Movies pt. 3

Post reviews, ask for recommendations, make a list. Brows of all levels welcome.

I didn't say he wasn't "the" villain. He isn't, but that's not the point. I said I don't think he's "a" villain. I don't think movies--other than action films--require a villain.

10095. rubberducky - 6/21/2000 2:40:10 PM

maybe that was the problem

this movie needed something. maybe a villain woulda been it - but i doubt it. don't know what coulda saved this clunker at any rate.

10096. OhioSTOPAS - 6/21/2000 2:42:24 PM

Cal: Did you say recently that Spawn wanted to see "Modern Times"? It's on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) tonight, 10:30 Eastern, I guess 7:30 Pacific.

Leelee Sobieski is a beauty. As others have pointed out, she looks a lot like Helen Hunt, which is a good thing.

10097. CalGal - 6/21/2000 2:43:28 PM

Ohio,

Wow! Thanks so much for the heads up! I'm calling Spawn right now to tell him so we won't forget.

10098. theDiva - 6/21/2000 2:46:36 PM

ooh, set that VCR. It's a keeper.

10099. theDiva - 6/21/2000 2:47:42 PM

I wish I'd been here for the discussion of AMPAS' eligibility requirements. Interesting perspectives here on this topic.

10100. CalGal - 6/21/2000 2:49:20 PM

We can carry on with it, you know.

(hint, hint)

10101. theDiva - 6/21/2000 2:50:49 PM

I kind of hate to do that because I don't want to sound as though I'm pontificating.

10102. CalGal - 6/21/2000 2:53:28 PM

My lord, if we didn't have pontificators the forums would die.

Seriously, I'd love to know what you think, and since you know more about internal politics in "the business", you have a lot to share.

10103. theDiva - 6/21/2000 3:20:09 PM

Well, let me chew on it for a bit. I think AMPAS is correct in its decision. After all, the MP stands for not just the venue of exhibition but the physical medium itself. Movies on video or DVD are no longer actual moving pictures, they're moving pixels.

And you could probably only prove protectionism if there was some link established between AMPAS and the exhibitors. Seeing as how AMPAS is made up of distributors, it's unlikely.

The rule has been, as long as I've known, that a single commercial showing in a motion picture theatre is sufficient for a picture to qualify for a nomination (aesthetics being another matter). That's why you'll frequently see the 'artier' pictures debut in a large East Side theatre during Christmas week.

And unless the majors think it would be to their advantage to fight the decision, it's unlikely they will. There's a significant amount of revenue realized from theatrical exhibition (I just won today's award for stating the flamingly obvious). It's much more difficult to pirate a film when it's shown in a theatre; and I think Napster has shown us that it's relatively easy to copy stuff off the web. So the majors would be protecting their own interests if they resisted exhibition on the Web.

OTOH, if they're debuting a picture on the Web, it's likely they believe it has no chance for the money-making nominations/awards. I mean, how many people, other than film geeks and maybe not even them, go see a movie because it won an Oscar for sound editing?

Anyway. Random thoughts.

10104. theDiva - 6/21/2000 3:27:06 PM

or in the case of video, they're actually moving electronic signals. I think. Only took one video production course.

10105. CalGal - 6/21/2000 3:29:37 PM

So the majors would be protecting their own interests if they resisted exhibition on the Web.

Yes, that's the main thing I see as making any such conspiracy unlikely.

The people most likely to benefit from Web distribution would be those making short films and charging for access--but I can't see why the requirement to put it on the big screen first would be that onerous.


Movies on video or DVD are no longer actual moving pictures, they're moving pixels.

But doesn't that mean that the new projection method, or whatever, would not be a moving picture? I forget what it is called right now. Ebert writes on it quite a bit, though.

10106. theDiva - 6/21/2000 3:36:58 PM

Yeah, I'd thought about that, too. But I don't think it's going to be an issue just yet. The technology is in its infancy in terms of implementation by the industry. I was concerned about disintegration of quality, but Rich tells me that the look is incredible and you can't tell the difference one bit.

WRT applying the rules to shorts and documentaries - I suppose they need a certain amount of consistency for parliamentary and appearance's sake. Let's face it - the awards are all about marketing and ego stroking. Noone in the bidness has any such illusions that they're primarily for artistic achievement. But there are hordes of people who think Oscar automatically means quality (she snorted, thinking of Titanic, Out of Africa....) And those hordes translate into bucks.

The point being, that this is a financially driven decision at bottom, IMO. Pixels vs. film is a secondary (if that) consideration.

10107. CalGal - 6/21/2000 3:41:43 PM

I like Out of Africa. (she sniffs). Although it wasn't the best film. Excellent chick film, though.

In saying it's financially-driven--you mean by the filmmakers and distributors themselves, yes?

10108. theDiva - 6/21/2000 3:43:32 PM

By the major distributors, certainly, and indirectly, by producers. IOW, the players.

And I left The English Patient off that list. If I ever see that film laying around, I'm going to kick the cans.

10109. theDiva - 6/21/2000 3:44:24 PM

I wish to God Richie would just sign up here already so we could get his perspective on this stuff.

10110. rubberducky - 6/21/2000 3:48:57 PM

Re: Message # 10103, theDiva.

"Movies on video or DVD are no longer actual moving pictures, they're moving pixels."

well, i don't understand. the celluloid is one frame after another. the "pictures" aren't moving at all -same as if i make a series of drawings on a note pad and flip thru the pages quickly ... so, i don't see how it is germane. it is the Celluloid Association...

I think you answered "And you could probably only prove protectionism if there was some link established between AMPAS and the exhibitors. Seeing as how AMPAS is made up of distributors, it's unlikely."

with

"And unless the majors think it would be to their advantage to fight the decision, it's unlikely they will. There's a significant amount of revenue realized from theatrical exhibition."

couldn't it be argued that the thing they are protecting is, in fact, this "significant" amount of revenue?

"OTOH, if they're debuting a picture on the Web, it's likely they believe it has no chance for the money-making nominations/awards."

i'd agree, but i'd like to see short films given the same appreciation that "feature" length films are given. this won't happen if movies have to be shown in the theaters for an oscar ...

10111. theDiva - 6/21/2000 3:53:19 PM

Ducks

Correct, they're not actually moving but giving the illusion of movement. But they are pictures. Remember Muybridge (sp?).

And they're protecting their own revenue, absolutely. But isn't protectionism when one sector of the market attempts to protect its customers from competition? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what that means.

And unless shorts start to become a significant money maker for the majors, they won't be given this kind of consideration by AMPAS.

Trust me on this one, these people are driven by the buck. Utterly.

10112. iiibbb - 6/21/2000 3:56:31 PM

Movies I've seen recently:

Gladiator ***1/2 --pretty good movie... not quite as good as Sparticus, but not bad.

The Messenger ** --too long

Corndog Man *1/2 -- just plain wierd

Fight Club *** -- violent, but the plot will keep you guessing.

Three Kings **1/2 -- violent, kinda a Kelly's Heros meets Pulp Fiction

Office Space *** -- Just plain funny, and excellent parody of life in cubicles.

Run Lola Run *** -- German w/subtitles... a decent plot although there is an awful lot of running in the movie that gets a bit tiresome. Soundtrack is good if you like techno.

Jackie Chan's new western (can't remember the title) **1/2 wait for the video... it isn't bad, lighthearted with a few chuckles.

10113. theDiva - 6/21/2000 3:57:35 PM

Corn Dog Man?

And you were surprised that it was weird?

10114. iiibbb - 6/21/2000 4:00:06 PM

I was forced to watch corndog man...


oh yes... I forgot about a cool Japanese Animae I saw recently


Ghost in the Shell ***1/2 One of the better ones I've ever seen if you like Animae.

10115. theDiva - 6/21/2000 4:01:59 PM

Ducks, Cal

I want to continue this conversation but I've got to run. Mebbe later this evening.

10116. CalGal - 6/21/2000 5:44:53 PM

3i3b,

Did you see my review of Shanghai West? I liked it too.

10117. iiibbb - 6/21/2000 5:53:33 PM

That was it CalGal... I didn't see your review, but yes it was pretty good. I use the 4* system with anything with **1/2 or better generally being worth the money to see.

Next on my list of movies I may take the time to see in the near future are...

Titan A/E -- I heard it's decent
X-men --Effects look good, probably one of my favorite comics ever.
Shaft -- A certain appeal... bu we'll see... 7$ is a lot for a movie.

10118. CalGal - 6/21/2000 5:56:45 PM

3i3b,

See Message # 10019 for my comments on Shanghai, and Message # 9994 for comments on Titan AE.

I pay $9 for a movie.

10119. iiibbb - 6/21/2000 6:11:24 PM

modestly useful site

http://upcomingmovies.com/

10120. dusty - 6/21/2000 7:14:51 PM

Diva

Thanks for weighing in.

Maybe I'm missing something. Judith was making the point that the theatrical experience is preferable to other options, and you are pointing out that there is a lot of revenue associated with theatre viewings.

These sound like arguments for requiring a viewing in a theatre.

I don't disagree.

What I fail to understand is the rationale that the first viewing must be in a theatre. (Or, I should say, fail to understand other than the obvious, protect the revenue of the theatres argument.)

10121. theDiva - 6/21/2000 10:24:09 PM

Ducks

You know, they actually are pictures that move...as the film passes through the projector, it's moving. These are the things that pass through my fevered brain as I drive home.

Dusty

Well, if the picture debuts anywhere but in a theatre, there's the possibility, as I mentioned, of it being easier to pirate the film and drain revenue.

As to your second point - believe me when I tell you that the relationship between distributors and exhibitors is one of friendly enemies. First and foremost, the distributors protect their own interests. If they could figure out a way to negotiate film settlements that didn't give the exhibs a dime, they'd do it. Instead, they do what's called a 90/10 split. The nut of the theatre is covered from the week's grosses; the remainder is then split distrib/exhib 90-10. Once the picture leaves its first run, or if the first run is long, after an initial, pre-negotiated period, the settlements go by percentage that the distrib negotiates based on how good the grosses are.

All of which is a way of saying that it's unlikely AMPAS would try to protect the exhibitor's revenue.

10122. theDiva - 6/21/2000 10:24:58 PM

or rather, unlikely that AMPAS' ruling is driven by the desire to protect the exhibitor. AFAIK, exhibs don't belong to AMPAS.

10123. CalGal - 6/21/2000 10:31:38 PM

Diva,

Exhibitors make much of their money from concessions, I've heard?

I agree that letting a movie debut anywhere else would slowly start to drain away from revenue.

Jack Valenti (yes, everyone hiss) wrote an editorial in the Times today reminding everyone that the problems hitting the music industry are just a few bandwidth expansions away.

10124. AceofSpades - 6/21/2000 10:35:16 PM

"What I fail to understand is the rationale that the first viewing must be in a theatre."

If the rule were not so, made-for-tv and made-for-cable movies would be eligible for Oscars.

Real Hollywood movies are, by definition, released *theatrically*, not over TV, and not over the Internet.

10125. theDiva - 6/21/2000 10:39:59 PM

Cal

Good God, yes. When I worked at RKO, I shared an office with the woman whose boss ran the concessions division. They never, ever lost money. They'd charge a buck for a soda that cost them, including labor, a quarter to sell. Our section was continually moaning about declining revenue, but never concessions.

And I'm not surprised that Valenti said that. When the industry finally moves to the all-digital format, eliminating a huge section of the subsidiary industries, the potential for bootlegging will increase tremendously. Right now it's pretty hard to conceal a movie - two enormous cans, sixty pounds each? But slip a disc in your pocket? No problem. IAC, it's going to effect a profound change in the way the industry runs things day to day.

10126. theDiva - 6/21/2000 10:40:45 PM

Ace

Geez. You're right. How'd I miss that?

10127. theDiva - 6/21/2000 10:43:02 PM

off topic.

well, fuck. The Yanks lost.

/off topic.

10128. theDiva - 6/21/2000 10:47:58 PM

youse pay $7-9 for a movie? Lord, I'm glad I live in the burbs. $5.75, $3 before 6 pm. And yer feet don't even stick to the floor. But there's a Hoyt's up at the other end of the county that charges $8. They have reclining seats. And hot towels dispensed by geishas, I presume.

10129. EricCartman - 6/21/2000 10:59:17 PM

If the rule were not so, made-for-tv and made-for-cable movies would be eligible for Oscars.

So? Cable movies rise to Hollywood standards, with increasing frequency. No doubt though, if they were allowed to compete against studio films in the big awards shows, that would interfere with the ego stroking and all.

And who knows, maybe if TV networks could compete in that arena, they might try more often to rise above the schlocky disease-of-the-week fare they usually truck in.

I dunno, I understand the rationale at work there, it just seems that they're getting awful precious for no particularly good reason.

10130. AceofSpades - 6/21/2000 11:08:51 PM

"So? Cable movies rise to Hollywood standards, with increasing frequency."


Like? When? Exactly?

Cable and TV movies look *nothing* like Hollywood movies. They may have good scripts (though, usually, they suck much worse than theatrical releases) but the production values, the cheap-ass film, the one or two take takes, etc., are immediately apparent.

"No doubt though, if they were allowed to compete against studio films in the big awards shows, that would interfere with the ego stroking and all. "

Silliness. This is like getting all hot and bothered that a Dog Show won't allow cats. The Oscars are, and always have been, for theatrical releases.

