And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:42:03 -0000, nemesis  
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The main point was to demonstrate special
>> effects. The plot was secondary. That's why they spend so long on things
>> like showing space ships coming over the horizon (first matte painting),
>> pens floating in air, jogging around the inside of a centrifuge, and so  
>> on.
>
> Cinema is a visual medium.  And 2001 excels at this, with very powerful  
> and
> poetic imagery:  the famous opening with the sun rise from space at the  
> sound
> of Richard Strauss' finest; the bone flowing into air and cutting to the  
> ship;
> or the ships ballet in space with Blue Danube...

Which I don't think anyone here would deny.

> ironically, much more impacting than most CG orgies showing these days...
>
> the plot was secondary?!  An enigmatic monolith sparking intelligence, a
> paranoid AI and a men's quest for survival going beyond the beyond  
> should be
> enough...

The point I (and I think Andrew) is making is that none of this is really  
made explicit; you yourself said that you had to read between the lines  
and thus it may be possible to come away from the film with completely the  
wrong conclusions (as per the ones I made-up) or just a state of confusion.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you 
>> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
> 
>   That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
> 

Yes, it would.  I can be *very* hard to please at times :)

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you 
>> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
> 
>   That would rule out 99.9% of movies.

	Yes, but 99.9% of *those* are likely not worth watching even once.

	Of all the movies I've *seen*, certainly over 1% were worth watching
over (for me). If I did an analysis (which I kind of could - I have a
record of almost all the movies I've seen in the last 8-9 years), it
would not surprise me in the least if that percentage were as high as 5.

-- 
Cartoon Law: Any violent rearrangement of feline matter is impermanent.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,

	Who said she died? ;-)

	And you know, if someone *wants* to die, I don't think his/her body
would automatically revolt, go into fly mode, and refuse to let her die...

	In any case, your point has about as much validity as the criticism of
the virtual reality physics in The Matrix.

	
-- 
Cartoon Law: Any violent rearrangement of feline matter is impermanent.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> >> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you 
> >> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
> > 
> >   That would rule out 99.9% of movies.

>         Yes, but 99.9% of *those* are likely not worth watching even once.

  Perhaps in your opinion. Over half of the movies I have seen in my life
have been worth watching at least once. (Note that this still leaves quite
a humongous amount of movies which were so horrible that I would have not
minded if I had never seen them...)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>>>> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you 
>>>> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
>>>   That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
> 
>>         Yes, but 99.9% of *those* are likely not worth watching even once.
> 
>   Perhaps in your opinion. Over half of the movies I have seen in my life
> have been worth watching at least once. (Note that this still leaves quite
> a humongous amount of movies which were so horrible that I would have not
> minded if I had never seen them...)
> 

Personally (and remember, this is just in my own experience) there are 
so many good movies out there that losing the ones not worth watching 
more than once doesn't limit my choices noticeably.

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

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:47:33 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
>> Nice illustration that prejudice can be a useful thing.
>
>> You could go selecting movies to see completely at random and only  
>> rarely
>> see one that you actually like, or you can use your best judgment to  
>> sort
>> away the ones you think you won't enjoy.
>
>   I have learned to not to judge a book by its cover. Or, in this case,
> a movie.
>
>   I have been surprised in both directions. Movies which I was almost
> certain would be mediocre (but I didn't have anything better to do than
> to watch them) have surprised me for being unexpectedly enjoyable. Also
> many movies which I was rather sure I would like have been  
> disappointments.
>
>   It's just not possible to know in advance.

Examine first movie
|
Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie
No
|
Does it 'star' Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
No
|
Does it 'star' a singer who has decided
to spread her talents into the medium of film? > Yes > Go to next movie
No
|
Does the director/producer's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend
have a prominent starring role > Yes > Go to next movie
No
|
...

I'm joking of course; sort of.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

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? Based on the second book. 
Nowhere near as good as the first film, but nevertheless well-made and 
enjoyable. It concerns the follow-up mission to find out what happened 
to Discovery, answers most of the questions without being too bleedin' 
obvious, and completes an open-ended story quite nicely with some new 
ideas at the same time. It also explains why HAL was not mad in any 
sense - a widespread misconception that always bugs me...

Happy New Year to y'all, by the way :-)

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie
> Does it 'star' Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie

  You don't seem to like cheesy comedies too much.

> Does it 'star' a singer who has decided
> to spread her talents into the medium of film? > Yes > Go to next movie

  I thought 'Enough' was surprisingly good, much better than I expected.

