WASHINGTON (AP) -- Crank up the volume to 11 forever: "This is Spinal
Tap" will be preserved by the National Film Registry.

The mordant 1984 "mockumentary" of rock star pretensions joins the
children's classic "The Black Stallion," sci-fi groundbreaker
"Alien," John Singleton's 1991 account of Los Angeles gang life "Boyz
N the Hood," and 21 other films selected this year for preservation
by the Library of Congress.

Also included are "All My Babies," a 1953 film made to educate
midwives in the South, and "Through Navajo Eyes," a 1966 series of
documentaries on an Indian tribe.

The registry now contains 350 films. Making the list helps "ensure
that the film is preserved for all time," the library said in a
statement.

"The selection of a film, I stress, is not an endorsement of its
ideology or content, but rather a recognition of the film's
importance in American film and cultural history and history in
general," Congressional Librarian James H. Billington said.

"Spinal Tap" was not the first satire to use the documentary form to
needle its subject, but with its would-be geniuses delivering bloated
confessionals and staging "events" that go hilariously awry, it has
become the template for others.

In one memorable moment, rock auteur Nigel Tufnel, played by
Christopher Guest, explains his pride and joy -- an amplifier with
dials that reach "11" -- to a documentarian played by the film's real
director, Rob Reiner.

"It's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you
know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all
the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can
you go from there? Where?"

"Alien," the 1979 Ridley Scott film, veered cinematic science fiction
sharply away from the sunny optimism of "Star Wars," "Star Trek" and
"Close Encounters of the Third Kind," and restored the threat of the
unknown to space exploration. It also established what was then
almost unknown: the strong female sci-fi lead, played by Sigourney
Weaver.

==========

Marc    ;-)

=====
"There's a tiny door in that empty office. It's a portal, Maxine.
It takes you inside John Malkovich. You see the world through
John Malkovich's eyes, then, after about fifteen minutes, you're
spit out into a ditch on the side of the New Jersey Turnpike ..."

John Cusack as "Craig Schwartz" - "Being John Malkovich" - 1999

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Dogme films rule !!  That is my conclusion after seeing this movie.
I just love many of those low budget, hand held cameras,
feel-like-real-life movies.

Simple story here as in all DOGME films, set in Denmark, a group of 7
danish people are in an italian-for-beginners class.  We get to know
them slowly but surely, seeing what are their relationships,
discovering details about their lives.

Lots of amusing moments mixed in with more serious/dramatic material.
I was laughing out loud quite a few times watching this flick and
other times it was touching.  It's not an easy film to talk about
since it's basically the characters that are interesting, not really
what they do ...

There's the sexy hairdresser, the rude restaurant waiter, the shy
restaurant manager, the cute lil' italian waitress, the clumsy girl
who works in a bakery, the young and ambitious priest ... etc.

All were quite interesting to watch and all had about the same time
on screen as well ... You start up not knowing anything about these
people and by the end of the movie you feel like you've known 'em
forever basically, great character development.

The ending was also VERY cute, I was thinking of a low budget "Amelie
Poulain" actually ... only without the glossy images and the
wonderful music of course ... Great actors as well.

In Danish (and some italian !) with subtitles. Look for it !  ;-)

3.5/5

Marc ;-)

=====
"There's a tiny door in that empty office. It's a portal, Maxine.
It takes you inside John Malkovich. You see the world through
John Malkovich's eyes, then, after about fifteen minutes, you're
spit out into a ditch on the side of the New Jersey Turnpike ..."

John Cusack as "Craig Schwartz" - "Being John Malkovich" - 1999

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I just finished watching one of my all-time favorite films ever. Close
Encounters of
the Third Kind. If I had a top 10 list, this film would definitley be up
there. It's not the
kind of film I just pop into the DVD player when I have "nothing else to
watch", I
have far more respect for it than that. I watch it ONLY when conditions are
just
right, when I know I won't be interrupted, at night, with the lights off. Not
just a
background noise when I'm doing something else.

