Lost Ark
I love how authoritative your list attempts to be. I'll go ahead and call E.T. "manipulative" but it's certainly in his top 5. I can't really fault the other choices, although you've placed Empire of the Sun much higher than I would have.
...
10. 1941
...
16. Jurassic Park
...
29. The Lost World
...
33. Catch Me If You Can
34. The Terminal
35. A.I.
This is where I have to "call bullshit" or accuse you of smoking crack or something, because there's no way in hell that 1941 is a better film than say, any of the following you've listed.
Out of those, I'd put A.I. just under Jurassic Park, and I'd move the Lost World down to second to last place in Spielberg "oh my god I can't believe he made this" place.
That said, I thought JP3 was pretty damn good (probably due to Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor's script re-writes). Catch Me if You Can was an enjoyable if inconsequensial romp - the book was better.
The Terminal was a nice movie, although I found it mostly annoying.
1941 is a situation where I honestly which I could unwatch it, and maybe take a lazy walk in the park for those nearly three hours instead. It's not funny enough to be throw-away entertainment, it's not serious enough to be a good story - it's just... THUD. God, it's one of the worst films ever made. Don't even try to pass it off as being better than Jurassic fuck*ng Park, which even if some of the plot twists were straight out of a Robert McKee seminar, was revolutionary in terms of special effects and CGI and is a seminal film in the history of cinema.
1941 is just... eyech.
A.I. was disappointing in terms of Kubrick - and that "Oh look, let's throw in some aliens" ending was weak, but overall the film was an exemplary Pinnochio story, where an android dreampt of electronic sheep and we were treated to some wonderous sights.
Having now seen WotW, I'd place it somewhere in the mid-range of SS's films - it's a lot more episodic than I would have thought, with a few GREAT scenes loosely tied together with a lot of running and screaming.
There's a scene involving an airplane in this film that is just about as close as you can get to perfect filmmaking. Then there's the rest of it that we forget about the moment we exit the theatre. But there are a few really good moments, and that one GREAT one is one more GREAT moment than most films offer.
-
Man. I fuck*ng H. A. T. E. goddam ET. The single most manipulative, sodden, weepy, maudlin, predictible movie Evar!
I like Duel because Dennis Weaver's in it. You gotta like Dennis Weaver.
I also liked Catch Me If You Can pretty well. However, I may be remembering it overly fondly because I just listened to the original book. As might be expected, SS overly romanticized Frank Abegnale's life story. I mean, the guy lead an exciting, romantic life, but looking at him objectively he was clearly an amoral prick whose actions were pretty much sociopathic.
-
I debated myself several times on the placement of Empire of the Sun - but after each debate, it moved higher. It started at 12. The saga nature, the travails of Jim, the feeling of entrapment pervasive throughout the film- up until the end, when he's freed0 each garnered a raise in position. Malkovich's and Pantoliano''s performances also helped: each perhaps the best of their respective careers. Review them, and let me know where you disagree.
1941 is not that great a comedy, but is Jurassic Park as good a film as 1941? I argue no: it's no Stripes, but the casting, the Ramis script, and the performances by Aykroyd, Belushi, Matheson, and company rival Vacation, Ghostbusters, and Animal House for prize among Comedy Films of Early SNL Alumni- who, let's face it, were the best American comedy had to offer for a long time. Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum, much less Sam Neill (any film's death knell), were acceptably cast, but poorly-performing in their roles. Okay, he had Attenborough, but that master actor was also a master performance phoner. I fell asleep during my initiial attempt at The Lost World. That right there fails a movie for me, but a second try let me know how perfect a Sunday-afternoon cable film it is: simple, bald, and full of patter. Julianne Moore, Goldblum, Postlethwaite, Attenborough, and Vince Vaughn have all done much better work.
Just to let you know, I fall asleep every time I watch The Usual Suspects. I didn't the first time- oh, NO. The first time I was enthralled, each following time I've remembered it so clearly that the watching of it was simply unnecessary.
About A.I.: Spielberg, "Goodwill Ambassador to the World for Aliens," was the worst possible choice in all of the directorial atmosphere to take over Kubrick's final piece. The script should have been given to Charlie Kaufman and handed off to Coppola at best or Chris Nolan at least, and Clarke and Lucas never, in an attempt to honor K's original goals. What began as a Kubrick symphony ended up a Spielberg Chillun's Skool kwire performance.