> Does the director/producer's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend
> have a prominent starring role > Yes > Go to next movie

  I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
deserve a second watching at some point.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:52:03 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie
>> Does it 'star' Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
>
>   You don't seem to like cheesy comedies too much.

Depends on who's providing the cheese.

>> Does it 'star' a singer who has decided
>> to spread her talents into the medium of film? > Yes > Go to next movie
>
>   I thought 'Enough' was surprisingly good, much better than I expected.
>
>> Does the director/producer's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend
>> have a prominent starring role > Yes > Go to next movie
>
>   I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
> deserve a second watching at some point.

For every Long Kiss Goodnight you get a Cutthroat Island though.

What I'm saying is that I apply critera to what I watch. I'm not saying I  
won't watch anything that's 'banned' by the above; it'll just naturally  
full lower on my list of priorities.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie
>> Does it 'star' Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
> 
>   You don't seem to like cheesy comedies too much.
> 
>> Does it 'star' a singer who has decided
>> to spread her talents into the medium of film? > Yes > Go to next movie
> 
>   I thought 'Enough' was surprisingly good, much better than I expected.
> 
>> Does the director/producer's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend
>> have a prominent starring role > Yes > Go to next movie
> 
>   I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
> deserve a second watching at some point.

Different people like different things. ;-)

[Altough there seems to be almost universal agreement that Star Wars III 
sucks beyond belief...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:477e0067$1@news.povray.org...

> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.

http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/

http://www.xkcd.com/224/

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47839abb$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
>
> http://www.xkcd.com/224/

Huh? Related how?

Post a reply to this message

>>> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
>> http://www.xkcd.com/224/
> 
> Huh? Related how?

"My God, it's full of CARs..." ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47839f0a$1@news.povray.org...
> >>>
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
> >> http://www.xkcd.com/224/
> >
> > Huh? Related how?
>
> "My God, it's full of CARs..." ;-)

The comic you linked to is titled Lisp, and wonders if god constructed the
universe using lisp.

Post a reply to this message

> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
>>>> http://www.xkcd.com/224/
>>> Huh? Related how?
>> "My God, it's full of CARs..." ;-)
> 
> The comic you linked to is titled Lisp, and wonders if god constructed the
> universe using lisp.

Oh well, never mind then. It's certainly not the first time somebody has 
told me I'm not funny.

[I thought the idea of a real person having a name like Sandy Beaver was 
very amusing - but the entire NERV clan disagreed with me, so...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> For every Long Kiss Goodnight you get a Cutthroat Island though.

  I honestly don't understand why Cutthroat Island was such a flop.
IMO it was ok. Definitely much better than many movies which profited
more.

  I suppose the chaotic nature of the big audience cannot be predicted
(if it could be, every movie would be a huge success).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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), but that it failed to meet
fan expectations. If there weren't any expectations about it at all it
would have probably been considered an above average movie, perhaps even
a good movie, but big expectations and not meeting them ruined it.

  IMO Lucas made a mistake with the way he did the trilogy. Basically he
didn't listen to what the fans wanted, but made what he wanted. While the
result was IMO quite good, fans didn't like it.

  If I were Lucas I would redeem myself by making one movie more: A movie
for the fans. A movie about Darth Vader (which happens between episodes
three and four), a movie which is the epitome of all that is cool about
Darth Vader.

  But I've got the feeling that Lucas is too proud to do that, unfortunately.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie
>> Does it 'star' Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
> 
>   You don't seem to like cheesy comedies too much.

Only when they're actually funny. ;-)

I think there's a segment of the population that just doesn't find 
watching other people's pain to be funny, even for fictional people.

>   I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
> deserve a second watching at some point.

It was.

Me? I find only a handful of movies that are worth watching more than 
once in the theatre, and many more that are worth watching many times at 
home (especially while doing something else, perhaps).

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> but that it failed to meet fan expectations. 

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

In the later parts of 2 and 3, you wind up meeting every major character 
from 4, 5, and 6, which felt jammed in. Some fans have retconned it to 
make sense, implying that (for example) Chewbacca was using Solo as 
cover for spying, rather than just being the first mate of the ship.

If you liked the cartoons about halflife and LotR, check this out:

http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/darthsanddroids/
You need to start at the beginning so you know who's playing what 
characters for that strip to make sense, tho.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>>>> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you 
>>>> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
>>>   That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
> 
>>         Yes, but 99.9% of *those* are likely not worth watching even once.
> 
>   Perhaps in your opinion. Over half of the movies I have seen in my life
> have been worth watching at least once. (Note that this still leaves quite
> a humongous amount of movies which were so horrible that I would have not
> minded if I had never seen them...)

