|
|
Post by kats on May 6, 2005 6:36:41 GMT -5
a little help from americans;
seeing as australia is so slow with fucking release dates (the aviator came out like a week before the academy awards)
has anyone seen melinda and melinda? if there has already been a discussion on this, just say so.
we are currently studying todd solondz's happiness. christ. all i have to say about that movie. i mean, whilst managing to be utterly disturbing and side splittingly funny and completely ammoral (well, more or less), i still feel like there's been some sort of coup in my head.
and half way through 'easy rider's, raging bulls' which is about cinema post bonnie and clyde to the end of the 70's and is FANTASTIC. perfect combination of easy reading and some light academic stuff. great book. good transport material. highly recommend.
|
|
|
|
Post by kats on May 6, 2005 6:47:23 GMT -5
roc doc - nicole kidman; nice person. mediocre actor.
shit performance, roc doc? obviously you haven't seen the others. that was a heap of junk. accent was appalling (in typical nicole fashion) and she even admitted it was shit. she read the lines and wore a costume and looked uptight, and whola! she's apparently acting.
days of thunder, another terrible performance.
cold mountain was a painful movie.
moulin rouge was a sensory assault.
portrait of a lady- clearly nicole is not a fan of characterisation.
the hours- nicole in every other movie with a nose and a suicide wish. julianne moore saved that film.
she gets thumbs ups from me for get shorty and dogville.
she just plays the trembling, vulnerable woman with a shaky voice and a bit of kick if force role over and over again. boring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on May 6, 2005 7:04:28 GMT -5
Nicole was in “Get Shorty”? Haven’t you seen “To Die For”, “Flirting”, or “Dead Calm” or “The Others” or “The Interpreter”? And “Days of Thunder” I have never seen but could tell it was crap. She is much better than mediocre, although I wish Renee would have won that year instead of Nic.
|
|
|
|
Post by kats on May 6, 2005 7:11:09 GMT -5
i meant to die for. not get shorty. my bad.
i saw the others, thought the movie was watchable, certainly nothing special. and i thought she was terrible. haven't seen the interpreter, though, and would do so only because of my faith in sean penn. definitely looks like a video movie for me though.
i just don't get her. she dresses well. has style. seems graceful. but she bores me and her acting is not mind shattering.
what was renee nominated for that year?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on May 6, 2005 7:39:50 GMT -5
CHICAGO you simple peasant!  |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on May 6, 2005 9:23:05 GMT -5
I thought Nicole was perfect in The Others -- her immaculate cold beauty reminded me of my -ex. And also how she . . . (oops, don't wanna spoil the ending  ~ ~ ~ Oh lord I love Todd Solondz. I CAN'T WAIT to see "Palindromes". |
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on May 6, 2005 9:31:29 GMT -5
What was the one he made with Selma Blair that caused such a ruckus? Was that one good? Happiness still is my fave of his.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on May 6, 2005 12:31:04 GMT -5
You guys are forgetting about BATMAN FOREVER.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on May 6, 2005 12:44:23 GMT -5
And lets keep it that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on May 6, 2005 13:42:55 GMT -5
I'd like to stick my batarang in her if you know what I mean |
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on May 6, 2005 13:50:01 GMT -5
I used to think she was cold and icy and not very attractive but I was so very wrong. I think it was the whole Tom Cruise association. Now Katie is going down a few pegs because of the ick factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on May 6, 2005 18:34:35 GMT -5
Thought that I was pretty clear that I'm far from a Nicole Kidman authority, just that I liked her...
That 'accent film', Birthday Girl' right?
Yeah, she pretty incongrously plays a Russian mail-order bride who's also scheming undercover shit with Mafiosi...but it wasn't Gigli or nothin'....ma-a-an we're being tough here.
Honestly wasn't any sort of putrid.
Peacemaker was very watchable...
|
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on May 7, 2005 15:46:24 GMT -5
Geeeze didn't know the new Romero film would be done so fast. Cool.
Luke: What did you think of Day of The Dead. I usually like it more each time i see it.
Though it obvious takes takes awhile to get to the stuf u really want to see. But i like watching the people go crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on May 7, 2005 20:10:04 GMT -5
I just got back from seeing Kingdom of Heaven and for my money it was a good 2 1/2 hours spent.
I know next to nothing about the Crusades or the time period in which the film's events follow so I can't comment on any liberties the film takes yet I also can't fault it if I knew the facts. About the film, it was noted that it would seem controversial as it is released in a heated political or religious climate but when is the climate anything but? Truth be told, the film depicts both the Christian and Muslim sides with intelligence and care, although the Muslims are seen in a better light.
As expected, the Christian army in Jerusalem has some bad apples, namely fanatics like the character of Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas), an influential figure in the king's court and greedy war-mongerer. Some of his comrades believe that since the Christian God is on their side, they can take the Muslim army anywhere, anytime. So what really makes shit hit the fan is the greedy wanting to expand the Christian empire, so sooner or later, they get what's coming to them.
Although the film has sumptous sights of empires past, roaring armies, realistic violence, and recurring themes of codes of honor, Ridley Scott is not trying to play on the strengths of Gladiator. As enjoyable as I felt that film was, it was really just a revenge tale told with sweeping, cinematic gestures and style. Kingdom of Heaven is a different story and is concerned with personal conflicts of another nature, of finding one's worth when you consider your soul damned and your life expendable and unfit when the things you love are taken away.
Orlando Bloom has not the commanding presence of Russell Crowe in Gladiator, nor will he ever; let's not kid ourselves. But he is more convincing here than in Troy, which I hate with a purple passion.
The supporting players are terrific as well: Liam Neeson, although very brief; Jeremy Irons, whose screen time is only a little longer than Neeson; Eva Green, who is always easy on the eyes and interesting (too bad her chemistry with Bloom is not as strong); Ghassan Massoud as Saladin, the leader of the Muslim army; and Alexander Siddig as his right-hand man.
I've read that the film's original running time was 3+ hours and it shows. Some smaller subplots and motivations among the major and supporting characters are murky and the film, while tightly paced at 2 1/2 hours, seems like it's missing more meat instead of fat.
All in all, KOH managed to entertain despite several obstacles. I've grown weary of battle scenes yet the choreography of two battles preceding the seige at Jerusalem (and the siege itself) is expertly choreographed. And the film manages to make its points without preaching.
Recommended.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on May 8, 2005 2:34:25 GMT -5
Well, I've just returned from seeing the new Todd Solondz movie, Palindromes, and several things are clear: 1) This is the worst movie I've seen in months. Maybe years. 2) Todd Solondz has NOTHING left to say. Nothing. The man is totally bereft of ideas. 3) Todd Solondz apparently thinks that totally assinine characters constitutes a "satire". 4) I'm soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo done with people who think that there's something bold and daring and iconoclastic about making fun of suburbia. Jesus H. Christ, you hate New Jersey, we fucking get it, please stop making movies. 5) There is a subplot in the movie involving the assassination of an abortion doctor. It made me want to assassinate Todd Solondz. (just kidding, patriot act people, please don't put me on any internal enemies list!) fuck. that's it. from now on, I'm only going to see classic films at the theater - this shit ain't worth my $9. nine fuckin bucks!!! i'll make an exception for the new romero flick, though  Cheers, M |
|