Let's play director. You're A.D. on A.I. when Kubrick kicks it. You've been there when he's taken half his notes, and read those he's taken without me. You've been to a third of the interviews, and read the notes on those you've either missed or not been invited to. You know film - maybe not the same desolation, isolation, fantasies, fears, or detachment as Kubrick, but you know he trusted you, or he wouldn't have hired you. How do you tell the producers to go for? A hot master of isolation like Kaufmann, and a young director big on detachment like Nolan? How about a big feel-good director like Spielberg? His name's in the notes! He did a whole interview! Yeah, that'll sell tickets... and let's find a way to cast Robin Williams as a voice, and... what actors are popular right now? Jude Law? He'd be GREAT!
As a retelling of Pinocchio, which it was not originally meant to be, A.I. was acceptable. As an interpretation of Brian Aldriss and PK Dick, it ...blew. As a Kubrick vision, it bastardized. Overall, as a film? D-
-
For the record, Jude Law was not at all a big star when A.I. came out - up until that time he was most famous for being beaten to death with an oar.
I think A.I. is one of the most underappreciated masterpieces of the past decade - right up there with Eyes Wide Shut and Magnolia (well, maybe not RIGHT up there with them - but like them it's over-criticised and under-appreciated).
Also, while I'm spouting unpopular filmic opinions, The Limey is Soderberg's best work (with his Solaris being a close second - it's every bit the equal of the original, but in a different way).
And Truffaut's later works, while nowhere near the excellence of his early work, are still a far sight better than anything French cinema has thrown out to the world since 1982.
-
HEY.
Steven Spielberg didn't have anything to do with Howard the Duck, that was George Lucas.
-
Also, while I'm spouting unpopular filmic opinions, The Limey is Soderberg's best work (with his Solaris being a close second - it's every bit the equal of the original, but in a different way).
I thought Solaris was good, but the ending ruined it for me. It would have been great were it not for the 'did you not get it?' last five minutes.
As for ET being top of Spielberg's list. Ouch.
I've never been that big a Spielberg fan though, but I couldn't really say why. I am going to have to get round to seeing AI since it seems to be so controversial in respects of how good it is. My parents disagreed about it too.
-
Technically we should blame director Willard Huyck for Howard the Duck, but Lucas always seems to get the blame since he was executive producer.
From what I've heard, Spielberg was going to direct it but then got busy doing other things. Maybe it wouldn't have been the abortion it is had he directed.
-
Also, while I'm spouting unpopular filmic opinions, The Limey is Soderberg's best work (with his Solaris being a close second - it's every bit the equal of the original, but in a different way).
Right effing on about The Limey. When I was a video store whore I had that on my recommended shelf for a very long time after it came out. I was all over the writing in that and the way the storyline built though. Really well acted too. It also induced a minor fit of finding more Terence Stamp movies beyond Superman II.
-
TELL HIM I'M COMING! TELL HIM I'M fuck*ng COMING!
-
Dunno, I like Schizopolis the best.
-
I finally got around to seeing the movie. I have to agree with everyone, the ending was pretty bad.
BUT. I was very engaged throughout the whole film. The tripods were amazing, just from sheer scale alone. That foghorn noise they made became pretty scary by the end of the movie. And all the 9/11 imagery really helped the sense of dread along.
I think the coolest part was the unseen battle happening just over the hill. It takes a lot of class as a director to withhold showing what would have been a long series of money shots in any other big budget effects film. But not seeing the battle really ratcheted up the tension of the scene.
It wasn't perfect, but it was one of the better summer movies I've seen by far.
-
Just so you know that i'm not a Tom Cruise sychophant I want to inform you that I watched Minority Report last night and it was terrible. Laughably bad.
~Paul
-
Just so you know that i'm not a Tom Cruise sychophant I want to inform you that I watched Minority Report last night and it was terrible. Laughably bad.
~Paul
Really? I recall quite liking it, and I'm usually pretty picky about movies. It's probably the Philip K. Dick quotient.
-
But you liked the laughably
bad recycled War of the Worlds?
Minority Report is one of Spielberg's (and Cruise's) best films. Think about what you're saying.
-
Yeah, Minority Report sucked. So we are supposed to believe that Tom Cruise character can jump off of a car speeding down [literally] the highway into the window of a highrise apartment and come out unscathed? So these precogs have been floating in this sensory deprivation chamber for 6 years and yet they look like models. And... And the one, Agatha, can still walk. That's pretty amazing. I would think she would need months of physical therapy before she took her first step. Ok sure she can predict the future and all, but still it's way too convenient that everything falls perfectly into place for them when they were evading the precops [a giant bouquet of ballons, the umbrella]. Also, the other time Cruise is evading the cops is just totally ridiculous. It was worse than a Stallone film. So they gas up the cars before they even leave the assembly line? Nonesense! And in 2055 the Lexus is really ugly. Ok that's just some of the nitpicky stuff, lets talk about the basic plot itself. So there are these minority reports. Why does that flaw kill the pre-cop program? I can understand that the corruption and cover up would, but why not just throw out any judgement where a minority report occurs? Otherwise the system worked, right? Why the need to hide it? And why was Cruise set up? What was there to gain? He was on board with the program, it was set to go national and nothing was standing in the way. What did I miss? Was it because he was a dope fiend? Couldn't they simply have fired him for that?