But after watching it, I began to think about something. This film is a great
example
of how our attitudes have changed in the last couple of decades. Meaning that

we've become a MUCH more cynical society. I'm thinking that if a film like
this
came out today, it probably would be lam-basted as naive.

I'm reading through the user comments on IMDB about this film and I'm angered

by a large degree of them who have seen the film recently using words like
"sugary" "trite" "hokey" and that the ending was a "let-down". (What did they
want?
Roy Neary to bust out the AK-47 and open a can of whup ass on the friendly
aliens? Or to show him kicking back on Alpha Centauri with a couple of alien
hotties? I had no problem with the ending).

Back in 1977, when this film was released it was a huge hit. People loved this
film
for it's sense of wonder and taking a positive approach to contact with
aliens.

But now, in this post-Matrix world we live in, if the aliens don't have giant
scaly CG
heads with acid dripping from their lips to be gunned down by a flight of
f-16's lead
by Will Smith, then it sucks. Speilberg himself has even said that he couldn't
have
made a film like CE3K now because he himself has "grown up". And that saddens

me.

What the hell is wrong with an alien movie that paints an optimistic view of
alien
contact? Do they ALL have to "abduct" and "probe" people? Do they always have

to be frightening and evil? Do they all have to arrive in 15-mile long
warships and
lay waste to the human race? Does Fox Mulder always have to uncover the
"truth"? Why can't more films like this say that peaceful contact is possible
without
being written off as "childish" or "sappy"?

When that mothership appears for the first time over Devils Tower, when
communication between humans and aliens takes place for the first time purely

through music and color, I still, to this day get goosebumps much like I did
when I
was 7 years old. THAT is the sign of a good film. When a film can evoke the
same
emotional response 25 years later that it did the day you first saw it, that's

something pretty special.

I love Lord of the Rings, I love the Matrix, Star Wars and the first 2 Alien
films. But
have you noticed that a lot of science-fiction/fantasy films these days are
only
accepted as great if they have gigantic grandiose battle scenes or intense
close-
quarters bullet-time enhanced combat?

Spielberg was able to pull off a small miracle back in those days. He was able
to
craft wonderful, positive and awe-inspiring films without being too
saccharine.
That didn't play down to the audience and gave them credit for having a
brain.

I think that films that have that positive "sense-of-wonder" can have a place
in
movies again. In fact, I think the world needs a little more positivity in
it's films. I
think the last film to do that was "Contact". I will go on record right now as
saying
that I LOVE that movie! Screw Trey Parker and Matt Stone, I thought that film
was
wonderful. But even in that film you still had the spectre of the government
cover-
up personified by James Woods.

Yes, I know CE3K had the whole government cover-up scenario as well, but it
was
played off as more benevolent (for lack of a better word) and not laced with
the
fear and paranoia that persists in alien contact films today.

Call me silly or sappy if you want, but I will love films like CE3K and ET
until the
day I die.

Thanks for reading my rant,
-Scott C.
.

----- Original Message -----

From: LordTZer0@...

To: filmemporium@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 4:10 AM

Subject: Re: [filmemporium] Where's Matt?

In a message dated 12/22/2002 9:49:11 AM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:

Anyone else happen to watch this?  (If Matt says yes, I think I might faint.)

----- Original Message -----

From: LordTZer0@...

To: filmemporium@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 3:58 AM

Subject: Re: [filmemporium] Natural Born Killers

For example, when Woody Harrelson throws the knife through the diner window: in the original version we see it get the guy in his back; in the director's cut we see him fallforward with the knife in his back.

Was that window opened or closed?  I hope it was opened.  You'd never be able to throw a knife through a closed window and get it to stick in anything.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Well, I stumbled across this flick last night, and being the comic book fan that I am, I checked it out. 

The film stars DJ Qualls, Donal Logue, Cary Elwes, Michael Rappaport, Natasha Lyone, Danny Masterson and Eileen Brennan.  The story revolves around two competiting comic book stores in a small town that are trying to buy a "priceless" collection from a mother who's son has died.