And theatrical releases only.

Shall we allow live plays next, perhaps? How about TV series?

This is ludicrous. Now extreme "democracy" demands that a private club can't even set its own rules and terms of membership.

THere are awards for TV. They're called the Emmys. And for Cable. They're called the Ace awards (or used to be-- maybe they're defunct). One day we will have Internet awards.

My first nominee? Kayla Keevage Anal.

"And who knows, maybe if TV networks could compete in that arena, they might try more often to rise above the schlocky disease-of-the-week fare they usually truck in."

Yeah, right.

TV specializes in those kinds of movies because women like them. The Lifetime channel shows them 24/7. My girlfriend loves them.

10131. AceofSpades - 6/21/2000 11:09:00 PM

"I dunno, I understand the rationale at work there, it just seems that they're getting awful precious for no particularly good reason."

They're not "getting" precious. This has been the rule for seventy years. Movies which won't make a dime in general release are often released in two or three theaters for one weekend just to qualify for the Oscars.

Internet "movies" are eligible for the Oscars if they are shown just once or twice in a real-life physical theater. Not much of a hardship.

10132. AceofSpades - 6/21/2000 11:17:28 PM

Incidentally, fuck internet movies.

Theatrical (Oscar-eligible) movies have a prestige that no other form of mass entertainment approaches. Compare viewership & general interest & pomp of the Oscars versus the Emmys.

Get it?

The Oscars have created and maintained a great deal of prestige and interest in their little butt-fuck show. I don't dig the Oscars, but they are *sucessful.*

Now--

Please explain why they should change their rules, and jeopardize that prestige, excitement, and interest.

And explain why they should let Internet movies free-ride on what they have created and maintained for seventy years.

The AFL couldn't join the NFL right away. Nope. The AFL had to prove it was somewhere on the same level as the NFL before a merger could happen.

If TV and Internet releases gain the prestige of the 1966 AFL, they will one day be invited into the Big Game.

Until then, the pipsqueaks will just have to play in their own bush league.

10133. CalGal - 6/21/2000 11:18:56 PM

Diva,

Ha. I thought the same thing when I read Ace's post. Couldn't believe I forgot about that.

And it's 9.50 at the Metreon in the City, but 8.75 minimum elsewhere. Spawn is proud of his "adult" status, but I keep on telling him to get his damn student id and give his mother a break.

10134. EricCartman - 6/21/2000 11:45:39 PM

This is like getting all hot and bothered that a Dog Show won't allow cats. The Oscars are, and always have been, for theatrical releases.

Oh hell, I'm not "hot and bothered" in the least. Really. You want to see irritated, let's talk about the Grammys. But the Oscars, feh. I can take 'em or leave 'em; the only year I bothered to watch more than an hour of any particular show was the disaster Letterman hosted. Other than that, it's your basic garden-variety circle-jerk -- I watch for the main categories and that's about it.


Shall we allow live plays next, perhaps? How about TV series? This is ludicrous. Now extreme "democracy" demands that a private club can't even set its own rules and terms of membership.

No. Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounded like the Academy was taking a stand that a movie couldn't be eligible if it appeared on the Internet, even if it later went into a conventional theatrical release. That is the quintessence of getting precious -- insisting on the traditional protocol of pomp and extraneous splendiference (to borrow a Don King-ism), regardless of the actual content.


There are awards....for Cable. They're called the Ace awards (or used to be-- maybe they're defunct).

Yeah, I remember those --Letterman used to pass them out to members of his studio audience. It was a grey spade on a plaque. Loads o' prestige there. Say....Cable Ace Awards, Ace of Spades....naw, couldn't be. Could it?


My first nominee? Kayla Kleevage Anal.

Heh. The Jenny McCarthy gang-bang video is pretty bueno too.

10135. EricCartman - 6/21/2000 11:46:00 PM

The Oscars have created and maintained a great deal of prestige and interest in their little butt-fuck show. I don't dig the Oscars, but they are *successful.*

True. I'm just wondering at the motivation for pre-emptively disqualifying anyone just for taking advantage of available technology. Is it really to preserve the splendiferous fabulousness of the whole grand wazoo, or is it to protect bloated studio budgets, once the little people can produce their own turd for one-millionth of what it costs Paramount or whoever?


Please explain why they should change their rules, and jeopardize that prestige, excitement, and interest.

Hell, I don't really care if they do or not.

And explain why they should let Internet movies free-ride on what they have created and maintained for seventy years.

It's entirely in the studios' self-interest to disallow that sort of participation, just as it would make no sense for the Granny Awards to suddenly start handing out trophies to indie musicians. Since the whole point is to pad the majors' bankrolls by reminding fans just how wonderful they are, why throw a bone to the Joe Blows of the world?

The AFL couldn't join the NFL right away. Nope. The AFL had to prove it was somewhere on the same level as the NFL before a merger could happen....If TV and Internet releases gain the prestige of the 1966 AFL, they will one day be invited into the Big Game.

Well, I have faith in you anyway, buddy. I say that you, with a cheap digital camera, a blow-up doll, and a dream, could revolutionize things, and become the Internet Al Davis to broker that sort of AFL/NFL merger.

10136. AceofSpades - 6/21/2000 11:50:19 PM

Cartman,

Well, I don't care about the issue, either, and I'm rather surprised people even discuss it.

But the Oscars have been theatrical-release-first-only for seventy years. They did not change the rules for television, and that was a much more transforming new technology than this little electronic coffee klatch called the Internet.

So--

Fuck the fucking internet. Fuck it right in the fucking ear.

Internet movies will suck, anyway.

And if someone makes an Oscar-worthy Internet movie--

Well they'll just have to go through the *MAJOR* hassel of releasing it in one theater in New York, and one theater in LA, for one weekend before distributing it on-line.

Call me underwhelmed by the colossal cock-block the Oscars are imposing.

10137. AceofSpades - 6/21/2000 11:53:28 PM

Now for something much more important...






OH, YEAHHHHHHHHH, BABY!!!!

10138. EricCartman - 6/22/2000 12:06:04 AM

Is that the new edition DMG? Are they still going by the revised pussy rules, where you can't have evil characters and there's no assassin class?

I tell ya, I'm still irritated at the nervous nellies who pressured TSR back in the day -- the one book I was never able to get was the original Deities & Demigods, with the Cthulhu Mythos in it. I've heard that version will fetch a couple of bills nowadays.

10139. AceofSpades - 6/22/2000 12:10:41 AM

YEAH, NEW ADDITION, BABY!!! WHOO-HOOO!!! ASSASSINS ARE BACK!!! DEVILS ARE BACK!!! MY TWELTH LEVEL BARBARIAN ARCHER WILL DEFEAT THE ARCHLICH VECNA AT LAST!!! YEEE-HAWWWWW!!!

Ummmmm...

Uh...

Cal, can you delete all this?

10140. CalGal - 6/22/2000 1:12:51 AM

No. Your geek-jism shall stain this thread for all eternity.

10141. CalGal - 6/22/2000 1:16:58 AM

Ohio, Spawn and I just had a ball watching Modern Times. Thank you so much for cluing me in.

10142. CalGal - 6/22/2000 1:40:41 AM

Livia's Legacy: How Will It Impact "Sopranos" Future?.

10143. Fraaankster - 6/22/2000 1:47:01 AM

(sigh) I keep dreaming that one day I'll come in here to find someone posted that Sportsnight was given a new life in some fledging network.
I didn't get to see it that often, but what I saw, I really did enjoy. Great characters, along with some "insight" into the fast pace world of producing a nightly sports show.

( I think I overdid the boiling on the angelhair tonight -- way too bland for my tastes )

10144. Fraaankster - 6/22/2000 1:48:57 AM

I don't receive HBO. I wish I did to see what all this hype about The Sopranos is all about ?

10145. CalGal - 6/22/2000 2:01:59 AM

You barely threaten angel-hair, although Diva would be better at providing advice.

SportsNight was great the first year; I didn't care for the second season.

Anyone see L&O tonight? It was a rerun, but then I missed a lot of this season. Intriguing premise--the mob was the injured party, poor babies.

10146. EricCartman - 6/22/2000 2:02:16 AM

Frank:

Be careful what you wish for -- the WB might pick up SportsNight and turn it into an "urban"/pro wrestling show.

As for Sopranos, you definitely have to check the first season first -- this last season wasn't up to that standard.

10147. CalGal - 6/22/2000 2:04:15 AM

Oh, that reminds me, I should be watching the reruns. I missed a good bit of the second season.

And now, The General is on! TCM just rocks, I swear.

10148. Fraaankster - 6/22/2000 2:18:40 AM

Eric,

Hahaha! What is with you and wrestling ?

It might have had a sophomore jinx of sort, Cal, but it still was better than everything else that was offered imo.

I actually keep hoping that the SciFi network will look back and redo the old Irwin Allen Time Tunnel series. The copycat shows that followed just never quite did for my imagination as well as Tony and Doug did. For example, the show which had them landing on the deck of the Titanic on April 13th 1914(?) still exists vividly in my mind.

10149. CalGal - 6/22/2000 2:20:53 AM

When I was in Hawaii, I found myself watching Quantum Leap on the SciFi channel. That show was better than it should have been.

10150. Fraaankster - 6/22/2000 2:29:28 AM

Yes, Quantum Leap and the other one, Chasers(?) are the ones I was refering to. Suspending my belief just didn't help cut it with either show .They bored me.

...Nothing wrestles with the imagination more than traveling through time.

10151. Fraaankster - 6/22/2000 2:47:26 AM

G'night, guys!

10152. EricCartman - 6/22/2000 2:56:12 AM

Frank:

What is with you and wrestling?

Heh. Depends on what kind. If it's a bunch of scripted bellowing from fat guys in the throes of roid rage, count me out. Life's too short. As for "real" wrestling, a couple of obsessive (watching every bit they eat so they can stay in their weight bracket) guys grappling and groping on a rubber mat....no thanks. No fucking thanks. Waaaay too homoerotic for my delicate constitution.

No, all you need for REAL wrestling entertainment is two buxom babes, scantily clad, a decent-sized kiddie wading pool, and a few gallons of either cooking oil, corn syrup, mud, soapy water, or chocolate pudding. Plus beer for the spectators.

That, my friend, is what true wrestling is and always will be about -- half-naked chicks with big cans, exploring the boundaries of their athleticism and their sexuality.

And when the Cartman Channel finally hits your satellite network/local cable provider, you can thank your lucky stars that finally, finally, someone presents wrestling 24/7 in the manner it was always intended to be presented. Not fat guys in tights, not huge Japanese fuckers in diapers belly-bouncing each other around the ring.

Dig it, Frankie. Women. Mud. Beer. Only $49.95/month. Get it now, and receive a free "What Would Bat Boy Do?" T-shirt, while supplies last.

10153. rubberducky - 6/22/2000 8:03:26 AM

Re: Message # 10132 AceofSpades.

"prestige"

*snicker*

what a buncha hookem

10154. theDiva - 6/22/2000 8:06:10 AM

Ducks

I'm still trying to get past the whole D&D thing.

*snerk*

10155. rubberducky - 6/22/2000 8:10:37 AM

Re: Message # 10121, theDiva.

"You know, they actually are pictures that move...as the film passes through the projector, it's moving. These are the things that pass through my fevered brain as I drive home."

well, it's a small point, but the film is moving, not the pictures. it's, again, like the pad of paper analogy. the medium is moving, not the object of the medium

as to your larger points, they are all taken. the comment that started all of this was my desire to see Oscar open itself up to new and, eventually, better ways of presenting movies. regardless of Ace's "fuck the internet" spasm - it will eventually be the way in which such films are watched by the majority of the population. it's sad that the premier movie awards will have to be drug kicking and screaming into modern times.

10156. theDiva - 6/22/2000 8:15:02 AM

Ducks

This is Oscar we're talking about here. The organization whose membership gave, what, 10 awards to Ti-Frickin'-tanic. What does that tell you?

10157. rubberducky - 6/22/2000 8:19:56 AM

ah

point taken

10158. OhioSTOPAS - 6/22/2000 12:57:37 PM

Cal (Message # 10141): You're very welcome.

I would have watched it too, but I was surfing up and down the dial, looking for The Cartman Channel.

10159. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2000 1:16:05 PM

I read somewhere that SportsNight will not be picked up by HBO. No one else has shown an interest so it looks as though it is history.

10160. marshame - 6/22/2000 2:07:31 PM

Well, I'm relieved that no-one has posted who got booted off the island last night in Survivor, since I haven't had a chance to see it yet.

10161. EricCartman - 6/22/2000 8:25:29 PM

Man, I finally broke down and decided to see what all the hoo-ha was about, and watched Survivor. After about 20 minutes, I was hoping that maybe this was one of those atolls where the Frogs do their nuke testing, and they'd fry these assholes. I had to turn it at that point, especially after my wife turned to me and said, "You know, this is one of those shows that makes you think that maybe the Amish have a point."

But I do enjoy the rat- and grub-eating things; it's sorta reminiscent of the old drunken frat boy game, "What Would You Do For A Million Bucks?" Generally this game devolves into pondering whether one would either have sex with another guy, or with a farm animal, for a pile of cash. So I'm wondering why one of these dorks didn't just blow Les Moonves, or fuck a goat, and get it over with.