It wasn't entirely bad though. There were some suspenseful parts. I felt empathy for the precogs. How did they get away with basically enslaving them? That wasn't really covered.
~Paul
-
What, like "War of the Worlds" was any better about that? Do you mean to say that it made more sense when the aliens used their CGI ray on every single person that Tom Cruised passed by on the way back to his house, while inexplicably avoiding Cruise himself? Or that he couldn't take the time to explain to his friend WHY he was stealing his car, but instead had 30 seconds to aimlessly argue with him over it? Or that Cruise didn't feel the need to overpower his son when he insisted upon following the aliens over the hill? etc
-
Yes on all counts. In MR he was the only one being targeted and they kept missing, in WOTW everyone was being targeted and he was one of the lucky ones. About arguing with his mechanic friend. I've been in that situation where time is critical and you don't feel you have the time for an explanation, you want to be taken at face value, yet you do get pressed for an explanation and it ratchets up the anxiety because there is a panic situation going on. This has happened to me, exactly. Not with aliens chasing me, but almost. He let his son go because his daughter was being carried away by the helpful people, he had to save her. And he had been fighting his son the entire movie and he was worn out. It struck me as being very real that.
~Paul
-
This has happened to me, exactly. Not with aliens chasing me,
Well, Thank God for that!
-
Minority Report is one of Spielberg's (and Cruise's) best films. Think about what you're saying.
Yeah I guess i'm out of phase. You and I have pretty similar tastes in movies. I remember looking at your wishlist and thinking it could be my wishlist. So I consulted Roger Ebert who I almost always agree with and he didn't like War of the Worlds very much and he loved, LOVED Minority Report. Some of the things he liked were scenes that really turned me off. He did point out a few things I did like about the movie, but still I must be way off. Hell that Wedding Crashers movie looked pretty good to me. I didn't say anything because y'all all dismissed it. What is wrong with me? Is this is a cry for help?
~Paul
-
I still believe Spielberg is one of our great cinema directors, regardless of whether one project fires on all cylanders or not.
Also, I think Wedding Crashers looks like it will be very funny. I wasn't such a big fan of Anchorman or Dodgeball (or heck, even Old School) and generally I think Vince Vaughn would be improved by being beaten with a lead pipe (I think he didn't get that Swingers was MOCKING his character and he seemed to really internalise that kind of pseudo hipsterism - but he does play a good jackass, I'll give him that).
What was I saying? Oh yeah, I predict I'll find Wedding Crashers really fun and enjoyable.
I also really really enjoyed Vin Diesel in "The Pacifier." I thought it was a cute little movie and was not deserving of the critical thrashing it received.
-
This is how Ebert starts his review of "Wedding Crashers":
"Wedding Crashers" is all runway and no takeoff. It assembles the elements for a laugh-out-loud comedy, but it can't make them fly. There are individual moments that are very funny. But it takes a merciless focus to make a good comedy, and the director, David Dobkin, has too much else on his mind.
Now, in general I enjoy reading Ebert's reviews because he's a good writer and he has a lot of good things to say about film, even (or perhaps especially) those he dislikes. But in general I won't take his or anyone's word as gospel. I mean, Fantastic Four looked like it was going to be crappy from the trailers, and the critics just showed me that I was correct in my original assessment.
And granted, nothing really made me laugh in the Wedding Crashers trailer, which is unfortunate because they usually put the funniest things in the trailers, but still... there was something there... that made the movie seem like it may be enjoyable.
So I'm going to see it anyway. I'm sure as hossSHIT not going to give money to see a remake of a classic that didn't need to be remade (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory).
-
My gut instict with "Wedding Crashers" is that they have a moderately funny concept but that that concept can't really support an entire film. I mean, what do you do with it? A series of skits? The trailer makes it look like most of it is just about the one wedding, and that seems like a recipe for not-terribly-interestingness.
I'm also glad I'm not the only one totally apathetic about "Chocolate Factory." The only draw appears to be Johnny Depp, an actor I find mildly amusing but not worth the hysteria. Is there any pressing reason for this movie to exist besides "profit?"
-
When are they gonna get around to remaking The Wizard of Oz?