What starts out innocently enough turns into a trainwreck of a movie, complete with fire, knives, guns, blood and...Spain.

I expected at least a few laughs from this movie and didn't utter the slightest giggle.  What I got was a poor attempt at Pulp Fiction in comic book stores.

Save yourself the time and money and skip this one.  I wish that I had.

Marc
Lima, Ohio

This film is in a bunch of critic's top tens for the years (Rolling Stone,
the Detroit Free Press, just to name a few).

I saw it on the shelf at Blockbuster (they even had the unrated version!)
This will be my next rental (maybe tomorrow night).

Matt

Without spoilers? Hmmm... I'll see what I can do.

I'm assuming, here, that you've seen both FOTR and TTT. In the
extended version of FOTR, there's a scene added (a scene which is in
the novel) in which Frodo & Sam--as they're leaving the Shire--see a
procession of Elves heading to the Grey Havens, which is a port on
the western shore of the Ocean on the left of the map of Middle
Earth. In TTT, there's more delving into this background situation,
where Elrond is encouraging Arwen to forsake Aragorn and go to the
Grey Havens, like all the other Elves who are fleeing Middle Earth
(except, of course, for those Elf dudes who show up at Helm's Deep to
help fight Saruman's orc army).
In the novel of "The Hobbit", Tolkien (as narrator) makes mention of
a "fairyland" beyond the western sea--and if you've read "The
Silmarillion", you'll know that this "fairyland" is called VALINOR by
the Elves; Valinor is where the Valar dwell (the Valar are
those "angelic beings" which not only helped create the Universe via
the "song of the Ainu" ["Ainulindale"]--the Ainur being "Heaven-
dwelling Angels"--but also descended into the Creation in order to be
the "gods" of the Sea, of the Mountains, of the Rivers, of the Air,
etc. The "Balrog" which Gandalf confronts is a creature called--
in "High Elvish"--a "Valarauka", or "Angel-demon": basically, a
demonic spirit which dwells in the fiery depths under the Misty
Mountains, where the Dwarves unluckily stirred him up.
In "The Silmarillion", the whole story is told of how the Elves first
appeared in Middle Earth... how the Valar across the Western Sea
invited them to migrate over there to dwell in "bliss"... how
the "Satan"-figure of Tolkien's Mythos, Melkor=Morgoth, was such a
stinker that he caused some overly-proud elves to migrate BACK to
Middle Earth... how all sorts of wars were then fought between Elves
& Men against the evil forces of Morgoth (orcs--bred from tortured
Elves, as Saruman mentions in FOTR, dragons, trolls, evil men,
etc.)... and how, eventually, the rift between the "gods" (Valar) and
the Elves was patched up, allowing the Elves the opportunity to
return to Valinor, away from the troubles of Middle Earth.

It really does help to have read "The Silmarillion", but I don't
blame you if you aren't gonna take the time to get this "back-story"
to Tolkien's LOTR epic. However, the ending of ROTK hinges on the
awareness that there is this Place... across the Western Sea... where
the Elves are being "called" spiritually, to escape the cares of a
world which is progressing away from the "magical" (Elves, Dwarves,
Ents, Dragons, "rings of Power", etc.), to the ordinary (Men, both
good and evil). This land of Valinor is NOT the dual continents of
North & South America! Rather, at some point in the timeline of
Tolkien's world, before "the Third Age" (when LOTR takes place),
this "fairyland" had somehow become 'translated' out of the "real"
world; it is a "place" where, eventually, only the "Blessed" (the
demi-god "Valar") could dwell, along with those "first-born children
of Eru Iluvatar ["the One" + "All-father" = "God"]--the Elves (who
are Immortal)... and--HINT HINT!--those RARE EXCEPTIONS among
the "second-born children" (the Mortal peoples of Middle Earth), who
have somehow become deserving of a blessed respite from the cares of
the World...