I dunno, I just don't get the whole "reality TV" thing, I guess. They're not "real" people, and they're not in a "real" situation. The whole thing is every bit as contrived as any sitcom, and just as manipulative, thanks to creative editing.

Besides, if real people were entertaining to watch, why have a TV in the first place? Just go over to your neighbors' house and watch 'em fight. (That's really why people watch things like The Real World, to see the characters either fighting or fucking.)

10162. EricCartman - 6/22/2000 8:31:03 PM

Ohio:

When the time comes, and I go looking for VC backing to help make my dream of the Cartman Channel come true, I will point to folks like you, Frank, Jack, and Ace as evidence of demand for the service.

I can't make it happen without folks like yourself, who just want their basic right of drinking beer and watching chicks with huge knockers wallow in cooking oil. That's what makes this country great.

10163. AceofSpades - 6/22/2000 10:04:57 PM

Dennis Miller a surprise addition to MNF





ESPN.com news services

NEW YORK -- Dan Fouts and Dennis Miller will join play-by-play announcer Al Michaels as analysts in ABC's NFL Monday Night Football broadcast booth, and Melissa Stark and Eric Dickerson will be the sideline reporters for the popular program, producer Don Ohlmeyer announced Thursday.

(this is TELEVISION, Cal.)

10164. CalGal - 6/22/2000 10:32:33 PM

Ace,

Yes, I know. Why would you think I would complain?

10165. CalGal - 6/22/2000 10:52:21 PM

Good lord, you weren't kidding.

10166. EricCartman - 6/22/2000 10:52:30 PM

Dennis Miller doing MNF play-by-play??? Sounds like an SNL skit:


Easy, cha-cha. I haven't seen hack-and-slash work like this since OJ's magnum opus. Hee hee! Look at this guy in the fuckin' crowd -- he's still tryin' ta figure out why the Lambs cut Dieter Brock....


And so on. This should be interesting. I've seen Miller interview Steve Young before, and he doesn't seem like he knows a hell of a lot about football.

10167. Indiana Jones - 6/22/2000 10:59:26 PM

While on my trip, I stayed at a hotel with HBO, so I finally got to see Sex and the City. Bleah, not sexy, not interesting, just bleah. Why all the hype?

And I also saw Dennis Miller interviewing Jon Lovitz because his real guest didn't show up. Excruciatingly bleah.

Every time I get a peek at cable I think my Internet fees are much better spent.

10168. AceofSpades - 6/22/2000 11:11:10 PM

". I've seen Miller interview Steve Young before, and he doesn't seem like he knows a hell of a lot about football."

My main interest is to see how quickly an armchair analyst can be briefed and cheated up to "pro sportscaster level." I imagine it's not all *that* difficult. Each man seems stocked with various quotes and facts which they read at appropriate time; but the research is done by a staff, I'd imagine.

My choice for MNF? John Fucking MacEnroe. The best commentator on the air, ever, bar none. Smart, articulate, and gifted with a dry, occasionally poisonous wit.

Does he know anything about football?

Who cares. He knows about athleticism and sport and competition. He can fake the rest.

10169. EricCartman - 6/22/2000 11:31:36 PM

I think McEnroe would be terrific. I also thought Rush Limbaugh wouldn't have been at all bad. He used to talk some ball on his short-lived TV show.

I agree that pretty much anyone can be brought up to snuff fairly quickly. But I do get irritated when the sportscasters make dumb mistakes, like fucking up the player's name, or spotting the wrong player. I figure if I can keep all the numbers and formations straight, without any cheat sheets, watching five or six different games every Sunday (love that DSS package), while gorging on beer, anybody can do it. And the fact that Pat Summerall still works is proof of that point; the guy usually sounds even more shitfaced than Harry Caray.

Miller might be OK; it'll definitely be interesting to watch. And Fouts is already pretty good. But yeah, McEnroe -- that would be really cool.

10170. AceofSpades - 6/22/2000 11:33:56 PM

"or spotting the wrong player"

You're being a nitwit. YOU are watching on zoom-in television cameras. THEY are watching through a window in the mezzanine.

(I think; why watch a fucking game on tv when you have box seats on the fifty yard line?)


From that distance, it's easy to confuse an "89" with a "93."

10171. EricCartman - 6/22/2000 11:46:41 PM

Ace:

I'd be amazed if they didn't have a monitor or two in the booth. I don't know about other stadiums, but I figure they're more or less the same; I've had seats on the 50-yard line, in front, at Oakland Coliseum, and it is difficult to see numbers.

10172. AceofSpades - 6/22/2000 11:50:46 PM

Cart:

They have lots of monitors (that's how they do that writing-on-the-screen thingee), and how they watch instant replay.

But who the fuck would watch on a monitor when you have huge box seats on the fifty yard line?

10173. AceofSpades - 6/22/2000 11:52:01 PM

The point is, when they broadcast in real time, they're watching the actual field, not the monitors.

Or at least-- I'd be. You can see the game better, at least in terms of following the action yourself. You can't zoom in with the naked eye, but you're not limited by a camera's perspective.

10174. EricCartman - 6/23/2000 12:18:00 AM

Sure, if I had mezzanine-level seats at the 50, I'd much rather watch the field than a monitor. Ground-level seats at the 50 are overrated, even though we were directly behind the Raiders' bench, and right next to the players' entry tunnel (for both teams).

So at least I got to remind Tony Banks in person what a fumble-fuck he was. And I got to meet Jack Tatum. The fucking Assassin. How fucking cool is that; he was my idol when I was a kid. Kinda like if you got to meet Al D'Amato or Rudy Giuliani.

Anyway, yes, the occasional misread uniform numeral is certainly understandable. I mean the repeated doughhead mistakes, like just not knowing which player is which. I know it seems like a very nit-picky thing, but again -- these guys are paid a lot of fucking money to say what a lot of blue-collar Joes know for free. If I can do it, how fucking hard can it be?

But I really like a sportscaster that can break a play down by its formation and play design, and show you what each guy is doing, especially on defensive plays. It's an art form, when done right. Anyone can sit up there and be a fucking smartass.

10175. labwabbit - 6/23/2000 12:26:30 AM

Hello CalGal....
Long...looooong....time my sweet intp.

10176. CalGal - 6/23/2000 12:28:07 AM

Hey! Good to see you! Where've you been? (answer in the Cafe)

10177. AceofSpades - 6/23/2000 12:29:54 AM

I don't know, Cart. I don't remember having too many problems with these off-the-cuff gaffes. But then, I support Bush.

There are announcers who are bad, but for other reasons.

One big reason for announcer badness:

The 20/20 hindsight idiocy. For example, when a play works: "And that's exactly what they had to do. The perfect call, perfectly executed. Great play-calling."

If the same play hadn't worked: "You just don't do that. Not with this much time remaining. You don't take those kinds of risks. I don't know what Coach Blank was thinking."

Most of the time they have nothing to fucking say, but they blast away anyway. I remember Dan Dierdorf being a big offender on this count. Whatever was happening at that moment, that was the fucking story of the game. Luke Pettigout makes a tackle? "This kid is something else. He's got heck of a future. What a stop." Someone breaks Luke Pettigout's tackle? "This kid fucking sucks my hairy ass." Etc.

10178. AceofSpades - 6/23/2000 12:34:21 AM

One type of announcer I like: The Home Team Hack who has a sense of Humor about his Hackery.

Phil McConkey, ex-giant great, is a rabid home-team hack when he announces for the Giants. Every whistle, I mean EVERY whistle, called against the Giants is a "bad call." Every whistle NOT called against the opponents is a "terrible call." He's absolutely preposterous.

But sometimes he's funny. One time he was yelling and bitching and moaning about a "terrible" interference call called against the Giants, and then, as they're playing the instant replay, he sees: The Giants fucking mugged the guy. It isn't even close.

And he sort of trails off, then starts chuckling as we witness this pro-sports version of Wilding, and then, chuckling more, AGAIN asserts that this is a "terrible" call, and that it's ticky-tack, and "what, are we playing powder puff here?"

10179. EricCartman - 6/23/2000 12:35:40 AM

Ace:

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think I have a decent idea for a different kind of sports commentary: Instead of a couple of washed-up hacks like Madden and Summerall (though Madden is good breaking down play designs at times), or retired players, spouting tired-ass stock phrases and doing sloppy punch-clock work, what if you had actual fans, watching a set of monitors covering most angles, and doing their own analyses?

Lots of fans are very knowledgeable about their teams and about football in general, and some of those, just by the law of averages, would have some aptitude for that sort of work. And I think it would add something to the flavor of the game, where some of these guys really are more of a distraction. I know I could do a Raiders game, easy. I've seen some of your commentary, you could probably pull off a Giants game. A knowledgeable fan would add some passion to the commentary, something sorely lacking from the usual Sunday-afternoon hackery.

I'm telling you, what with the "reality" trend in TV, and what with it being a perfect way to trim inflated sportscasters' salaries, I bet you see something like this within the next few years. You heard it here first. Fan-casters -- an idea whose time has come. A bunch of regular Joes, sitting on some couches, drinking beer, eating pizza, watching a fucking game and praising and slamming as fans do.

10180. EricCartman - 6/23/2000 12:41:03 AM

Message # 10178 & Message # 10179:

True. Too often it's just a basic fact that the announcer's getting paid to speak, so he has to say something, no matter how trite or asinine. Dierdorf was pretty bad about that shit, I agree, but he gets passionate about it, the way Madden does. That can be fun sometimes, when they just fluster themselves into a total babble, just an endless stream of aphorisms: "What a great play, this kid is something else to watch, he's really got something special, he reminds me of so-and-so, etc."

Phil McConkey? Wow, you are OG Giants, aren't you? Haven't heard that name since the Dieter Brock era, I don't think.

10181. CalGal - 6/23/2000 12:44:08 AM

what if you had actual fans, watching a set of monitors covering most angles, and doing their own analyses?

According to Miller, that's what he intends to do.

10182. AceofSpades - 6/23/2000 12:44:53 AM

I actually don't know nearly enough about football to call a game. Nowhere close. I don't fucking understand receiver routes or quaterback reads or coverages what the hell goes on in the lines.

Granted, if I had six months to study, I'd know a decent amount. But right off the street? No way. My coverage would be: "Collins hands off to whoever the fuck is playing running back this down. He's tackled at the line. What a fucking surprise. A Giant runner tackled at the line for a two-yard-gain. Wow, we don't see too many of those. Okay. Collins takes the snap... he sees Toomer sort of open. As open as he ever is. He throws... right to Toomer's feet. Incomplete. Yeahp. He must have called that super-J-38 audible we've been hearing so much about: Throw the ball behind the receiver, right at his feet. They're trying to really work that into the offence this year. Okay. Third down. Shotgun formation, like that fucking matters. Collins looks downfield... and he dumps off to his running back, whoever the fuck it is. There you go. Right in the shin. Incomplete. Another fucking Super-J-38 audible. Beautiful playcalling.

Punt. Here's the hangtime clock, like that fucking means anything."

10183. EricCartman - 6/23/2000 12:53:39 AM

OK, then where did I get the notion that you had some football knowledge? Maybe you cribbed from someone and I thought it was yours.

BTW, who is the Giants' RB this week? Have they brought Ottis Anderson out of retirement yet?

10184. CalGal - 6/23/2000 12:55:14 AM

OK, then where did I get the notion that you had some football knowledge?

You are probably thinking of my 12-year-old. It is, after all, easy to get them confused.

10185. AceofSpades - 6/23/2000 12:58:06 AM

Cart:

I know *some*. But I played linebacker and RB, and I had no fucking idea what the receivers or DB's were doing. None. Had no idea how all the pieces fit together.

I sort of know what the lines do, because it's so fucking stupid and simple: They push each other. Sometimes they'll "twist" or whatnot, but all defensive stunts are conceptually simple. Moronic, even.

I do know various Receiver routes, but I swear to god, I don't know what the DB's do. I don't know how they choose which man they're covering, or if they're playing soft or close, or whatever. I remember that, based on how the offense lined up, the cornerbacks would shout either "cloud" or "sky" behind me, which determined some sort of coverage, but I don't know what it meant.

10186. AceofSpades - 6/23/2000 12:59:49 AM

"Cloud cloud cloud cloud!"

"Sky sky sky sky!"

What did this mean? I didn't know then, and I don't know now.

10187. DaveM - 6/23/2000 1:02:45 AM

Ace -

I have an incredibly hard time imagining your online persona playing football.

10188. DaveM - 6/23/2000 1:05:03 AM

I've just always thought of you as a golfer.

10189. EricCartman - 6/23/2000 1:14:02 AM

Cal Message # 10184:

Hahahaha! Say, how is the upcoming Niners season looking to Spawn? 4-12 last year; I say they go 3-13 this year. Seriously. I'll even pick the teams they beat -- the Falcons, the Aints, and the Cards, all in SF.

10190. EricCartman - 6/23/2000 1:14:33 AM

Ace:

I was recruited in HS, and wanted to play, but lived too far out of town and didn't have reliable transportation to make all the practices and games. I wanted to be a DB or WR, but was way too slow, so I worked out a bit at LB/TE.

From what I remember, "cloud" is mid zone, and "sky" is deep man, with the corners playing way off the receivers. In cloud, the CB would let the safety cover the WR if he runs deep enough, but in sky they keep dogging the WR.