	You said 99.9% of movies, not 99.9% of movies you've seen.

	

-- 
Cartoon Law: Any violent rearrangement of feline matter is impermanent.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > but that it failed to meet fan expectations. 

> That, and the acting sucked.

  I have seen movies with truely bad acting, and I didn't see any of that in
the SW trilogy. I never understood what people are talking about when they
say there's bad acting in the trilogy. Granted, perhaps not oscar-worthy
acting, but bad?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Me? I find only a handful of movies that are worth watching more than 
> once in the theatre, and many more that are worth watching many times at 
> home (especially while doing something else, perhaps).

  Here movie theatres are way too expensive to go and watch a movie more
than once (if at all). If it wasn't for that I might perhaps go more often.

  As far as I remember, there has been only one movie which I have seen
twice in a movie theater (and I paid the ticket myself both times), but
I'm too ashamed to tell which... :P
  (No, it's nothing pornographic or the like.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4783710e$1@news.povray.org...

> [Altough there seems to be almost universal agreement that Star Wars III 
> sucks beyond belief...]

Where did you see that? Of the 3 movies of the new trilogy it was the one 
that had the best reviews (see the Wikipedia article and the IMDB and 
RottenTomatoes ratings for instance).

In any case Warp is right, the problem with these movies were not that they 
sucked: the whole Star Wars franchise is a tribute to the cheesy serials 
from Lucas' childhood after all, so the suckage was built-in, from Darth 
Vader to Jar-Jar. It was that the fans expectations were impossible to meet. 
The material was cheesy from the very start, but it didn't look that way 
when the fans were little kids in the 80s. The new movies are cheesy too, 
but the fans grew up...


G.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> but that it failed to meet fan expectations. 
> 
> That, and the acting sucked. Which is hard to blame on the actors, given 
> how it was filmed.
> 
> In the later parts of 2 and 3, you wind up meeting every major character 
> from 4, 5, and 6, which felt jammed in. Some fans have retconned it to 
> make sense, implying that (for example) Chewbacca was using Solo as 
> cover for spying, rather than just being the first mate of the ship.

I don't know about bad acting - most of the acting was fairly 
reasonable. However, the editing leaves much to be desired. Character 
says 3 lines. Cut to fantastical shot. Cut to another character. 
Character says a few words. Cut to another impossible landscape. Cut to 
something happening in space. Cut. Cut. Cut.

If you watch the originals, there are whole scenes where nothing 
"really" happens much. Like some people walk around, and it's kinda 
spooky, and they mutter a few words to each other, and you're not really 
sure what's going to happen next... The new films don't appear to 
contain anything like that.

Also the story is pretty weak. But hey.

I actually quite enjoyed Star Wars I. I still watch it from time to 
time. But once you've watched it once, there's not a huge amount to 
watch again. I would say it's the best of the new batch. The other two 
just seem to offer nothing. [Unless you just want to enjoy the - 
admittedly cutting edge - visuals.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> [Altough there seems to be almost universal agreement that Star Wars III 
>> sucks beyond belief...]
> 
> Where did you see that? Of the 3 movies of the new trilogy it was the one 
> that had the best reviews (see the Wikipedia article and the IMDB and 
> RottenTomatoes ratings for instance).

Hmm, OK. The false concencus effect then, perhaps?

> In any case Warp is right, the problem with these movies were not that they 
> sucked: the whole Star Wars franchise is a tribute to the cheesy serials 
> from Lucas' childhood after all, so the suckage was built-in, from Darth 
> Vader to Jar-Jar. It was that the fans expectations were impossible to meet. 
> The material was cheesy from the very start, but it didn't look that way 
> when the fans were little kids in the 80s. The new movies are cheesy too, 
> but the fans grew up...

I wouldn't say there's anything "cheesy" about any of the films in the 
series - old or new. The problem is that the new films are an endless 
cascade of fantastical over-the-top visuals linked by little or no 
story, never mind dialog or character interaction. But there we are...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
>  As far as I remember, there has been only one movie which I have seen
> twice in a movie theater (and I paid the ticket myself both times), but
> I'm too ashamed to tell which... :P

It was Titanic!

Everyone went crazy going and seeing that move in the movie theatre again 
and again...

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I have seen movies with truely bad acting, 

Yes. Most anything with Drew Carrey, for example. :-)

I just found the actors to be (for the most part) wooden. The more 
central the character, the more unemotional the acting was. Anakin 
should be way more broken up over his conflicts, but instead the most 
emotive acting comes when he wears his mask.