Throughout the "extended" cut of FOTR, and the theatrical cut of TTT,
we've been exposed to this aspect of the story, that Elves are
forsaking the depressing (doomed?) lands of Middle Earth, and taking
up the opportunity the Valar had offered them an Age ago... to return
to the "Blessed land" of Valinor...
Tolkien created his Mythos in order to give to England a Mythic
background that it didn't have all on its own (as did the
Germanic/Nordic peoples, the Hebrews, the Greeks, etc.). Yet none of
those Mythic times survives... except the Stories of "what once was",
back when there was Magic in the World. We live in a magic-less
world, symbolically represented by Saruman's orc-forces who commit
atrocities against Nature (deforestation) and construct a war-machine
with an "assembly line" that curiously resembles the modern
Industrial Revolution--in TTT, Saruman calls upon his Orcs to
be "industrious", in fact. Tolkien HATED the de-humanizing, un-
natural, anti-spiritual turn that Society took when Industry took off
like a bat out of hell; he witnessed the most garishly horrific
aspect of this in World War One, where about 90% of his friends were
slaughtered in trench warfare. The scene, in TTT, where Treebeard &
the Ents kick ass at Isengard represents Tolkien's deep-down wish (I
think) for Nature to revenge herself on Man's "industry", which has
been at her expense (Pollution, Urban blight, etc.).

Hmmm... the ending of ROTK... is it "good"? As "dark" as they say?
I'd have to say that the ending of ROTK (of the full LOTR),
represents a "passing away" of the "Old" world of Magic, and the
continuation of a world that had been encroaching on it for the last
Age (or so) of the World... yet a world where the STORIES of the Past
were still being told. Remember Bilbo (in the FOTR extended version),
writing his book, "There and Back Again"? Tolkien's story (which he
supposedly "translated" from a fictional "original") lives on because
it somehow SURVIVED the passing ages. It shouldn't be a "spoiler" to
say that there had to be those who EXPERIENCED the events of the War
of the Ring and SURVIVED to tell about it--or to write it down--for
this story to be around for Tolkien to "translate". The ultimate end
of LOTR (the book), is very "homey" and "domestic"--ordinary, like a
pleasant day in the English countryside. As pleasant, in its way, as
it was in Hobbiton before Gandalf showed up with Thorin and his band
of Dwarves to acquire Bilbo Baggins as their "Burglar" on their Quest
to recapture the Lonely Mountain from Smaug.

Patrick

P.S. I can't f***ing WAIT to see the entire LOTR saga, a couple years
from now! It would be great if they could cut some prints of the
Extended Versions of FOTR, TTT, and ROTK, and have film festivals
like the "Go Ape!" PLANET OF THE APES ones they did in the mid-
1970's. I'd LOVE to spend about 10 hours (with 2 intermissions, of
course, every 3rd hour or so) watching the entire thing in a theater
with a crowd that appreciates it. I wonder what the chances are...


--- In filmemporium@yahoogroups.com, <veetus@e...> wrote:
>   Also in that Charlie Rose interview, both Peter Jackson and
Elijah Wood said the 3rd film is their favorite. Wood saw a rough cut
and said he cried both times (he said he watched and then 5 minutes
later they watched it again). Patrick, since you apparently
read "Return of the King" can you give us your impressions? Is it a
good ending, as dark as they say (without spoilers)? - - - Jeff
>

Sounds like this guy's an odd choice to direct the next "Harry Potter". As
far away from Chris Columbus as you can get. - - - Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Desbiens" <marcdesbiens@...>
To: "Marc C. Desbiens" <marcdesbiens@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 10:32 PM
Subject: [filmemporium] Y tu mama tambien - 2001


