On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:09:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> That, and the acting sucked. Which is hard to blame on the actors, given
> how it was filmed.

And the fact that the scripts generally sucked.  There wasn't a lot for 
the actors to work with, since most of the budget was blown on the 
effects.

He managed to get the key elements of the story in that needed to be 
there, but like I said elsewhere, the new trilogy had no 'soul' compared 
to the first one.

It isn't about fan expectations - I went in with no expectations, and 
still I was disappointed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:17:25 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:

> I don't know about bad acting - most of the acting was fairly
> reasonable.

Were you watching the Amidala/Padme character at all?  She was simply 
awful, especially in ep 1.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:10:01 -0800, Chambers wrote:

> Case in point: The Sixth Sense.  The ending was "spoiled" for me before
> I ever saw it.  Even so, I found it to be an excellent movie, and was
> still able to appreciate it.

Agreed; I didn't know the twist at the end before seeing it, but I have 
been increasingly disappointed in Shamalan's movies since then.  Sixth 
Sense was IMO the best of them.

I've seen all of them except for Lady in the Water, and a few of them 
more than once.  Unbreakable wasn't bad, but it wasn't overly good 
either.  It's one you watch because it's got Bruce Willis and Samuel L. 
Jackson in it (and more for the latter than the former IMO).

Signs was just a confusing mess IMO.  I followed the story OK, but by the 
time that one came out, you came to expect that there would be a twist, 
so the thing that made that one interesting was trying to figure out what 
the twist would be.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:39:16 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   Twelve Monkeys is one of the best movies I have seen. If I remember
> correctly, I have seen it 4 times, and each time I have got something
> new from it.

I thought it was a very good movie as well; Gilliam's movies tend to be 
quite good.  I also really liked The Fisher King.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:14:01 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> > Invisible wrote:
>> >> I suspect it's actually *not* about maths, but about some theory
>> >> that
>> >
>> >  Of course not. A movie about maths would be boring.
>>
>> I find it a little sad that so many people think this...
> 
> yes, I remember an old Disney cartoon where Donald meets the greek Plato
> and other philosophers and discovers math and music.  It was pretty fun
> for a movie involving geometric figures and tone division... ;)

I actually quite liked Flatland myself...But I can't remember which 
version it was I saw.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:30:29 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:

> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the
> other 2.

There were other sequels?  I only knew about 2010 (which I quite liked).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:10:01 -0800, Chambers wrote:
> 
>> Case in point: The Sixth Sense.  The ending was "spoiled" for me before
>> I ever saw it.  Even so, I found it to be an excellent movie, and was
>> still able to appreciate it.
> 
> Agreed; I didn't know the twist at the end before seeing it, but I have 
> been increasingly disappointed in Shamalan's movies since then.  Sixth 
> Sense was IMO the best of them.
> 
> I've seen all of them except for Lady in the Water, and a few of them 
> more than once.  Unbreakable wasn't bad, but it wasn't overly good 
> either.  It's one you watch because it's got Bruce Willis and Samuel L. 
> Jackson in it (and more for the latter than the former IMO).
> 
> Signs was just a confusing mess IMO.  I followed the story OK, but by the 
> time that one came out, you came to expect that there would be a twist, 
> so the thing that made that one interesting was trying to figure out what 
> the twist would be.

I actually like all of his movies, though The Village and Lady in the 
Water aren't his best.  Personally, Unbreakable and Signs are my favorites.

He focuses much more on the emotions of his characters than the events.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> [Altough there seems to be almost universal agreement that Star Wars III 
>> sucks beyond belief...]
> 
>   The problem with SW3 (and the previous two) is not that it was bad (it
> was quite good from all points of view, IMO)

We have differing opinions of "good" then.

Writing: Bad.
Acting: Bad.
SFX: Excellent.
Directing / Editing: Excellent (how else can you justify such horrible 
movies being so much fun to watch?)

I'm still willing to watch the original trilogy every now and then, but 
the new ones...  It's painful to sit still through anything other than 
the action scenes (which are, mercifully, plentiful).

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Joe vs the Volcano.

Now THAT was a good movie!  I totally didn't appreciate it the first 
time I saw it, but seeing it again (I think it was about a year ago) I 
loved it!

I think I just wasn't mature enough the first time :)

The last movie I went to see twice in the theatre was actually Harry 
Potter and the Order of the Pheonix :)  Of the movies, I'd say it's 2nd 
to Prisoner of Azkaban, but I'm willing to bet the "hardcore" fans 
disagree with me.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
>>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>>
>> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the 
>> other
>> 2.
> 
> Why has nobody mentioned the second film?

Because it was comprehensible?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message