There are a couple of play diagram sites; it's a dead giveaway on my geekiness that I actually find that stuff fascinating. LB defense reads are interesting too; LBs have play names like "Sam", "Mike", and "Will".

10191. AceofSpades - 6/23/2000 1:16:28 AM

Strong, Middle, Weak.

10192. EricCartman - 6/23/2000 1:26:46 AM

Right.

10193. CalGal - 6/23/2000 1:34:50 AM

Cart--Spawn is leaving you a detailed response in Sports.

10194. EricCartman - 6/23/2000 1:42:47 AM

Uh-oh.

10195. CalGal - 6/23/2000 1:50:30 AM

No, you didn't unleash the rage. He just wanted to provide a detailed answer, and I didn't want my thread to disintegrate into a sports line.

10196. CalGal - 6/23/2000 1:51:30 AM

My god, I left the TV on some Showtime channel and a movie with Sean Young and Dylan Walsh came on. Young looks shit awful.

10197. EricCartman - 6/23/2000 2:07:13 AM

Spawn did pretty good with the analysis, Cal. Actually, I like it when I can get another fan worked up about their team.

As for Sean Young, she has really let herself go, hasn't she? Last movie I saw of hers, she looked like she had a serious coke problem or something. And the movie wasn't about her character having a coke problem.

10198. CalGal - 6/23/2000 2:46:24 AM

He is apparently fairly well-informed about both football and baseball, from the way I see men react to his comments--they always seem a bit surprised that they don't have to talk down to him.

Writing frustrates him, because his skill level is a good five or six years behind his verbal abilities (which are at about college level). He rewrote his responses to you several times--he hates the effort, but not as much as he hates the sound of his first drafts (especially here "in public", as he calls it). And of course, on a subject he cares about, he has to sound just right. (the lack of capitalization is a matter of style--all the kids on freezone do it.)

That is exactly what Young looks like--haggard and drug-ridden. I've heard she is a bitch, and apart from Cousins, I can't think of a movie that I've enjoyed her in. Still, it's sad to see anyone that deteriorated.

10199. Cellar Door - 6/23/2000 9:26:46 AM

Deteriorated?

10200. CalGal - 6/23/2000 6:12:04 PM

Me, Myself, and Irene is getting so-so reviews. Ebert hated it, no one else gave it better than mixed--there are a few funny parts, but it apparently makes Something About Mary look tasteful.

On the other hand, the reviews on Chicken Run seem damn near unanimous: Ebert, the Times, the Post, EW, Time, and everyone else I could find absolutely loved it. It is apparently much more mainstream than Wallace and Gromit, but still excellent. If your kids are younger than 8, consider keeping them at home until you've seen it.

10202. KuligintheHooligan - 6/24/2000 11:58:54 AM

My wife and I rented "The World is not Enough" last night. I really love James Bond, but this movie lacked something for me. I had wanted to see this movie in the cinema but missed it. Now I am glad that I did. I really liked Golden Eye and the one before this one, was it "Tomorrow Never Dies," but this one just lacked a certain punch.

And I recall the discussion earlier about Denise Richards. I too found myself wondering how on earth she got cast for the movie. On the other hand, I didn't mind looking at her, although her exaggerated facial features do make her look, upon "staring" at her, a bit odd.

10203. Cellar Door - 6/24/2000 12:20:05 PM

Been seeing a Whole Mess 'o Gay movies for the upcoming festivals. "Urbania" is excellent. Based on a play, it's anevocation of "Urban Legends" used as a running subtext for a Long Dark Night of the Soul story about a guy trying to come to grips with the death of his lover in a gay-bashing incident. Dan Futterman (the straight son in "The Bird Cage") stars, and Alan Cumming is featured.

Also of interest a French Canadian film called "Full Throttle" about desperate white trash lives. Couldn't understand what the film was doing in the festival line up at all until the hero's bisexuality suddenly erupts 40 minutes in. The Butchest Man in the History of the Cinema -- Gay or Straight --plugs him ina Memorable Moment that I'll be rerunning in my own mental Cinematheque for some time to come. The Hunk is played by an actor named Patrice Godin. He's the first thing to take my mind off of Jude Law in months.

10204. EricCartman - 6/25/2000 4:45:29 PM

Cal Message # 10198:

I agree that Young has never been a terribly good actress. She was cute in Stripes, and while attractive in No Way Out, projected that pain-in-the-ass vibe that she has become notorious for. Plus the rumor about her threatening/kidnaping Tim Burton for the Catwoman role in Batman Returns sealed her rep as a nutjob. And if you've ever read an interview with her, you know that rumors don't really matter -- she's an idiot, and a goofy one at that.

If you're looking for a quick, painless, entertaining read, I highly recommend Joe Queenan's If You're Talking to Me, Your Career Must Be In Trouble. I picked up a hardbound copy in the bargain bin at Barnes & Noble for $1.99. Very funny, scathing look at various Hollyweird inhabitants and denizens. The Sean Young chapter is very nearly as funny as the Streisand one. Ditzy, neurotic, obsessive, and quite possibly dangerous -- Young, I mean, though now that I think of it, that description seems apt for Babs as well. Cool stuff.


Cellar:

OK, Sean definitely looks pretty good in your photo there. Maybe she's cleaned up a bit, who knows. Last few movies I've spotted her in, which had "direct to video/cable" written all over them, two street phrases came to mind: "tore up from the floor up" and "ridden hard and put away wet".

10205. LadyChaos - 6/25/2000 4:57:34 PM

Eric,

I once had to watch tens of thousands of feet of raw footage of Sean Young naken, pretending to have sex with Patrick Bergen. Not a pretty sight by any means.

All,

I finally saw Gladiator, last night. It was awful. The action sequences were the worst. The editor should be taken out and shot. The CG-enhanced shots of ancient Rome were cheesy as hell. Too bad. It could have been a nice picture in the hands of a young David Lean - whoever that might have been. Ridley Scott just proves once again that advertising directors should not do action pics.

10206. LadyChaos - 6/25/2000 4:58:38 PM

"naken" = "naked"

10207. CalGal - 6/25/2000 5:02:39 PM

Lady,

Lord, what did you do to deserve such punishment?

10208. LadyChaos - 6/25/2000 5:06:26 PM

CalGal,

You mean Sean Young, or Gladiator?

Sean Young was back in my assistant film-editor days in L.A. And Eric's right: Young's an idiot.

Gladiator was drunken curiosity. I knew that it was going to be bad, just from the few bits I'd seen from the trailer, and I should have avoided it.

10209. CalGal - 6/25/2000 5:10:35 PM

Ha. No, I meant Sean Young. I thought Gladiator was decent.

10210. LadyChaos - 6/25/2000 5:18:55 PM

Gladiator showed nothing but contempt for the crafts of directing and editing - typical of the current trend of smash-cut music video and commercials editing. Someone should inform Lynne that if he really wants the audience to understand and fully enjoy a battle sequence, it really does matter where he places his camera in relation to the actors. Lynne also seemed to be aping Spielberg's use of a strobing camera effect in Private Ryan, but in this context is was bizarre and wholly unmotivated by the setting. The constant shifts in camera speed from one shot to the next were meaningless and confusing. Even in the film's more quiet moments, Lynne constantly jumped the stage line and left me disoriented as to the spacial relationships between characters.

All in all, Gladiator was a terrible waste of production resources. I must have known at least ten guys in film school who could have done better, much better.

10211. Cellar Door - 6/25/2000 5:23:24 PM

You didn't even like Russell Crowe?

10212. EricCartman - 6/25/2000 5:26:54 PM

Chaos:

I once had to watch tens of thousands of feet of raw footage of Sean Young naken, pretending to have sex with Patrick Bergen. Not a pretty sight by any means.

I suppose it depends on the position. As an actress, though, she seems to think wide-eyed big-voiced cranked-up scenery-chewing is synonymous with "passion". I can just imagine her approach to an actual sex scene. If I were in Bergin's place, I'd just let her be on top and call the shots. Probably much easier that way; she doesn't seem the type who could take a hint when a guy tries to move her from one position to the next.

Haven't seen Gladiator yet, but it sounds like a garden-variety circle jerk, with the required distractionary bells and whistles. But I like Crowe, whose presence seems to transcend his Everyman looks, so I'll probably catch it on PPV, which will likely be around the end of football season.

10213. LadyChaos - 6/25/2000 5:37:38 PM

Cellar,

I liked Crowe, but his performance was one of many wasted resources. He was like a drifting prop in search of an appropriate setting. Only a director who understood how to direct action could have made this a worthwhile effort. A better writer certainly wouldn't have hurt, either.

10214. AceofSpades - 6/25/2000 5:58:43 PM

Lynne? The director was Ridley Scott.

10215. LadyChaos - 6/25/2000 6:06:48 PM

I'm sorry. Ridley Scott. I sometimes get his name mixed up with Adrian Lynne, who did Fatal Attraction, etc.

'Must have been the beer.

10216. AceofSpades - 6/25/2000 6:07:57 PM

I know who Adrian Lynne is. He does alleged "thrillers."

10217. LadyChaos - 6/25/2000 6:12:09 PM

In a strange way, Gladiator points up the reason why Alien seemed to work. Scott's inability to orient the audience as to a character's relative position in the scene added to the suspense in Alien, because we were never sure where the actor was, and whether the Alien might be nearby. But it now appears in hindsight to have been unintentional.

10218. Uzmakk - 6/25/2000 7:19:44 PM

Saw Fight Club last night. Enjoyed it. Will likely watch it agin before I return so I can make sure that I caught everything.

10219. wonkers2 - 6/25/2000 11:29:59 PM

Saw Bossa Nova tonight. Wish I'd stayed home with a book or TV. Amy Irving looked middle aged which I guess she is. I hadn't seen her for years. The movie is a comedy but not very funny and absolute zero bare skin which is unforgiveable for a movie made in Rio by the director of Dona Flor. If you want a Rio travelog check Blame it On Rio out of your local video emporium.

10220. theDiva - 6/26/2000 8:09:19 AM

Saw American Beauty last night. I nearly turned it off during the first half hour, but Greg convinced me to hang in there.

Performances were good, of course, and there were funny moments. The scene where Ricky shows Jane 'the most beautiful thing' he ever filmed was very touching and real.

But overall, I found this to be a very ugly and depressing film. There won't be a repeat showing, at least not for this girl.

10221. rubberducky - 6/26/2000 8:21:21 AM

I also rented Fight Club and thought it was a very good, if a not an overly surreal, film. knowing to look for it ahead of time, i was able to catch the "subliminal" shots of Pitt at the beginning. very, very cool.

it just seems to me there coulda been a simpler way to approach this flick, but hell, maybe i'm just too pedestrian.

anyhow, this film did prove one thing ... all boys want to pound each other ... the word just changes meaning for "straight" and "gay". something i've suspected for a while now.

10222. rubberducky - 6/26/2000 8:24:16 AM

The Green Mile rounded out this weekend's two-fer.

very enjoyable. as i've heard, almost a word for word adaptation. i'd recommend it to almost anyone. great performances, pacing, direction, special effects that weren't overused and a better mouse than Stuart Little. a little long, but i'd have been more disappointed if they cut more of the book story out of it.

10223. theDiva - 6/26/2000 8:35:39 AM

ducky

I, too, enjoyed The Green Mile, which amazed me as I generally cannot stand Stephen King's stories and think he's a hack. But this film was very touching.

10224. rubberducky - 6/26/2000 8:56:08 AM

diva:

he may be a hack, i dunno. i like what i like.

i don't generally like the movies based on his books, but do generally like the books.

10225. Cellar Door - 6/26/2000 9:28:19 AM

"all boys want to pound each other ... the word just changes meaning for "straight" and "gay". something i've suspected for a while now."

You got it, Ducky!

10226. rubberducky - 6/26/2000 12:48:33 PM

Took in a showing of Shaft this weekend as well. overall, enjoyable romp. plenty of blood spurting action, petty moralizing, catch phrases, and racist wisecracks for all.

it was typically light in the plot department, but some good performances turned in. Jackson, of course, rocked as was expected. Very cold at times and compassionate at times as well. then, he looked really righteous as pummeled the shit out of some hoodlums. Bale was fine (not as fine as in Am Psycho - but i digress). i hope he doesn't type cast himself as the psycho bad guy with the pursed lips smirk, but he might just be on his way. and, as i've read, Jeffrey Wright stole the show in a truly great performance as "Peoples Hernandez". and, damn, he was almost as sexy as Bale!

all in all, a decent action movie to take in and kill a couple hours.

10227. LadyChaos - 6/26/2000 1:22:57 PM

Did I forget to mention that Gladiator sucked?



Gladiator sucked.

10228. Fraaankster - 6/26/2000 2:28:18 PM

I read somewhere, over the weekend, that Sportsnight was picked up by HBO. True ?

Hmmmmm. One can only wonder what HBO might do to it ? Maybe it is time to suscribe ?

10229. Indiana Jones - 6/26/2000 10:54:52 PM

I rented a film called Rounders with Matt Damon, John Malkovic, and Martin Landau. Good flick about a card-playing law student reminiscent of The Hustler and The Cincinnati Kid. Fine performances and lots of tension throughout...never flagged.