>
> Y tu mama tambien ... or Y tu mama, Elaine ?? ...
> You decide !!  ;-)
>
> Ok, this film was "ace", it should be in my Top 10 for 2001 actually
> ... great material from Mexico.  4/5
>
> This movie was quite nasty and also PERVERTED. Plenty of nudity, sex
> scenes, nasty material that would make censors run for the Hollywood
> hills screaming as if they were pursued by a swarm of killer bees.
>
> Simple story, we get to meet 2 oversexed young men. Both are 17 years
> old, both have rather lovely girlfriends.  The 2 girls are leaving
> for Europe the next day so the 2 gullible males are planning a lil'
> escapade, roaming the mexican countryside, up to no good, you know
> the drill, soldier.
>
> They invite one of their lovely cousins who is just about to leave
> her husband, she is 11 years older than the boys.  This lass has a
> grudge against the world and is looking for adventure in whatever
> comes her way.
>
> You can imagine how it turns out in this road movie ... First she
> tries to turn them *ON* ... then she tries to turn them *OFF*, then
> she tries to play "hard to get" ... etc.  Plenty of conflicts between
> the young men as well, revelations, who slept with him, or the other
> one, who slept with her, who made who ? who made you ? ... ;-)
>
> Great acting by everyone involved.  Hand held cameras, Low budget.
> Great character development as well and the ending was rather nasty.
> I even thought there were a couple of references to PULP FICTION : a
> shot near the beginning from outside a window and the ending scene in
> the restaurant reminded me of PULP as well ...
>
> Highly recommended if you like artsy fartsy foreign films nobody else
> wants to watch.
>
> 4/5, high.
>
> Cheers !
>
> Marc ;-)
>
> =====
> "There's a tiny door in that empty office. It's a portal, Maxine.
> It takes you inside John Malkovich. You see the world through
> John Malkovich's eyes, then, after about fifteen minutes, you're
> spit out into a ditch on the side of the New Jersey Turnpike ..."
>
> John Cusack as "Craig Schwartz" - "Being John Malkovich" - 1999
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Y tu mama tambien ... or Y tu mama, Elaine ?? ...
You decide !!  ;-)

Ok, this film was "ace", it should be in my Top 10 for 2001 actually
... great material from Mexico.  4/5

This movie was quite nasty and also PERVERTED. Plenty of nudity, sex
scenes, nasty material that would make censors run for the Hollywood
hills screaming as if they were pursued by a swarm of killer bees.

Simple story, we get to meet 2 oversexed young men. Both are 17 years
old, both have rather lovely girlfriends.  The 2 girls are leaving
for Europe the next day so the 2 gullible males are planning a lil'
escapade, roaming the mexican countryside, up to no good, you know
the drill, soldier.

They invite one of their lovely cousins who is just about to leave
her husband, she is 11 years older than the boys.  This lass has a
grudge against the world and is looking for adventure in whatever
comes her way.

You can imagine how it turns out in this road movie ... First she
tries to turn them *ON* ... then she tries to turn them *OFF*, then
she tries to play "hard to get" ... etc.  Plenty of conflicts between
the young men as well, revelations, who slept with him, or the other
one, who slept with her, who made who ? who made you ? ... ;-)

Great acting by everyone involved.  Hand held cameras, Low budget.
Great character development as well and the ending was rather nasty.
I even thought there were a couple of references to PULP FICTION : a
shot near the beginning from outside a window and the ending scene in
the restaurant reminded me of PULP as well ...

Highly recommended if you like artsy fartsy foreign films nobody else
wants to watch.

4/5, high.

Cheers !

Marc ;-)

=====
"There's a tiny door in that empty office. It's a portal, Maxine.
It takes you inside John Malkovich. You see the world through
John Malkovich's eyes, then, after about fifteen minutes, you're
spit out into a ditch on the side of the New Jersey Turnpike ..."

John Cusack as "Craig Schwartz" - "Being John Malkovich" - 1999

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I don't know, I'll have to rent it. Now I'm hearing a lot that "Minority
Report" is just an interesting chase movie. www.dvdfile.com has a good
review of it. - - - Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <filmemporium@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 9:59 AM
Subject: [filmemporium] MINORITY REPORT


