My word, and to think that I still run to the nearest video store and rent stuff.
My cleaning lady and I have started to trade videos. I lent her Collateral and she lent me U-571. I haven't watched it yet, but it looks like a thriller.Anyone seen it?
Not to worry, Phoenix. Collateral is the only movie that I have watched in which Tom Cruise does an excellent job of acting. I have yet to watch him in The Last Samurai, however. Have that one as well--"....romantic vision of a lost world...."
Phoenix32890 wrote:Yesterday, Blockbuster Online sent me Koyaanisqatsi . I already have it on VHS, but wanted to see it on DVD.
It was really worth it! With no actors, or story line, the film is a montage of natural and man made pictures. The score is by Philip Glass, and is mesmerizing. It is the kind of film that you need a large screen, and good speakers, to really appreciate. It's stance is pro-ecology. I am definitely not a "tree hugger", but found the film fascinating, nonetheless.
Link to Koyaaniisqatsi
If you like this film, you'd also like:
BARAKA
LW- I must be doing my homework. I had never heard of Baraka, but I came across it in my travels, and it is now on my Blockbuster queue!
Recenty I watched the LOTR trillogy while working on other stuff.
Decent films that just "ramble" too damn much.
Boy, you are into multi-tasking. I have watched all three extended versions with friends on my big screen with the 5.l Dolby cranked up and I can't find any rambling. As a matter of fact, I miss the quiet, contemplative passages in the books. They explained much more about the characters. It was even still impossible to squeeze these books into a 12 hours movie.
Lightwizard wrote:Boy, you are into multi-tasking.
I'd already seen them, and knew I had a lot of boring stuff ahead. Something more interesting would have taken me away from my work.
I think I'd let them mellow out for a few years before seeing them again. We're these the extended versions? Then you'd likely really find them "rambling." I think Jackson basically made the films for people who have read the books. I know there are places in the film where some will just plain lose track of the story because there's not enough of the interlinking storyline between the great battle scenese, et al. The films are a Reader's Digest condensed version. As films, they work great and impressed critics who hadn't read the books. Of course, film critics wouldn't be doing their job unless they go to screenings and get totally focused on the movie. It's also the movies that they lose focus that get poor reviews. These are the movies that just don't grab them. I'd say since all threee films got more than 90 percent great reviews, they were focused.
I hope this stuff is not working on the site! I have done some programming for point-of-sale computers and it isn't my cup-of-tea. That's why when I was thinking of setting up a better site for my lighting design, I came to you for help. Then I decided I'd rather semi-retire and get business almost solely through referrals. I don't know if I ever said thanks for the offer but I really appreciated the offer.
(Actually I'm always tuned into The Today Show while playing at A2K on weekdays with the laptop on my TV tray!)
No worries, I like to help.
As to the LOTR the films made me very interested in the books, looks like the type to get lost in.
The books are defintely better but I don't know that I'd wait to read them after the films have been lost somewhat in memory. The first books spends some time and detail on the hobbits embarking on their quest and the anticipation of the unknown is both gripping and profound. Tolkien is able to make the reader feel like he is involved with the characters, maybe even identifying with one of them. Of course, I would never suggest you have excessively hairy legs!
And, wake up! (Okay, by the time this is posted, your avatar will likely change again).
(I always advise people that the books are perfect as fantasy for people who don't really like fantasy).
I watched an odd movie last night called The Ninth Gate starring Johnny Depp. Tired old theme, but handled a bit differently. Still thinking about it.
Somehow I've been avoiding that film but will give it a twirl. Depp has made his share of not-so-great movies but always redeems himself. I was entertained by "Pirates of the Caribbean" but it's not a movie I would make it a point to watch again.
Still my favorite Depp performances is "Ed Wood."
Well, Mr. Wizard, All of the really great ones do rotten stuff, sometimes. Johnny Depp was excellent as a charlatan in The Ninth Gate. Frank Langella, passable. It seems the trend right now in Hollywood, is toward real life folks. Hope I'm around to see Depp do James Barrie.
Anyone here ever wonder what it would be like to have some movie star portray your life? Watched The Widow on the Hill. Reminded me of O.J. Simpson.
I don't remember Depp in anything one could call truly rotten, not even something relegated to the old B movie criteria. On the four star rating system, he's been in a few ** movies. "The Astrosnots Wife" was one of them. Many would say "Fear and Losing in Las Vegas" (mangled titles courtesy of LW).
(Although in "Fear and Loathing" Depp does manage to entertain and deliver and over-the-top performance that is riveting).
Mangled titles...love it! Actually, what I meant was that Depp has been in some rotten movies. I've never seen him give a poor performance, however.
Well, I hope Craven benefits from all this stuff.
One more thing, and then I'll shut up. Have you noticed how many different roles DeNiro has been playing? The next thing is Hide and Seek! WOW! Hope it's good.
I love that the ads and trailer for Hide and Seek have the little girl (Dakota Fanning, same kid from I Am Sam and Man on Fire) saying the famous line of DeNiro's from Cape Fear. Did anyone catch that?