One of the previews was for a virtual reality-type film called Existanz starring Jude Law that Cellar might want to check out if he already hasn't.

10230. CalGal - 6/27/2000 12:27:42 AM

Hey, Cellar--I was watching Picnic at Hanging Rock, and in checking out all the references noticed that Rachel Roberts died of barbituate poisoning. Suicide?

10231. Cellar Door - 6/27/2000 1:02:55 AM

Yep. She NEVER got over Rex Harrison.

That makes two suicides that he's directly responsible for.

10232. CalGal - 6/27/2000 1:14:37 AM

Well, if he were directly responsible for them, they'd have been murdered, so that's a bit of an overstatement. But yes, that was what I thought might be behind Roberts' death, too.

10233. LadyChaos - 6/27/2000 9:19:50 AM

I finally got around to renting Topsy Turvy, last night, and thought that it was very well done. I thought that Leigh and his ensemble of top-notch actors effectively captured the feeling of being part of the theatre. The snitty repartee between the actors, choreographers, and "management" should be instantly recognizable to anyone who has ever been involved in any sort of theatrical production. I was especially impressed by small touches, such as the obvious effort that went into having the actors actually play their musical instruments. The actors who played Gilbert and Sullivan were especially remarkable for inhabiting their characters in a way that lent them a complete aura of authenticity. Most of all, the film gives us a well-constructed portrayal of the creative process, showing how theatre, like film, is an art form which requires much more than the author applying words to page.

The only drawback to the film - and this is a minor one - was that the fun stuff didn't really get started until the second half, at which point we see Gilbert, stuck in a creative rut, being dragged by his wife to a Japanese exhibition. I would have liked for this scene to have occurred somewhat earlier in the picture, but that is a relatively small quibble.

10234. iiibbb - 6/27/2000 10:21:52 AM

I liked gladiator... I certainly was entertained, so perhaps I was not viewing it with a critical eye. The only thing I didn't like was that idiot pseudo ceasar... his character was pretty weak.

The battle scenes were interestingly done I thought... I didn't feel particularly disoriented by them.

If you want to see a movie that sucked... try The Messenger

10235. JudithAtHome - 6/27/2000 10:45:43 AM

Diva:

I'm not surprised you hated American Beauty. But just keep in mind: the fact that some of us are deliriously happy in suburbia doesn't mean those types from the movie aren't out there in droves.

10236. theDiva - 6/27/2000 11:14:30 AM

I wouldn't say that I hated it. It had redeeming qualities, but what ugliness. And I've never known people like that, at least not intimately. All that privilege, and so empty. Bleah.

10237. JudithAtHome - 6/27/2000 11:15:33 AM

Diva:

I've know many like that. Unfortunately.

10238. theDiva - 6/27/2000 11:21:13 AM

man, if that's what it does to you, gimme my townhouse and my $500 Ikea couch any day.

10239. JudithAtHome - 6/27/2000 11:29:59 AM

We have good friends who have evolved into snarling, hatefully mean people, who make hurtful comments to each other and do so in front of us, so much so that we no longer see them socially because it is just too uncomfortable to be around them. They have everything they could possibly want and have no worries about money or the future...unless you count trying to keep from murdering each other. They used to be such fun, too...it's sad.

10240. LadyChaos - 6/27/2000 11:30:18 AM

I completely related to American Beauty. I saw it as an American response to the question posed by Kundera's "The Unbearable Lightness of Being." Suburban life, and the banal contentment that comes with it, tends to drive me absolutely mad.

10241. JudithAtHome - 6/27/2000 11:31:31 AM

LadyC...

That is an excellent match-up!

10242. theDiva - 6/27/2000 11:32:10 AM

I don't know. I just kept thinking 'Who are these people?'

10243. theDiva - 6/27/2000 11:32:47 AM

You know, Lady, that might be an interesting pairing for a Mote Film Festival, if it had the proper host (hint).

10244. theDiva - 6/27/2000 11:34:33 AM

But I must admit, there were some belly laughs....like when Bening swats the kid across the mouth and yells "you ungrateful brat, when I was your age we lived in a DUPLEX!"

And where the gay couple comes to the Marine's door 'what are you partners at?' 'oh, I'm a tax attorney' 'and I'm an anesthesiologist.'

10245. LadyChaos - 6/27/2000 11:46:13 AM

Judith,

I think it would be a mistake to view American Beauty as a story about two people who had everything but grew to hate each other. It is, rather, about a guy who comes to realize that the conventional paradigm for fulfillment is a hollow promise, and so he rebels against it. His wife, however, has bought the conventional paradigm, hook, line, and sinker. And she comes to hate her husband, I suspect, because she realizes that he has truly liberated himself from being a servant to the material objects with which they have surrounded themselves, and she is jealous of his sense of freedom. She responds with anger, indulging in a tawdry affair with a guy who is the perfect symbol of empty-headed material ambition. But she knows she is trapped by her fidelity to convention, and her anger merely grows. The husband, given the chance to fulfill a sexual fantasy, discovers the true power of his spiritual liberation when he awakens to the moral necessity of declining to indulge that fantasy. The truly free individual must live with the most exacting judge of all - himself.

10246. Fraaankster - 6/27/2000 4:18:06 PM

Lady,

I only needed to read the first few lines of your review to convince me to finally go see ( rent ) American Beauty. If the husband is has rid himself, or is on some quest to rid himself of the prevailing paradigm -- the worshipping of Mammon, then it certainly worth a look. Who knows, it also might help assuage some of the cognitive dissonance I grapple with everyday ... I really should get out more and expand my genres beyond sexy V-8s or superheroes.

I haven't seen the movie and certainlly don't plan to, but the trailers make it hard to resist any comment on it.
It really doesn't surprise me anymore on the extend movie studios will milk the nostalgiac recesses of our youth in order to make a buck. The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle took cartoons to another level in 1960s, that has yet to be surpassed, and yet, here they are in the new millenium all poised and ready to be passed down to another generation of youth.
The original cartoon's undercurrent of Cold War themes, along with its tongue and cheek satirical jab at issues of the day, brought satire to the cartoon world in ways that are yet to be duplicated. It wasn't only appealing to children, but adults as well.
I remember one particular show where Boris starts taking issue with the way the narrator ( William Conrad ) was describing their dastardly and nefarious role up to that point. Boris finally loses it and reaches out toward the camera and snatches the script from an overly frightened Conrad and tears the script up. After the following Fracture Fairy Tales segment is over ( another classic ), we return to find Boris sitting on a rock trying to piece together the script, so the show could go on -- Classic stuff !!!

Hokey smoke ! How dare they taint my heroes !?

10247. Fraaankster - 6/27/2000 4:19:38 PM

Oops!

10248. Fraaankster - 6/27/2000 4:20:11 PM

10249. Fraaankster - 6/27/2000 4:20:55 PM

test

10250. theDiva - 6/27/2000 4:21:22 PM

mah gawd, frank.

10251. Fraaankster - 6/27/2000 4:21:36 PM

testing once more!

10252. Fraaankster - 6/27/2000 4:22:40 PM

Deev,

That's what happens when I rush. I have a lunch date, so...

10253. theDiva - 6/27/2000 4:24:22 PM

ooooooooohhhhhh.....

10254. CalGal - 6/27/2000 8:19:49 PM

Cellar, is Arthur Laurents' "Original Story" worth a read?

10255. Cellar Door - 6/27/2000 9:02:14 PM

Heavens, Yes! Didn't you read my rave review in the "Los Angeles Times"?

10256. CalGal - 6/27/2000 9:07:32 PM

Well, no, I hadn't.

10257. Don S. - 6/27/2000 11:31:20 PM

"Gladiator" ... um, that had Djimon Hounsou in it, right? I don't remember much else.

10258. Cellar Door - 6/27/2000 11:56:41 PM

My review ran Sunday April 9, 2000.

10259. bloodnfire - 6/28/2000 4:40:32 AM

LadyChaos. Your Message # 10245. "The husband, given the chance to fulfill a sexual fantasy, discovers the true power of his spiritual liberation when he awakens to the moral necessity of declining to indulge that fantasy. The truly free individual must live with the most exacting judge of all - himself."

Right on!

10260. rubberducky - 6/28/2000 8:36:20 AM

caught U-571 last night. i have to say i was pleasantly surprised. i wasn't expecting too much from a PG-13 war flick, but this film really delivered. i found it to be very involving, intense in moments, some great action sequences, convincing character development and interaction, even some of the boring underwater fighting was really cool.

whoever did the casting also needs a pat of appreciation on the back. that sub was packed with wall to wall cuties. very nice!

but, seriously, i'd recommend this to most anyone here. worth a look even if it is historically inaccurate.

10261. LadyChaos - 6/28/2000 9:14:20 AM

ducky,

I've been tempted to go see that one, but I worry that Das Boot has set an impossibly high standard for WWII submarine flicks, and that I will be embarrassed by the American effort.

10262. Cellar Door - 6/28/2000 9:17:53 AM

You're not the first to notice that, ducky. My friend Richard Natale refers to it as "the gay version of Titanic."

10263. LadyChaos - 6/28/2000 9:23:11 AM

Yikes. The Patriot got slammed in the NYTimes, today. I guess we'll still have to wait before somebody makes a truly good film about the American Revolution.

10264. rubberducky - 6/28/2000 9:29:45 AM

LC:

well, the trick, i guess, is not to make the comparison! but, the flick was engrossing at times and when the crew is pinned down fighting a destroyer with torpedo and one engine ... great stuff! i couldn't look away if i wanted to. but does it compare? probably not but i still think you'd be entertained.

CD:

well, i liked it better than Titanic. give me beefy navy boys over Leo any day! plus U-571 was a lot friggin' shorter. which was nice.

10265. LadyChaos - 6/28/2000 9:36:36 AM

To be honest, I could hardly have done worse than Gladiator, this past weekend.

10266. theDiva - 6/28/2000 9:43:09 AM

Even with all that eye candy? Russell Crowe and Djimon Hounsou? Yummy.

10267. rubberducky - 6/28/2000 9:47:50 AM

that's right, LC, you said something to the affect that it coulda been better?

*smirk*

10268. theDiva - 6/28/2000 10:04:15 AM

Sure it coulda been better. We coulda seen more of Russell's butt.

10269. LadyChaos - 6/28/2000 10:06:55 AM

It sucked.

Salon's review of The Patriot seems to border on glowing, yet it too contains a caveat about revisionism with respect to the slavery issue. This has long been a nagging fault of Revolutionary War dramas - the filmmakers always seek to sugarcoat race relations, be it a portrayal of happy darkies or tired explanations that the white hero was really a reluctant slave-holder. Perhaps The Patriot seeks to show how African Americans were also part of the Revolutionary effort, but it seems to me that one can only stretch this so far without breaking credulity. I can hardly imagine that blacks in the American colonies felt that there was any difference, from their perspective, as to who would be in charge. A truly great Revolutionary War pic will never be made until Hollywood comes to grip with this issue.

10270. AceofSpades - 6/28/2000 12:09:31 PM

Chaos:

U-571 rips off Das Boot to an embarassing degree. In the theater, I was able to call specific actions and camera shots, like: "Okay, now bolts are going to fly from the walls, sprayed by high-pressure water, due to the sub's depth."

10271. LadyChaos - 6/28/2000 12:55:38 PM

Speaking of Das Boot... I see that Wolfgang Peterson directed The Perfect Storm. Has anybody reviewed that, yet?

10272. AceofSpades - 6/28/2000 12:57:48 PM

Not here, but there are advanced reviews on the net...

Apparently the film sucks.

10273. LadyChaos - 6/28/2000 12:58:51 PM

Yikes.

Too bad. It looks like a bleak summer for film-going.

10274. AceofSpades - 6/28/2000 1:00:22 PM

No, it's actually a decent summer. Shaft, The Patriot, X-Men...

Eddie Murphy's "Klumps" will probably be good on video...

10275. Cellar Door - 6/28/2000 6:53:54 PM

Hey Ace -- I just got my pass to the All-media of "X-Men" on July 10. Wanna come with me? Rush out and fetch me Jude Law like a good fellow.

10276. CalGal - 6/28/2000 7:38:22 PM

Newsweek didn't speak well of The Perfect Storm. Also, it has a real ending problem.

10277. theDiva - 6/28/2000 7:49:13 PM

hey, West Wing reruns begin tonight, for those of us who came late to the show. hoo-ha!

10278. Cellar Door - 6/28/2000 11:20:42 PM

Now here's a movie with Jack V.'s name written all over it.

10279. CalGal - 6/29/2000 2:48:36 AM

I think you mean Jacques' name, doncha?

10280. Cellar Door - 6/29/2000 9:03:52 AM

True.


And now for something completely Cellar.

10281. rubberducky - 6/29/2000 9:17:54 AM

Fan-tabulous!

10282. Jack Vincennes - 6/29/2000 9:17:56 AM

Cellar

I can't read the review, but I like the girl with the gun.

Diva

I watched part of the West Wing last night. That show is creepy. It kind of sucks you in, though you feel bad for having watched it when it is over. It is akin to pornography. Last night, the president's dilemmas are that he is not sufficiently pro-gay rights for the father of a slain gay man, and he is not sufficiently impassioned about releasing the study advising liberality with regard to sexz education. These are, in essence, his sins. Practicality in the face of all that is good and right and true. Blech.