~Paul
-
My gut instict with "Wedding Crashers" is that they have a moderately funny concept but that that concept can't really support an entire film. I mean, what do you do with it? A series of skits? The trailer makes it look like most of it is just about the one wedding, and that seems like a recipe for not-terribly-interestingness.
I'm also glad I'm not the only one totally apathetic about "Chocolate Factory." The only draw appears to be Johnny Depp, an actor I find mildly amusing but not worth the hysteria. Is there any pressing reason for this movie to exist besides "profit?"
Gene Wilder made a public statement to that effect as well - that the remake was made for profit purposes only. Johnny Depp responded to the statement asking Wilder if the original wasn't made for the intention of making money. It's a good point: Why else would a studio make a huge, expensive movie? Artistic Vision is a good thing but you will never get people to invest 100 million dollars in it unless they think it will make tons of money. Period. I'm sure some of the most artistic and awesome visions presented to Hollywood die because the accountants think they won't profit.
Did anyone here see What Dreams May Come? That could be the poster movie for taking a chance on an artistic vision. I don't think it did very well but it was damned pretty.
-
When are they gonna get around to remaking The Wizard of Oz?
~Paul
They did. Michael Jackson, Diana Ross and Nipsy Russell were in it. Richard Pryor too.
-
I've read a couple places that Wilder retracted his statement. Here's one.
The Sunday Punch[/url]"]Gene Wilder, Hollywood funnyman and star of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, has retracted his statements where he said that Tim Burton's remake was nothing more than a "pointless" financial decision. His previous criticisms of Johnny Depp in the role he made famous were now sung to this tune:
If I were going to cast the movie, I would cast Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka because I think he is wonderful. Mysterious - always - and magical.
-
ugh. i enjoyed Die Hard, a lot. i also enjoyed Farewell My Concubine.
I think they need to make a movie that is a sequel to BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.
even a Dolph Lundgren vehicle has a good purpose, which is to allow nice UPN affiliates not to have to run Doggstown anytime they want to show a "movie". (i had never heard of Doggstown until i only had ABC and UPN on antenna. I have seen it 5 times now.)
Sometimes when i hear that "They"/"Hollywood" are remaking a movie that they have already made, i think "dear goodness, they are going to ruin it in remaking it!" and then sometimes i think "good! that means they won't make any new crap!" and _sometimes_ i think both at the very same time!
-
I loved Charolettes Web, but those Stewart Little movies were only mildly amusing.
~Paul
-
If we've moved on to random movies, I would just like to point out that I got offered a free pass to an advanced screening of The Brothers Grimm (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0355295/) yesterday, but it was at 4:00 downtown and I couldn't get out of work. If I had even had one day's notice I would have made sure I could go.
Still, we're getting not just one, but two (http://www.tidelandthemovie.com/) new Terry Gilliam movies this year. That alone makes this a good year for movies.
-
Stuart Little played very well in the target demographic. Which is really what counts, you know? I mean, Sharkboy and LavaGirl defied all attempts to describe magnitude of Sucking but the kids liked it.
It's the same thing with candy. I would not have imagined that there would ever be a candy nose with gummy snot in it. Or that kids would eat it. Yet they dig their little fingers in and dig 'em out and eat them. I wouldn't. I couldn't.
I can no longer eat spaghettios. Too much sugar in them - so sweet - yuck.
All this stuff sells where it is intended to and I guess that's more-or-less what Hollywood is up to most of the time.
-
If we've moved on to random movies, I would just like to point out that I got offered a free pass to an advanced screening of The Brothers Grimm (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0355295/) yesterday, but it was at 4:00 downtown and I couldn't get out of work. If I had even had one day's notice I would have made sure I could go.
Still, we're getting not just one, but two (http://www.tidelandthemovie.com/) new Terry Gilliam movies this year. That alone makes this a good year for movies.
Did you see the documentary about Gilliam's failed attempt to film "Don Quixote" called "Lost in La Mancha"?
-
Stuart Little played very well in the target demographic. Which is really what counts, you know? I mean, Sharkboy and LavaGirl defied all attempts to describe magnitude of Sucking but the kids liked it.
I wonder if Shark Boy (http://www.sharkboy.net/)'s lawsuit against that movie will pan out.
-
Lost in La Mancha was better than any Quixote movie could ever be.
And Gilliam's made some clunkers - The Brothers Grimm looks good, but the other one... I don't know.
-
he couldn't take the time to explain to his friend WHY he was stealing his car, but instead had 30 seconds to aimlessly argue with him over it?
Yes, that's exactly right. Thank you Teodor (http://orezscu.blogspot.com/2005/08/why-was-i-chased.html) for backing me up on this. If Tom Cruise's mechanic friend had been more like Beef he might have survived the alien attack.
~Paul