Let us converse about MOVIES

The Conversationalist · Wed Jul 16, 2003 7:36 pm

Hasn't ROODY YOGURT seen PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN? Is it ANY GOOD?

Are there any other MOVIES coming out in the NEXT COUPLE MONTHS someone here feels will be MUST SEE?

loafergirl · Post by **loafergirl** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 7:52 pm

It was decent, it was better than League of Extrodinary Gentalman.

Effects were good, Captain Sparrow was a cool character, had a bit of dumb humour but it was definately worth seeing in the theater.

-LG

Roody_Yogurt · Post by **Roody_Yogurt** » Thu Jul 17, 2003 5:18 am

I thought Pirates was good, but the ending was a bit dissatisfactory and there was a running joke that wasn't really funny or endearing like it tried to be.

I also saw the League, and even though it deserves all the trashings it'll get, I was surprised to like any of it. I thought the part where they're approaching the enemy's lair somehow reminded me of old films like "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger." Maybe if they had gone for more of that kind of feel, it would have worked a bit better. I absolutely cringed at some of those godawful attempts to be literary, like the 'around the world in 80 days joke' that was so uncomfortably forced.

The same day, I saw "28 Days Later" since I had heard some good things about it. Sure enough, I ended up being disappointed, although it did some things that I like. At least one of those things was done better in "Shallow Grave," so I'd recommend that to anyone who hasn't seen it.

loafergirl · Post by **loafergirl** » Thu Jul 17, 2003 5:29 pm

I liked Pirates, it was amusing the characters were well molded and interesting. It was whitty.

League was.... sad. Ity was very forced and too "fantastic" in the sense that a repair to the vessel in the middle of the sea left it in perfect condition..... when they had... what a day to fix it? There were no ex[plainations or details unless critical to the plot. A lot of the camera angles rip you right out of the movie and make you wonder what the hell the director was thinking, which I have NEVER felt in a movie before. And a lot of the humor was very forced. It just didn't flow very well, the scenes are choppy.

I liked 28 days later it took a lot from other movies of it's kind, but it was so much cooler, and it really did tweak me out, which is very rare.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:39 pm

loafergirl wrote:League was.... sad.

NO! YOU'RE SAD!

Ity was very forced and too "fantastic"

NO! YOU'RE TOO "FANTASTIC!"

in the sense that a repair to the vessel in the middle of the sea left it in perfect condition.....

WHY DON'T YOU GO FOR A SWIM IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SEA

when they had... what a day to fix it? There were no explainations or details unless critical to the plot.

NUTS TO YOUR PLOT. DO ALL GREAT FILMS NEED PLOT? WHAT'S THE "PLOT" IN KEN BURNS' FILM ABOUT BASEBALL? HUH? WHERE'S THE PLOT?

A lot of the camera angles rip you right out of the movie

THOSE CAMERA ANGLES ROCKED! MORE LIKE CAMERA ANGELS AM I RITE?

and make you wonder what the hell the director was thinking,

YOU TRY DIRECTING!

which I have NEVER felt in a movie before.

"THIS MOVIE MADE ME FEEL THINGS I'VE NEVER FELT BEFORE" -- L. GIRL. I DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM!

And a lot of the humor was very forced.

NO, YOU'RE FORCED!

It just didn't flow very well, the scenes are choppy.

YOU ARE!

I liked 28 days later it took a lot from other movies of it's kind, but it was so much cooler, and it really did tweak me out, which is very rare.

NO, YOU'RE TWEAK-- wait, I haven't seen this one yet.

Roody_Yogurt · Post by **Roody_Yogurt** » Thu Jul 17, 2003 7:13 pm

Ha, that 'angels' joke is classic.

loafergirl · Post by **loafergirl** » Fri Jul 18, 2003 7:14 pm

Wow, touchy subject....

Hey I'm entitled to my own opinion, which happened to agree with your own on the "Unbreakable" argument. League wasn't that good Robb, just face it, I had high hopes for it or I wouldn't have dished out the cash for it, it just didn't live up to it's potential.

-LG

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Fri Jul 18, 2003 8:07 pm

loafergirl wrote: League wasn't that good Robb, just face it, I had high hopes for it or I wouldn't have dished out the cash for it, it just didn't live up to it's potential.

I just felt bad for it, and thought that somebody should stand up for it, somewhere, on the Internet. As "facts" weren't going to get the job done, I thought that volume might.

Do you agree with what I wrote up there? Because I can approximate an increase in volume by using the bold tags. I mean, doesn't XLG deserve someone out there, in this great, vast Internet of ours, to show it a little compassion?

Aren't you a compassionate person by nature? Can't you say one good thing about LXG? You know, the framing was very good when I saw it. What about when you saw it? Did you notice it at all? Possibly not? Well then! That's good, right? I mean, you could compliment it in that way, don'tcha think?