That said, it is well-acted and well-written for what it is - soft treacle posing as drama.

A decent Salon piece on the show:

"The West Wing" could only be left wing
Why liberals can make good drama and conservatives wind up with "Red Dawn."

By Jonathan V. Last

May 1, 2000 | Saturday's annual White House Correspondents Association dinner began with a video short featuring the cast of "The West Wing" and real White House press secretary Joe Lockhart. Later, the show got a plug during President Clinton's speech. And after dinner, the "Wing" cast was feted as guests of honor at the Vanity Fair memorial after party, now sponsored by Michael Bloomberg. In the course of one night, "The West Wing" cemented itself as the most-talked-about television program in the nation's capital.

10283. Jack Vincennes - 6/29/2000 9:18:49 AM

In less than one season, the quasi-fictional NBC drama has eclipsed the popularity of "Meet the Press," "Crossfire" and even "Hardball With Chris Matthews" in this town. It has, as Brandon Tartikoff used to say, major heat. In bars people don't gossip about bumping into Sen. Trent Lott or presidential aide Sidney Blumenthal anymore. They exchange "West Wing" sightings. There's the whole cast feasting at Bobby Van's! There's Rob Lowe shooting an exterior by the OEB! There's Moira Kelly doing a scene on Constitution Avenue! And wasn't she the girl from "The Cutting Edge"?

But why is the entire city (320,000 people in D.C. watch every week) swooning over a show that is such an obvious river of liberal agitprop? The show's creator and writer, Aaron Sorkin, tried to deny that his show has any particular political bent in a recent profile in the Washington Post. However, a quick examination of the series shows his denial to be, as they say, inoperative.

"The West Wing" is such a thinly veiled roman à clef about the Clinton administration that even most interns on the Hill know who the characters' real-life counterparts are. The featured players include George Stephanopoulos (Rob Lowe), Harold Ickes (Brad Whitford), Dee Dee Myers (Allison Janney), Mandy Grunwald (Moira Kelly), Hillary Clinton (Stockard Channing), Chelsea Clinton (Elizabeth Moss) and Bill Clinton (Martin Sheen).

10284. Jack Vincennes - 6/29/2000 9:19:21 AM

But to Sorkin, a liberal Democratic activist, the real Clinton White House wasn't good enough. So he created a dream White House, starring not the real Clinton but the good Clinton who lived in the typical Democrat's mind in 1991. From there, the propaganda gushed forth. In the first season, Josiah Bartlet (Martin Sheen as Clinton) and his administration have come out in favor of paying reparations to blacks for slavery, using statistical sampling for the census, putting the self-described "most liberal judge in the country" on the Supreme Court, keeping a Secret Service confidentiality clause, letting gays serve openly in the military, enacting tough campaign finance reform and taking up hate-crimes legislation.

The Bartlet administration is against school vouchers, school prayer, a flag-burning amendment and the religious right. And apparently it's just warming up: In last week's episode, the president's advisors lament that they've dropped five points in the polls because they aren't being liberal enough.

But if "The West Wing" is silly as a political diatribe, it's brilliant as television. The writing -- and there is no one to credit but Sorkin -- crackles with energy. The dialogue ricochets from character to character with intelligence and precision. The pacing is swift and sure. The cast is professional and believable. And the production values are the best on network television -- from the elaborate, burnished sets to the dynamic yet smooth camerawork.

10285. Jack Vincennes - 6/29/2000 9:19:41 AM

So how does "The West Wing" manage to be politically didactic and entertaining at the same time? And why isn't there a Republican version of "The West Wing"? The answer, of course, is that there couldn't possibly be a Republican version. Liberals can do drama well and conservatives can't.

There are, of course, exceptions to every rule, but, generally, when liberal politics intersects with dramatic entertainment, the results can be pretty good. TV drama in the '80s was dominated by "St. Elsewhere" and "L.A. Law," and today by "The Practice" and "The West Wing." When conservatives do drama it comes out as "The A-Team" or "Red Dawn" or "The Omega Strain" or, even worse, "Rambo."

Liberalism and conservatism each have distinct roles to play in civil society, and this explains why one makes for drama and the other makes for comedy. Democracies change, historically speaking, at a very fast pace. Liberalism is the engine of change; it always seeks to push the culture forward, to advance and evolve. Sometimes it brings about good things (like the abolition of slavery) and sometimes it brings about not-so-good things (like forced busing). But it is always fighting to move beyond the status quo. And eventually liberalism wins because the status quo does change. This Sturm und Drang is the stuff of great drama: It tells of brave struggles that give way to glorious accomplishments.

10286. Jack Vincennes - 6/29/2000 9:20:00 AM

In a recent episode of "The West Wing," Lowe's character is confronted by the daughter of the chief of staff, a public-school teacher. Her father has just shown her a position paper that Lowe had once written advocating school choice and, like any good member of the National Education Association, she is furious. The two wage a pointed debate on the merits of vouchers and she becomes exasperated that he can be such a Neanderthal. And then Sorkin shows us his fastball: Lowe admits to her sheepishly that the paper she saw wasn't a position paper but an opposition-research memo. Of course he doesn't support school choice. He was only playing devil's advocate. They hug and make up.

"The West Wing" is full of earnest arguments and moments of triumph and, dramatically, they're very satisfying. But when that sincere hopefulness is used as a source of comedy it falls hopelessly flat. Think back to Dixie Carter's ham-handed "I am woman" punch lines on "Designing Women." Liberal comedies are either insulting or boring.

That's because the flip side of the coin is that for all of their dramatic successes, liberal messages nearly always make for bad comedy. "Murphy Brown," "Ellen," and "Designing Women" verged at times on the unwatchable. "M*A*S*H," one of the best shows ever to appear on television, always sagged whenever Alan Alda began his sensitive political philosophizing.

10287. Jack Vincennes - 6/29/2000 9:20:16 AM

And as antithetical as it may seem, conservatism makes for great sitcom characters. Archie Bunker was much funnier than Meathead and Gloria. George Jefferson grounded "The Jeffersons," and Alex P. Keaton, played to incorrigible Reaganite perfection by Michael J. Fox, created the humor that was in "Family Ties." Even "The Simpsons" fills its shows with endless tweaking of the liberal agenda. (In one famous instance, Sideshow Bob is sent back to prison screaming that one day he'll walk the streets again because you can't keep the Democrats out of office forever.) And the most conservative character on television is, unquestionably, Hank Hill from "King of the Hill."

Conservatives are, to paraphrase John Stuart Mill, the stupid party. Conservatism doesn't like change. It fights a perpetual holding action that it knows it can't win because nothing stays the same forever. Of course, when societies change too fast they fall apart at the seams (witness the 1970s). Conservatives are the brakemen on the train, never stopping forward progress completely, but keeping the pace slow enough that the engine doesn't jump the tracks.

It is not, however, a glamorous job. Conservatism has been on the losing side of most of the fights since Brutus and Caesar took it outside. This win-loss record is good for the conservative temperament, if bad for the ego. Conservatism can laugh at itself -- and it can laugh at others, too, because part of its job is to poke fun at the more ridiculous aspects of liberalism. In the comic arena this resignation to defeat is gold, but in drama it's creepy. When conservatism is injected into drama, it is often preachy, bitter or wildly unrealistic, the result of losing too many arguments to history and never getting credit for saving the world from devolving into anarchy.

10288. Jack Vincennes - 6/29/2000 9:20:26 AM

For his part, Sorkin certainly doesn't give conservatives any credit. He blames them for everything from starving inner-city children to sending death threats to the president's daughter. And it's wildly entertaining.

10289. CalGal - 6/29/2000 9:27:21 AM

I believe I linked that in when it was first written. No doubt you missed it because you don't look at links--and, of course, believe everyone is the same as you so you put the damn article in again word for word.

As for the rest--when, exactly, are you going to watch an entire episode? You still haven't. Every time you've mentioned it, you say, "I watched part of an episode". Given your insistence on others knowing the whole story, I find this puzzling.

Anyway, we've had the discussion before. I find your observation of these as "the president's dilemmas" odd. The point of the father's rage was not that the President was being practical, but that the self-important and rather smug group of staffies thought that he wasn't "one of them". Instead, they got smacked with just how far they'd come from that point.

I never thought that episode was all that great, but I did like the scene where Sam fired the girl (even if the ending ruined that badly) and the father's speech was quite moving, if not looked at through your prism of "the president's dilemma".

But then, I'm not the hack sort. (g)

10290. Jack Vincennes - 6/29/2000 9:28:48 AM

"They hug and make up."

This will kill the show, as it must die. What they could use next season is the president bailing on his pal, Chief of Staff guy (another hugger) because of political constraints, and hiring another old friend who is not a hugger, but a more conservative dick. Thereafter, you can actually have real tension in the White House, instead of the faux tension that exists now (which basically consists of waiting for one goodnik to convince the other goodnick that he or she is not being a goodnik, and even if in the end they can't be goodniks, they can give knowing looks and hugs because they know that even if they did not do the goodnik thing, they would have, were it not for nasty conservatives and/or the ick of politics).

10291. Jack Vincennes - 6/29/2000 9:30:26 AM

Cal

The Monkees were on. I was being economical. We have had this discussion before. But it came to mind, and I thought someone else with whom I haven't had the discussion might be interested.

The firing was excellent.

10292. CalGal - 6/29/2000 9:34:32 AM

What they could use next season is the president bailing on his pal, Chief of Staff guy (another hugger) because of political constraints, and hiring another old friend who is not a hugger, but a more conservative dick.

Actually, this was done on Spin City. Can't go to that well again.

And as I've said before, the show is the first of its kind, so I don't know that it's realistic to expect groundbreaking drama as well. What I enjoy is that the show--unlike the creator--presents the issues as a lot more complex than I would have expected.

10293. CalGal - 6/29/2000 9:36:36 AM

The firing was excellent.

Oh, good. Then at some point in our critical judgments, we're not that far off. (g)

I will tell you that one of the very low points in the series came, for me, when Leo hired her back.

10294. Jack Vincennes - 6/29/2000 9:39:39 AM

Cal

Spin city is a sitcom. I don't think the same rules apply.

Cellar

I was watching some of The Fall of The Roman Empire and I thought of both you and Gladiator. I hadn't read in any of the reviews the fact that Gladiator and the The Fall of The Roman Empire are so similar. It is a tedious movie with perhaps one of the worst soundtracks ever. But there is a scene between Commodus (the guy from the Sound of Music) and Livius (The Russell Crowe character played by the awful Stephen Boyd). They meet, drink and appear to hump. Forget Curtis/Olivier in Spartacus or even Heston/Boyd in Ben Hur. This beats both for latent homoeroticism. Have you seen it?

10295. Cellar Door - 6/29/2000 9:56:25 AM

Not in some time. Are you sure they're humping? Not just some "manly" hug?

I love the narrator's last line: "This was the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire." In other words -- this was all a prequel!

10296. Jack Vincennes - 6/29/2000 10:00:18 AM

Cellar

They cross arms, each holding the other's sack of wine, and pour wine into each other's mouths until they can take no more. Then, they fall upon each other laughing, Livius to the rear. Humping may be an overstatement. But not much of one.

10297. CalGal - 6/29/2000 10:12:02 AM

Christopher Plummer. I don't remember much about the movie, but he was my favorite.

10298. CalGal - 6/29/2000 10:14:36 AM

I thought someone else with whom I haven't had the discussion might be interested.

What--you mean someone who agrees with you?

BTW, I disagree--again--that there aren't real "dilemmas" in the show. You just confuse the real stuff with the spats between the main characters, which has little to do with anything.

I don't see how you could think the episode with Ken Howard as the judge who doesn't believe in the constitutional right to privacy presented a one-sided discussion.

10299. Cellar Door - 6/29/2000 10:40:59 AM

"They cross arms, each holding the other's sack of wine, and pour wine into each other's mouths until they can take no more."

Don't straight Frat boys do this sort of thing all the time? Call Dubbya and ask him if this "sounds gay."

10300. ButterfieldSwire - 6/29/2000 10:43:26 AM

I popped "A Life Less Ordinary," last night. It became unbearable within seconds of the opening credits. I think I was able to sit through more of "Young Einstein," than this piece of shit. The cast included Ewan MacGregor, Cameron Diaz, and Delroy Lindo in feature roles and near great TV actors like Stanley Tucci, Tony Shaloub and Dan Hedeya in supporting roles. The casting director should have won an Oscar. But there's nothing worse than a gag comedy in which the gags aren't funny and occur so infrequently that the director times the cuts second's after the gag so you have time to have a good laugh without losing the banal plot. I challenge anyone to sit through this whole thing.

10301. CalGal - 6/29/2000 11:25:32 AM

I finally got the DVD of Happy, Texas, and it lived up to expectations. Two convicts (Steve Zahn and Jeremy Northam--yes, that Jeremy Northam) inadvertently escape, steal an RV belonging to a gay couple who train girls for beauty pageants and are, inevitably, mistaken for said couple. They must train the little girls of Happy in order to maintain their cover--and while they're in town, why not rob the bank? And it's probably not spoiling anything if I tell you that things don't quite work out the way they're planned.