Contrast with, for example, Luke leaning back in bed after Lea kisses 
him, with Solo rolling his eyes.  Nothing like that anywhere in the 
I/II/III movies. The most emotive characters in the prequels were the 
special effects ("It's a trap!")

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Here movie theatres are way too expensive to go and watch a movie more
> than once (if at all). If it wasn't for that I might perhaps go more often.

I can remember two myself:
Galaxy Quest
Joe vs the Volcano.

I think there was one other, but I don't remember what it was. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:46:15 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys

Do you just mean "12 Monkeys", the Terry Gilliam movie?  That one was 
pretty hard to follow, but Gilliam tends to be very surreal.

> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.

It's Kubrick - almost gotta expect that.

> #1 Dune.

It's a classic Messiah story; the David Lynch movie was abbreviated far 
too much compared to the book, I found the miniseries on SciFi to be 
better...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:52:03 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie Does it 'star'
>> Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
> 
>   You don't seem to like cheesy comedies too much.

A comedy should make one laugh; I don't know about you, but Sandler 
doesn't make me laugh.  Nor does Vaughan.

>> Does it 'star' a singer who has decided to spread her talents into the
>> medium of film? > Yes > Go to next movie
> 
>   I thought 'Enough' was surprisingly good, much better than I expected.

First time I saw it, I thought it was OK.  The second time I saw it, I 
didn't like it - seemed to send the message that violence is OK.  I know 
it's more complicated than that, but still.

>> Does the director/producer's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend have a
>> prominent starring role > Yes > Go to next movie
> 
>   I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
> deserve a second watching at some point.

Never saw it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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

2053 was decent when I read it (I think I was 15 at the time).  I 
couldn't stomach more than a chapter or two of 3001, however (17yo when 
I tried to read it?).

It just seemed like preachy atheist propoganda written for 5 year olds. 
  Mind you, that was only the first two chapters - I never read the rest :)

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

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:477e0067$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
> 
> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/

I don't get the appeal most of these pictures.  I mean, the pictures are 
cute, and I understand what they're "trying" to say, but I feel like my 
IQ drops about 10 points every time I look at comedy that tries to be as 
uneducated as possible.

Tom Lehrer, in one of his songs, mentions the unfortunate fact that many 
people equate illiteracy with charm.  To me, this is one of the most 
disturbing facts about our culture today.

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

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Sense was IMO the best of them.

Agreed.

> Unbreakable wasn't bad, but it wasn't overly good 

Way, *way* too long. If they'd chopped out 40 minutes or so, it would 
have been excellent.

> Signs was just a confusing mess IMO.  

It wasn't too confusing to me. It was trying to be scary or something, 
or suspenseful, but it failed that too.  The only good bit of acting was 
when the brother or whoever it was was watching the TV and saw the 
creature and jumped back. *That* was convincing acting.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I just found the actors to be (for the most part) wooden. 

Or, to describe it a different way:

Luke: Impetuous, eager, noble.
Leia: Concerned, good hearted, Will do what it takes.
Solo: Good bluffer, soft inside.
Vadar: Brutal, uncaring.
Emperor: Sneaky, cruel.

Now, describe three major characters from the prequels in the same way.

Aniken: Teen angst. (And that only when he's a teen. No personality in 
the first movie at all.)

That's about all I can come up with. Nobody in the first movie had 
enough personality I could care what happened to them.

I mean, hell, Jabba the hut had more personality than Queen Amanda.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I think there was one other, but I don't remember what it was. :-)

Oh. Duh. I did go back and see 2001 when it came out 20 years later. :-)

Probably one or two more in there somewhere. Surely less than 8 or 10 in 
my whole life.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
>> news:477e0067$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>>
>> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
> 
> I don't get the appeal most of these pictures.  I mean, the pictures are
> cute, and I understand what they're "trying" to say, but I feel like my
> IQ drops about 10 points every time I look at comedy that tries to be as
> uneducated as possible.
> 

The problem is if you visit internet sites where this meme is
propagated. After accidentally stumbling into a thread and seeing 5 or 6
of these pictures at once, your IQ has suffered such a distorting blow
that, after that point in time, you now find the pictures to be funny.

> Tom Lehrer, in one of his songs, mentions the unfortunate fact that many
> people equate illiteracy with charm.  To me, this is one of the most
> disturbing facts about our culture today.
> 

You think cats would be literate? In English, mind you, not in their own
language.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> You think cats would be literate? In English, mind you, not in their own
> language.

My cats act as if I am so irredeemably beneath their intellect that it's 
not worth their time to even contemplate speaking to me :)

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

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Gilliam's movies tend to be quite good.

  Tideland was weird, though.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message