I mean, if a copy of the movie were here, right now and everything, I think it would be able to say something nice about you. I think that somewhere along the lines, people forgot the "Golden Rule" when it came to reviewing the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Roody_Yogurt · Post by **Roody_Yogurt** » Fri Jul 18, 2003 8:16 pm

One of the bartenders at the place across the street from my house liked LXG enough and said it reminded him of the kind of shlocky movies he would watch on Saturday afternoons at the movie house growing up.

looper · Post by **looper** » Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:24 pm

So, like, the movie poster and the premise for 28 Days After remind me of 12 Monkeys, which I really liked when I first saw it and didn't like so much the 2nd time. The first time, the relationship between Bruce Willis and Madeleine Stowe seemed real and touching; the 2nd time it seemed far-fetched.

I also really liked Blink, which also stars Madeleine Stowe. She seems to play really strong women (she also played a strong woman opposite John Travolta in The General's Daughter). Maybe that's a major part of why I liked the first two movies so much; because of her role in them. Kinda like how Jack Nicholson (or any number of actors like this) can only play himself, more or less; the same thing is perhaps at work with Madeleine Stowe.

loafergirl · Post by **loafergirl** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 7:59 pm

My few good things to say about LoEG:

The costumes were cool, and so were some of the characters. It had a few humerous parts like the look on the gaurds face when he sees Mr Hyde. And when the invisible man gooses the vampiress.

Are you happy now?

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 8:24 pm

loafergirl wrote:My few good things to say about LoEG:
The costumes were cool, and so were some of the characters. It had a few humerous parts like the look on the gaurds face when he sees Mr Hyde. And when the invisible man gooses the vampiress.
Are you happy now?

What about when the vampire was licking up the blood off that one dude? HOT, right? Isn't that an additional "point" in its favor? Would you agree, somewhat, to that?

loafergirl · Post by **loafergirl** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 2:48 pm

I can agree to that.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 2:52 pm

loafergirl wrote:I can agree to that.

And the part where Hyde is telling Jekyll in the mirror about the high pitched sonics, only Jekyll doesn't know what he's going on about and therefore doesn't act on it -- that was kind of a neat little thing where the screenwriters were a brief step ahead of its audience for a change, right? That was kind of cool, wasn't it?

Ghost of Siskel · Post by **Ghost of Siskel** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 8:48 pm

Would you agree, somewhat, to that?

This film was a worse idea than those winky smiley faces and those colon no winky smiley faces and "LOL"s. I absolutely hated it.

Two rotting thumbs down.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 8:45 am

Ghost of Siskel wrote:
Would you agree, somewhat, to that?
This film was a worse idea than those winky smiley faces and those colon no winky smiley faces and "LOL"s. I absolutely hated it.

Two rotting thumbs down.

A worse IDEA? Don't you mean, "terrible execution"? The idea was pretty good, you know.

loafergirl · Post by **loafergirl** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:45 am

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:
loafergirl wrote:I can agree to that.
And the part where Hyde is telling Jekyll in the mirror about the high pitched sonics, only Jekyll doesn't know what he's going on about and therefore doesn't act on it -- that was kind of a neat little thing where the screenwriters were a brief step ahead of its audience for a change, right? That was kind of cool, wasn't it?

No, can't go for that one, it was stupid of them to put the record on in the first place, it screamed of foul play. And they were talking about it while it was being explained... so it was another poorly executed scene.

-LG

Jethro Q. Walrustitty · Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:49 am

So, Jonsey, you did see it? But only carefully plotting to keep up your "I haven't seen it yet" story when quering on the enemy site? Damn you, Jonsey! Damn you for deciding that nowhere on the internet deserves a real Jonsey review of LoEG! Damn you to helllllllllllllllllllllllll!

OK, here's a movie "exclusive" for JC that I haven't posted over on "you know where" - the trailer for "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" showed before Bad Boys 2 when we saw it. (STFU anyone who gives me crap about it, my cousin's in the movie, therefore I had to see it.) Obviously, a remake of TCM is an extremely bad idea, and it looks like it'll be a pretty bad movie - it appears to stray a bit from original story, like them finding out right at the beginning that there's killers loose. Suck! Suck, I tell you! It'll suck! Meanwhile, the original will remain a classic.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:51 pm

Jethro Q. Walrustitty wrote:So, Jonsey, you did see it? But only carefully plotting to keep up your "I haven't seen it yet" story when quering on the enemy site? Damn you, Jonsey! Damn you for deciding that nowhere on the internet deserves a real Jonsey review of LoEG! Damn you to helllllllllllllllllllllllll!

I saw it, but not when I originally was going to. I was originally going to see it the Friday it opened. I got to 8:30pm sitting at work, had to wait until 10:20 and said, "You know what? Fuck this. This thing is getting too-miserable reviews to wait an additional two hours."

I caught it on the Saturday night it opened instead. Things have been too hectic to type up a proper review, but I think there are bits and pieces of one scattered around the site. So getting my full opinion is like a puzzle, kind of.

Jethro Q. Walrustitty · Wed Jul 23, 2003 6:13 am

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:So getting my full opinion is like a puzzle, kind of.

Listen, Puzzler... I don't "play", games. I don't "play", anything.

Puzzler, of course, being the Batman villian hastily created when Frank Gorshin wasn't available to play The Riddler for one episode. A scab, as it were.

Tell you what. I'll just sit here and stroke my long, white beard while awaiting your so-called "review."