I'm a sucker for the gentle, goofy, character comedies, but even without my bias there's no question this is a superior entry. Among the unlooked for surprises--the convicts don't really object to having to play gay, and apparently even Texas chain gang members don't think that all gay men are limp-wristed swishes these days. The movie has a healthy respect for both law & order and homosexuality, and real affection for its characters--the cruelest, most difficult moment in this movie is not funny at all, and the pain is genuinely affecting.

The direction isn't particularly innovative, and the story isn't as well-constructed as some. But the characters and performances are top-notch. Zahn is simply wonderful as the convict who is stuck training the girls, and Bill Macy, the town's straight-arrow sheriff, is adorable, sweet, sad, and very, very funny. Northam has it tough playing, er, straight man to these two, and does very well. I was also pleasantly surprised by Ally Walker (Profiler) as the bank owner and one of several love interests. Ron Perlman is priceless in a few brief scenes.

Don't miss it. Great for kids, too.

10302. CalGal - 6/29/2000 11:27:58 AM

Oh, and while I'm at it--in the past two weeks I've seen The Limey and Happy, Texas. Stamp, Fonda, Zahn, and Macy all turned in sterling performances, and I take this opportunity yet again to vent at the BULLSHIT Oscar nominations. It was such an awesome year for movies, but you sure wouldn't have known it from those clods.

10303. rubberducky - 6/29/2000 2:05:17 PM

Caught Me, Myself, & Irene last night. i can see what the critics were talking about. i, of course, liked it. having finally getting Jim Carrey back to doing what he's best at - physical, gross-out comedy. well, this flick had it in spades.

if you can get past the fact that the "plot" was more contrived than Dumb & Dumber (the last Carrey / Farrelly Bros combo). as in D&D, MMI had some wickedly funny moments and some hysterical scenes. unlike D&D, the movie drug in several places. like the bros couldn't think of a funny way to set up the next scene. oh well, when they hit, they hit hard.

too many good and funny things to list, but the breakout performance here, as you've probably read elsewhere, are the 3 "sons" that Carrey has. they were great. just what the movie needed, i thought. some may be put off with the way m-eff was uttered ALL the time with them, but i hardly noticed it.

so, a funny movie - just no Dumb & Dumber.

10304. CalGal - 6/29/2000 11:28:46 PM

Has anyone else ever seen that goofy little movie, Night of the Comet? It was basically a rework of Day of the Triffids with valley girls. Not a great movie, but some wonderfully silly moments.

10305. EricCartman - 6/30/2000 12:16:04 AM

I've always thought Night of the Comet was pretty decent. The girls are cute and resourceful, and not dumb. It's standard end-of-the-world sci-fi fare, but fun and well-done.

10306. CalGal - 6/30/2000 12:18:50 AM

Yes, there's not too many movies where the valley girls fight off the bad guys with an uzi and, when faced with an orange zombie, warns him nicely before disabling him with a karate kick.

10307. EricCartman - 6/30/2000 1:51:44 AM

Exactly. Well, except for the classic Cycle Sluts in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama, but now I'm just nitpicking.

10308. CalGal - 6/30/2000 1:58:47 AM

I am nearly sure you are making that up. If you didn't, pretend you did.

10309. EricCartman - 6/30/2000 3:25:45 AM

I screwed up the title a little bit. It's been a while. It's actually called Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama.

10310. CalGal - 6/30/2000 3:43:23 AM

I had a feeling "CyberSluts" was just too good to be true. It's amazing the things we remember, though, isn't it?

10311. EricCartman - 6/30/2000 4:24:39 AM

No, Cycle Sluts. I did find one in the adult section of the IMDB called Butt-Banging Cycle Sluts, but I haven't seen it.




(yet)

10312. CalGal - 6/30/2000 4:29:12 AM

Gad.

10313. DaveM - 6/30/2000 4:39:38 AM

Ya'll sure are late nighters. I have to finish editing an article by 8 a.m. Late night, eh?

10314. CalGal - 6/30/2000 4:48:31 AM

Cart, Slack, Fraaaaaaank, and I are the west coast night owls. This is pretty normal for us, although I'm off to bed pretty soon. Spawn catches a train pretty early in the morning this week.

It's almost 5 there, yes? You going to get it done?

10315. DaveM - 6/30/2000 5:05:01 AM

Yeah. I'm almost finished. The legal assistant for the professor I work for quit on Monday; she's taking the bar exam this weekend. I have had to assume her duties.

10316. rubberducky - 6/30/2000 12:38:31 PM

hahahahaha

"The only reason I'd bring a Bible out here is if I needed toilet paper."

10317. PelleNilsson - 6/30/2000 1:00:21 PM

Victor Grassman is dead.

10318. labwabbit - 6/30/2000 1:14:29 PM

Voyeurism...

Just look at yourself looking.

10319. labwabbit - 6/30/2000 1:17:09 PM

...and who may be watching.

10320. Cellar Door - 6/30/2000 1:41:47 PM

Vittorio Gassman

10321. JudithAtHome - 7/1/2000 10:11:51 AM

Walter Matthau...RIP

10322. Cellar Door - 7/1/2000 10:42:52 AM

Walter Matthau

10323. KuligintheHooligan - 7/3/2000 10:34:55 AM

From on article I read concerning the new movie, "The Patriot," here's a small movie quiz for youse.

From the Internet Movie Data Base, name the top four American wars, in descending order, upon which Hollywood movies have been based.

10324. PelleNilsson - 7/3/2000 11:42:51 AM

WWII

The Civil War

Vietnam

Korea

10325. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 12:15:19 PM

My guess:

WWII
WWI
Civil War
Vietnam

10326. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 12:21:11 PM

I saw Perfect Storm and Patriot this weekend.

Perfect Storm: an exercise in CGI weather FX. The FX are pretty impressive initially, but they grow old through repetition (there are only so many different ways to show a storm at sea). I think the fact that FX are central is shown by the huge amount of screen time devoted to the anonymous Coast Guard rescuers in what is a completely irrelevant subplot. What is disappointing is the almost complete lack of emotional heft to what should have been a much more involving story.

The Patriot: A confused, muddled mess of a war movie, with cartoonish villains and contrived conflicts. Its chief merits are the verisimilitude it gives to 18th century life and warfare, and a handful of well-executed battle scenes (the climactic battle, particularly, which is curiously never named, by I think it was supposed to be Cowpens).

10327. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 12:26:32 PM

I also rented the DVD of Seven Days in May, which I had previously never seen. A hell of a thriller. I thought I was seeing the best political thriller ever made until the film shifts focus from Kirk Douglas to the President in the final half hour. As is, we have to suffer through screenwriter Rod Serling's eye-rolling speeches about the sickness of the nuclear age and the importance of democracy. But it was still a damned good movie. Burt Lancaster rocks.

Frankenheimer's commentary track is decent, although he frequently sounds like a grumpy old man complaining about the difficulties in modern movie-making.

10328. KuligintheHooligan - 7/3/2000 2:26:51 PM

The answer to my brief quiz, with number of movies covering each war:

WWII - 407
Civil War - 197
WWI - 150
Vietnam - 72

Rask got all four wars correct, just in the wrong order. Pelle, nice guessing.

10329. AceofSpades - 7/3/2000 3:08:24 PM

I too saw Patriot and Perfect Storm.

Patriot: Boring. Episodic. No dramatic "oomph," no "through line." Nothing.

Perfect Storm: Repetitive as all get out. George Clooney continues to annoy with his heavily-mascara'ed baby brown sad-sack eyes. The screenwriter can only contrive so many contrivances to get the crew of the Andrea Gail out on the ship's deck during a raging hurricane, rather than bunkered down belowships like sane people. Boring. Too much cross-cutting to subplots.

On the plus side: Both films are well photographed and generally well-acted. The Patriot generally observes Ace's rules of action direction; trouble is, nothing interesting and nothing original happens during the action scenes.

Both are boring. Really boring.

If I have to choose between schlocky crapola like M:I 2 and more "serious" flims like these... ughhhh. I guess I choose these, but I'm not happy about my choice.

10330. AceofSpades - 7/3/2000 3:09:08 PM

Oh: The CGI in perfect Storm looks pretty silly.

10331. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 3:33:40 PM

"Oh: The CGI in perfect Storm looks pretty silly."

I didn't think so, but it isn't something I am going to spend a lot of time defending.

What was the last action film you *liked*, Ace?

10332. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 3:36:59 PM

I ask because for a long time, there weren't any action films I liked. I had begun to wonder whether this was because the films all sucked, or because I was much younger when I first saw the action films of the 80s (Aliens, Die Hard, Terminator, Predator, etc.) that I liked so much. I had begun to fear that I was turning into a grumpy old movie crank. Luckily, Zorro, Matrix, and Gladiator have come out lately to convince me that I still like a good action film, and I have discovered the wonders of HK action films.

But I am beginning to fear that you have turned into the cranky viewer that I incorrectly feared I was becoming.

10333. AceofSpades - 7/3/2000 3:50:02 PM

Rask:

Men in Black was outstanding. Independence Day was very good.

I'm sure I've liked a few since then, but I can't recall them now.

10334. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 3:54:22 PM

You liked MIB as an action movie? I thought it was okay as a comedy, but that it didn't have much merit as an action movie. Anyway, that was three years ago. I don't think you are too far away from sitting in your front porch rocker, drinking Metamucil, and telling those damned kids to get the hell off your lawn.

10335. AceofSpades - 7/3/2000 3:58:17 PM

Rask:

Last night a friend said the same thing: That I just didn't seem to like *any* movies.

But I've always been that way. I either love a film, and I'll watch it 30 times, delighting every time in its ingenuity and effectiveness, extolling it to all who'll listen, or I'll hate it.

It's not like I liked more movies as a kid-- I didn't. I loved Die Hard. I hated Running Man. I loved Lethal Weapon. I hated Lethal Weapon 2 and 3.

90% of everything *is* crap. 5% is passable, and 5% is truly outstanding. It's always been that way, and probably always will.

PS: Men in Black worked well enough as an action/comedy. 50% of "action" movies are action/comedies anyway.

10336. AceofSpades - 7/3/2000 4:00:46 PM

Incidentally, I just watched "Army of Darkness" again. Terrific movie.

10337. rubberducky - 7/3/2000 4:12:30 PM

"Incidentally, I just watched "Army of Darkness" again. Terrific movie."

agreed Ace

it is a rare case of the sequel being better than the original. or, in this case, the first two combined.

10338. AceofSpades - 7/3/2000 4:15:50 PM

I don't know "better." Evil Dead 2 was smashing good fun, and very innovative and original. Army of Darkness builds on that, and takes it to new levels, but Evil Dead 2 featured the first-ever incident of a hero cuttting off his own hand with a chain saw, then attaching the chain-saw to his stump, and whispering, "Groovy."

10339. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 4:15:56 PM

I don't completely understand its appeal. I thought it was mildly amusing, with its deliberately cheesy dialogue, but nowhere as good as its following would suggest.

10340. AceofSpades - 7/3/2000 4:17:46 PM

Rask:

Army of Darkness is the rare movie where the hero is a dickhead, and gets all the "Evil Bad Guy" Lines. That's what makes him so fucking cool-- he's worse than the "villains" he's fighting.

10341. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 4:23:45 PM

I'll take "Point Blank" and "High Plains Drifter" for $500, Alex.

10342. jonesatlaw - 7/3/2000 4:23:58 PM

I saw the Rocky and Bullwinkle movie this weekend. True to the original style. Hokey smokes there were a lot of corny puns and big name cameos. DeNiro was wonderful as Fearless Leader. Jason Alexander was a passable Boris Badenoff, but Danny Devito would have been excellent.

The movie is full of gags you'll miss the first time. Not howlingly funny, but a great escape from reality.

10343. rubberducky - 7/3/2000 4:24:39 PM

Re: Message # 10338, AceofSpades.

other than what you mentioned, i thought ED2 was a complete retread of ED. they go in woods ... he kills his girlfriend ... innocent people get possessed ... i was disappointed.

10344. AceofSpades - 7/3/2000 4:25:32 PM

"Point Blank" I don't know, but I was going to mention "High Plains Drifter."

I said *rare* movie-- not first movie with a dickhead, evilly funny hero.

10345. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 4:25:41 PM

Hell, that tradition goes all the way back at least to film noir. You really should watch a film like Kiss Me Deadly.

10346. AceofSpades - 7/3/2000 4:27:13 PM

Rubber Ducky:

Evil Dead 2 *was* a remake of Evil Dead 1, not actually a sequel.

They got more money and decided to make it with a bigger budget-- and as a comedy, of course.

Having seen Evil Dead 2 first, it was Evil Dead 1 which was a total disappointment to me. Cheap, unprofessional, nasty (the tree rape), and not a good laugh in the whole thing.

10347. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 4:28:18 PM

Oh, Hell. All those gangster films from the 30s had a lot of "evilly funny" protagonists. Of course, we always got a lecture from a chief of police or a newspaper editor 3/4 of the way through the film about how they were social diseases that had to be eradicated, but we all knew where the films' sympathies *really* lay.

10348. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 4:30:20 PM

I saw Evil Dead, and disliked it so much that I never bothered to see Evil Dead 2. I plan on catching one of these days, partially because I now remember almost nothing about the original (something about a Sumerian "book of the dead" being found in an Appalachian cabin?, followed by lots of dismemberments?)

