Yep, mac. I had wondered if it was a bit of a nod at DeNiro.
LW
Astrosnot's. <heh heh>
I hope that helped Craven, as well...
I hope Craven doesn't enter "The Astrosnot's Wife" into NetFlix search. He might end up with "The Nose."
I hope Craven doesn't enter "The Astrosnot's Wife" into NetFlix search. He might end up with "The Nose."
Heh! Heh! Twice? Well, on more observation.
I, somehow, always equate DeNiro with Jack Nicholson. I had forgotten this movie. Funnnnneeeeeee.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6305042152/ref=cm_rev_editorial_dp/103-1711571-4618231?v=glance&s=video&n=166689&vi=reviews
It's rewarding discussing filmdom with all of you.
The IMDb link for "The Terror":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057569/
(I suggest IMDb is always a better link for discussing movies -- there's wasn't much on the Amazon link)
It was post "The Little Shop of Horrors" dentist outing and that wasn't even Jack's first movie.
Actually, in "The Terror," Nicholson is one of the best actos Roger Corman ever had the luck to work with and who could forget the twisted dentist in "Shop of Horrors?"
Yes, I also check out Rotten Tomatoes and MRQE (Movie Review Query Engine) which are two links on my Film Critics ongoing thread. However, on really old movies their reviews are rather scant and it can cause me to refer to Halliwell's but more likely Roger Ebert or Paulene Kael's essays. Sight and Sound magazine gives really long and detailed reviews that are probably a bit too thorough for most movie goers. IMDb also has a tree on the left that links to ouside reviews and I often enjoy reading the user reviews. The top one hundred films are voted on by the IMDb users.
I watched Three Kings a while ago (just saw a reminder on Netflix to rate it).
I really liked it, it ended too abruptly for my tastes but I think it's a great film (i.e. worthy of top 100 of the decade honours).
One I would want to watch again. The premise was believable and it reminded me of "The Dirty Dozen" in the way it had fun with the actors. I think, again some relationships here, consider renting (if you haven't seen it) David Mamet's "Heist" with Gene Hackman and Danny DeVito. If you've seen Mamet's other movies like "House of Games" and "Glengarry Glenn Ross," you'll find "Heist" is more mainstream but just as inventive. Gold, gold, who's got the gold?
aviator
worth the buzz. a decent pic.
(yes, i did drop off the face of the earth, but i crawled my way back to the surface)
Howdy, thorman944. If ya wanna, you can click the "Edit" button at the top righthand side of your post and delete everything past
.jpg ; do that and your image will display. MSN Groups picyures gave a buncha stuff followin' the image file-type suffix - in the case of the one you tried there, the extraneous text is
?dc=4675395245732089870
This is sorta what your code oughtta look like (though I put in some linebreaks to preserve the display formatin' of this page):
Code:[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0VADzAhEcCejpIgsJKQTf*
biFqImzlIB5xIjsTKP5sd36wa68wPyzkMTwft5bsIfWEaGikfxB8WIclU7pasq!
jhXalBE2rd5PejGIDCGU8HXM6sdjYen1PyPbUXsl2c7V/thormansiggy.jpg[/IMG]
and this is whatchya get with that code:
Just FYI, the MSN Groups image URLs are pretty unwieldly. A buncha free image hostin' sites with much smaller image URLs are available; one thats easy to use and requires no registration to use its basic functions is
ImageShack®
I saw Zhang Yimou's House of Flying Daggers night before last. Impressive movie. I'd given up on Yimou after Story of Qui Jui, but I'm glad I went to this one.
Everything was of course unbelievably beautiful, which made it worth seeing alone. Everything: sound, colour - perfect. For example, the fight in the bamboo forest, with the soldiers whizzing down the trees, literally the eerie whistle of it, the forest itself like a beautiful painting. But I disagree with the TNR critic who said its all just beauty, a brilliantly pretty surface with nothing underneath. Especially things in the beginning made me think - and not just about the intricate complications of who's playing which game with whom; thats a nice whodunwhat-layer that keeps you occupied but a sideshow really - or that is, the details of who is playing whom is a sideshow, not the dance of claims, pretensions and emotions itself.
But I found it a moving film, too. It was some of the images themselves that moved me - like the blind girl dancing, in the beginning, and more so when she's in the forest, in the puddles, fighting off the soldiers (OK, that was b/c I think thats how A. must feel, inside, always). Still, they're perfectly captured images that can easily in themselves be taken to represent bigger things. And there's the dance of conflicting struggles and duties that each of the characters set themselves (or end up setting themselves), struggles with themselves as much as anything. Like, the impossibly difficult constellations they put themselves in just trying to get it right.
What I have trouble with in these movies always is the utter implausibility of the effects, especially the fight scenes. The knives whizzing in a perfect circle to cut away the couple's prison, stalks falling to the ground - yeah, right. I just tell myself its like in a fairytale - you have to not think its meant to be literally believed. I also thought the finale was a bit all too over-the-top, though it left most everyone in the cinema bolted in their seats for what seemed a long time after the titles started rolling. It was beautiful, but too grand, kinda (and I dont like this visible blood-flowing thing). But on the other hand I was still sitting there too. It was the logical conclusion of the position they had all put themselves into - and the impossible battles we fight with ourselves and the other when everything gets so intensely and impossibly ensnared - to the death, it may seem - are larger than life.
Letty wrote:Anyone here ever wonder what it would be like to have some movie star portray your life?
Heya Letty, I stole your idea for a new thread:
If they made a movie about your life, who would ...
Hey thorman, long time no see!
------------
I watched Adaptation, great acting, great direction, marginally interesting trick (why are one-trick films so damn popular?) but not very interesting to watch.
I also watched The Manchurian Candidate, and think one needs to have the irrational paranoias of yesteryear to appreciate it. In it's day it must have been a powerful film, what with the prevalence of said paranoia and all.
Glad to see thorman back!
I saw the original "The Manchurian Candidate" at a theater on Hollywood Blvd. and you're right, with the Cold War in first gear it was extremely effective. I don't agree that there isn't enough irrational paranoia today and the main fault in the new version is some choppy new style of editing. The original film is a masterpiece of editing.
If you liked "House of Flying Daggers" and " more Hero" but would like to see a more authentic historic accounting of Chinese history, rent "The Emperor and the Assassin."
I didn't say there isn't enough irrational paranoia today. It's just not the same brand of paranoia that the movie played so well into.
I'm not too sure about the paranoia regarding terrorists is all that different than the Cold War paranoia but the new version of the film is lacking in other ways.
Without wanting to get too political, I'll leave it at this:
I could not muster the belief neccessary for the film to have effect. It struck me as comically absurd.
I can buy that, Craven. It's not as well put together as the original movie. Even the black-and-white cinematography adds to the eerie intrigue of the first film. I could also agree that a lot of the paranoia the new film wants to feed off of is unnecessarily exaggerated. It strays too far from being a political thriller into being a conventional spy thriller.