10349. AceofSpades - 7/3/2000 4:32:44 PM

Evil Dead 2 is indeed about the Sumerian Necromonicon ex Mortis, with lots of dismemberments. But it's a Marx-Brothers-level slapstick comedy.

Trouble is, the first twenty five minutes or so are fairly "straight," so you don't realize you're in store for a comedy. Actually, the first twenty five minutes are pretty boring.

10350. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 4:34:47 PM

I am a huge fan of most of those "anti-hero" movies. I am trying to think why Army of Darkness left me cold. I think it is because Raimi so obviously is poking fun at Ash.

10351. AceofSpades - 7/3/2000 4:35:38 PM

No he's not. I don't know why you think he's "poking fun" at Ash.

Ash is the hero and the film -- and Raimi -- love him.

10352. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 4:38:45 PM

Maybe its because he only moonlights as a chainsaw-handed, "Boomstick"-wielding smartass hero from the future, when he has time from his day job working in Housewares for "S-Mart". Or maybe its because he is frequently the butt of some joke or another (forgetting the magic words to activate the book, for instance)

10353. AceofSpades - 7/3/2000 4:42:59 PM

If you saw Evil Dead 2, you'd have little doubt that Ash is intended to be a bona-fide action hero. Albeit a funny one.

He's brave, he has good lines, and he can take a shitload of damage. More damage than, say, Elmer Fudd or Yosemite Sam. Ash may be the first horror-hero who has the Damage-Taking Capability/Infinite Hit Points of horror monsters like Michael Myers or Jason.

10354. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 4:44:44 PM

well, I think I need to re-watch both ED2 and AoD, but the whole cartoonishness is partly why I don't think he is to be taken seriously.

10355. AceofSpades - 7/3/2000 4:48:06 PM

It's very cartoonish, and of course it's not meant to be "taken seriously."

It's the "poking fun" thing I disagree with, as if Ash is an Archie Bunker type character forever being exposed as a buffoon by his liberal producer.

Not so. He's a badass. But he's a badass in a comic universe, so of course he's funny and occasionally dimwitted (when the joke requires him to be).

10356. Cellar Door - 7/3/2000 4:52:13 PM

You don't know "Point Blank," Ace? Then you're in for the treat of your life.

I've got it letterboxed on laser. Don't know if it's yet available on DVD. If it's ever revived in a theater -- GO! Essential cinema.

10357. JudithAtHome - 7/3/2000 4:54:14 PM

I loved Point Blank...

10358. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 4:55:18 PM

I strongly recommend Point Blank as well. In hindsight, it wasn't a good comparison in context, since I don't recall much evilly funny dialogue, but it is a pretty good tough guy movie. Mel Gibson's "Payback" was a remake of it.

10359. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 4:57:43 PM

It isn't on DVD, but there is a 1998 Mickey Rourke "thriller" of the same name which could entrap the unwary filmgoer.

10360. JudithAtHome - 7/3/2000 5:03:06 PM

Oh well, with all his plastic surgery, no one will recognize Rourke anyhow.

10361. Cellar Door - 7/3/2000 5:29:46 PM

Actually there's very little dialogue in "Point Blank." The funniest moment is when Carroll O'Connor shows up.

But I don't want to spoil it. It's too damned good.

"Point Blank" isn't an "action film," per se. There are chase bits, and an epic car destruction scene, but most of the violence is hotly threatened then cooly executed. There's an overall sense of dread and foreboding that's quite uncanny as the bulk of the film takes place in blindingly bright sunshine.

And it's the finest work Lee Marvin ever did.

10362. JudithAtHome - 7/3/2000 6:07:09 PM

He certainly knows how to slap a woman around...and destroy glass coffee tables.

10363. Raskolnikov - 7/3/2000 6:09:18 PM

I think that is a good description, Cellar. I think the brightness of the picture works because it makes Marvin's actions more brazen. The difference between being mugged while walking alone at night, and being mugged at 5 o clock in the afternoon, at Times Square, while people pass by you not noticing or caring. The latter conveys a sort of existential dread about it.

10364. rubberducky - 7/5/2000 10:27:02 AM

Ace:

ah ... i had no idea ED2 was a remake of ED

hmmm, learn something everyday.

10365. AceofSpades - 7/5/2000 8:07:52 PM

Rubber Ducky:

They misleadingly titled it "Evil Dead 2," suggesting a sequel, but in fact, it's a comedic re-make with a bigger budget.

More than likely, they figured no one would remember the original ED anyway. ED2 was most likely released to a much broader audience than ED, so it probably wouldn't have made sense to make ED2 a continuation of ED1. I mean, who the fuck *saw* ED? Why bother making a proper sequel, since less than 10% of ED's (hoped for) bigger audience would even have seen ED?

Personally, I never saw the original (not until much later, until after I'd seen ED2 a dozen times), so their calculation was a good one, at least for me.

10366. AceofSpades - 7/5/2000 8:25:50 PM

(afterthought)

In this way, it's not much different from Billy Bob Thornton making a zero-budget "They Call it a Slingblade," using that film to get him through hollywood's door, then remaking "Slingblade" with a professional-level (but still low) budget.

Certainly, his first version of "Slingblade" wasn't what he'd always imagined it would be. Way too cheap. So he took a mulligan and put out the movie he'd always intended to make.

ED1 got much more exposure than Slingblade Mark 1, being a horror movie, and a controversial one at that (remember all the ruckus about the tree-rape?) But still, it's obviously a movie put together with shoestrings and duct tape, and its budget is on the student-film level.

So, once the Raimi Bros. & Bruce Campbell got some notice for their cheap little student horror film, they gathered money to remake the movie more professionally.

10367. AceofSpades - 7/5/2000 8:28:50 PM

(another afterthought)

Given that ED *did*, in fact, make a very nice profit, and yet the genius-hood of Raimi hadn't yet been established, Raimi could probably *only* get money for an ED sequel/remake. The money guys (who included lots of Michigan dentists, apparently) enjoyed the success of ED1 and wanted the same thing over again, only with even bigger profits.

10368. Cellar Door - 7/5/2000 10:37:58 PM

Evil Dead 2 was Elizabeth Montgomery's favorite movie. "Evil Dead 1 was good," she told me,"but when they did Evil Dead 2 they REALLY knew what they were doing."

10369. wonkers2 - 7/5/2000 10:47:35 PM

Cellar Door, Vittorio Gassman had not crossed my mind for a long time til I read your post. My longest and most vivid memory of him is as an evil character playing opposite Silvana Mangano in Bitter Rice. He was one of the evilist and Mangano one of the sexiest characters I'd seen at that point in my life (early 1950s).

10370. LadyChaos - 7/5/2000 10:52:35 PM

Did anybody read the Salon article on the Patriot? I have to wonder if Emmerich does have an agenda, there. I find it disturbing that Hollywood could be so easily cavalier with our history, especially when they know that the film will appeal to the kinds of schmucks who always flunk Jay Leno's street quizzes.

The only pre-20th-century historical war film that I can recall being any good was Glory. But even that film was flawed in its portrayal of Civil War era combat. The TNT production of Gettysburg was remarkable for its portrayal of the events at Little Round Top, but had little else to recommend it.

Will the American Revolution ever get is due? Perhaps the silver lining in The Patriot is that, assuming the film does well, there may be some impetus (and interest) down the road for making a more true-to-life story based on a particular event or figure in the war. We can only hope, I suppose.

If only David Lean were still alive.

10371. CalGal - 7/5/2000 11:48:45 PM

The Nazis, er, the Redcoats are Coming!

I'm still reading it; just wanted to link it in.

As far as American Revolutionary films: 1776, The Devil's Disciple and Johnny Tremaine come to mind (and yeah, the last is a stretch, but it's a pretty good kid's movie).

10372. LadyChaos - 7/6/2000 12:04:34 AM

CalGal,

1776? I was thinking more along the lines of historical verisimilitude than I was stodgy musicals. Think of a Lawrence of Arabia for the founding of American Democracy.

Can't say I've seen "The Devil's Disciple," but being as it is based upon a G. Bernard Shaw play, see the above comment regarding the "v"-word. I once played Captn. Bluntschli in a production of Arms and the Man, and I noticed then that Shaw's observations of historical detail had less to do with history than with his own satirical agenda.


P.S. Don't forget to drop me a line before you come to Miami.

10373. CalGal - 7/6/2000 12:42:52 AM

Actually, while the music in 1776 is terrible, the verisimilitude--at least as far as the issues covered--was surprisingly accurate, and it's a lot of fun. It is badly directed but not stodgy.

By transposing Oradour to South Carolina, and making 18th century Britons the first moderns to commit this particular war crime, Emmerich and Rodat -- unwittingly or not -- have done something unpleasantly akin to Holocaust revisionism. They have made a film that will have the effect of inoculating audiences against the unique historical horror of Oradour -- and implicitly rehabilitating the Nazis while making the British seem as evil as history's worst monsters.

This is a persuasive description of the impact of the film. I'm not convinced it was deliberate. It is quite possible that this analogy was inadvertent--Emmerich might just have wanted to have a dramatic scene and history was inconsiderate enough not to provide him with one.

10374. CalGal - 7/6/2000 12:45:56 AM

And my home computer died, so I don't have my address book--could you email me at the_calgal@yahoo.com? I will be in Miami from 16-21, as well as tooling around the weekend after, and would love to see you.

10375. LadyChaos - 7/6/2000 10:54:21 AM

CalGal,

You have incoming mail.

10376. Cellar Door - 7/6/2000 11:13:05 AM

Emmerich's an idiot.

10377. glendajean - 7/6/2000 11:17:18 AM

I've always been fond of "1776."

10378. LadyChaos - 7/6/2000 11:21:01 AM

Emmerich might just have wanted to have a dramatic scene and history was inconsiderate enough not to provide him with one.

I have not seen the film, and have not decided whether or not I will, but I would point out that there is an often fine line between drama and exploitation. Showing a story of people in conflict is dramatic, and usually the conflict is more interesting when it's between persons on the same side of a war. But showing the British murdering innocents is an exploitive tactic which, I'm afraid, will have a number of unfortunate consequences. First, it seems to turn the story of the American Revolution from one of ideals into one of bloodlust. Second, it does seem to be saying that war is always terrible, and that what the Germans did in WWII was nothing unusual. Third, making British regulars into war criminals has to be offensive to the British, who notwithstanding their imperial tendencies always took pride in abiding by the rules of warfare and by then emerging customs of international law (this is perhaps the main reason why I hesitate to pay money to see the film). Finally, as I indicated earlier, filmmakers who choose to address an important historical subject have a duty to give that subject at least fair treatment in spirit, if not in every respective detail. This is, of course, only my opinion. But I am greatly concerned by the vast and notorious historical ignorance of Americans, many of whom will no doubt accept events portrayed in The Patriot as being substantially true. Movie executive have often acknowledged a civic duty to be true to history; I doubt, for example, that the executives who financed this film would have tolerated a revisionary approach to life under the Nazis.

10379. CalGal - 7/6/2000 12:00:58 PM

I would point out that there is an often fine line between drama and exploitation.

I wasn't clear--I suspect at least the possibility that Emmerich did it because audiences are such a jaded lot. If the violence didn't compare to what they saw in Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List, then how bad could it have been?

10380. LadyChaos - 7/6/2000 1:12:12 PM

A simple dirty look can seem quite violent when artfully portrayed. See "Strangers On a Train" or "Shadow of a Doubt" for cases in point. Resorting to gruesome acts of violence reflects laziness and/or a lack of craft on the part of the writer and director.

10381. CalGal - 7/6/2000 1:17:50 PM

Well, I'd hardly argue otherwise. My only point was that the article implied that the analogy was deliberate--that Emmerich wanted to make the point that Nazis weren't so bad after all. But it seemed to me that it was quite possible for Emmerich to be a hack and a know-nothing who was worried that the mild-mannered war wouldn't have what it took to attract audiences.

10382. LadyChaos - 7/6/2000 1:44:35 PM

I also think that that is an at least equally plausible possibility, at least if you assume that the point was to make the audience want the Gibson character to take action. It is a formula taken from Westerns, and perfected by the Rambo movies, by which the spring of vengeance is wound so tightly against the hero that we delight in his vanquishing of the bad guy. This is to be distinguished from the apparently moral choice made by the Denzel Washington character in Glory. In any case, I'll probably have to see The Patriot before I should be allowed to continue dissecting it, eh?

10383. Cellar Door - 7/6/2000 2:14:19 PM

Cellar's latest reviews.

10384. PelleNilsson - 7/6/2000 2:22:12 PM

Server error.

10385. PelleNilsson - 7/6/2000 2:22:14 PM

Server error.

10386. PelleNilsson - 7/6/2000 2:22:37 PM

Sorry.

10387. Cellar Door - 7/6/2000 2:48:01 PM

Hmmm. That's disappointing. Try again in a little while.

10388. Cellar Door - 7/6/2000 2:51:24 PM

Once more with feeling!

10389. CalGal - 7/6/2000 2:55:06 PM

It worked fine for me the first time. Thanks for the link!

10390. Cellar Door - 7/6/2000 2:57:05 PM

You're welcome. "Urbania" will be opening nationwide shortly. Nobody has picked up "Full Blast" as yet, but I'm having High Tea with Marcus Hu of Strand today, so I'm going to insist that he make a grab for it.

10391. Cellar Door - 7/6/2000 2:59:59 PM