> I just bought MINORITY REPORT on DVD, but haven't had a chance to
> watch it yet. I thought, when I saw it in the theater, that it was
> probably the best SF film I'd seen in the last 10 years, and easily
> one of Spielberg's best films. I'm glad that Spielberg is making
> different kinds of movies than his "usual" ones... and in different
> styles than the "Spielbergian" ones we all know and love (JAWS, CE3K,
> RAIDERS, ET).
>
> Although there are so many things I dig about MINORITY REPORT, I
> think that two particular scenes were particularly memorable.
> The first one is where Tom Cruise jumps off the wall-riding "car of
> the future" onto a balcony... and somersaults over into an awkward
> posture--only to be "met" by a yoga-stretching woman crawling towards
> him (in a similar posture to his) like some bizarro crab. This, in a
> Spielberg movie!... where the hell did THAT come from?!
> The second one is where Cruise--after having gotten a transplant of
> some Japanese guy's eyes--has to chase after his OWN eyes as they
> roll down an inclined hallway. Now THAT is something you're not
> likely to see in ANY movie... except for THIS one!
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

If you didn't like "Natural Born Killers", you won't like the director's
cut. Basically it's just gorier. What Stone's beef was is the MPAA wouldn't
let him bring the violence to it's conclusion. For example, when Woody
Harrelson throws the knife through the diner window: in the original version
we see it get the guy in his back; in the director's cut we see him fall
forward with the knife in his back. Stone complained that he was allowed to
show violence but not to show the consequences of it. Blood, limbs chopped
off, whatever. So he was accused of glamorizing violence (an odd charge
against the guy who made "Born on the 4rth of July"). But he says if you can
show violence without consequence, without the unappetizing gore and broken
bodies, it's even more a glamorization. Such as in cop movies where the
"good guy" can blow away 10 people and not blink. So in the director's cut
the violence follows through. Ironically, after making a big stink about
wanting a director's cut (he eventually had to go elsewhere because Warner
Bros. wouldn't release the director's cut) most of the unused scenes are
relegated to the deleted scenes (and rightfully so, they aren't very good).
so not much was put back anyway. The most infamous inclusion is the inmates
kill Tommy Lee Jones and put his head on a stick. So the director's cut
isn't much different except philosophically. - - - Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <filmemporium@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 9:51 AM
Subject: [filmemporium] Natural Born Killers


> I only saw this once, in its original theatrical release, and didn't
> like it (excepting for certain scenes). I loved PULP FICTION and
> RESERVOIR DOGS, and TRUE ROMANCE (though I would like to see
> an "alternative" version, edited as the screenplay was), but it
> seemed to me that NATURAL BORN KILLERS should have been a Quentin
> Tarantino film, and NOT an Oliver Stone film. It's like Oil and
> Water, it just didn't "mix" right for me.
> Those of you who have seen the "extended" version of NBK... is it
> better than the original cut? Is it MUCH better, if at all? If so,
> might it be worth a re-appraisal on my part?
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

I think it would be impossible to discuss the end of the Return of the King
without spoilers. I have read the books, and I wouldn't know where to even
begin trying to write something spoiler free.
James D.


>
>   Also in that Charlie Rose interview, both Peter Jackson and Elijah Wood
>said the 3rd film is their favorite. Wood saw a rough cut and said he cried
>both times (he said he watched and then 5 minutes later they watched it
>again). Patrick, since you apparently read "Return of the King" can you
>give
>us your impressions? Is it a good ending, as dark as they say (without
>spoilers)? - - - Jeff


_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=74\
74&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf

Also in that Charlie Rose interview, both Peter Jackson and Elijah Wood
said the 3rd film is their favorite. Wood saw a rough cut and said he cried
both times (he said he watched and then 5 minutes later they watched it
again). Patrick, since you apparently read "Return of the King" can you give
us your impressions? Is it a good ending, as dark as they say (without
spoilers)? - - - Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <filmemporium@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 9:46 AM
Subject: [filmemporium] Two Towers


> I saw "The Two Towers" on opening night (Wednesday) here in Fargo.
> Having read the LOTR about 5 or 6 times, both FOTR and TT are flicks
> I eagerly anticipated seeing; those who were more impressed with
> FOTR, might it not be because it was where Tolkien's world was first
> fleshed out in live-action? The 2nd film is, to my mind, merely the
> continuation of ONE story--a story which won't be finished until
> after the 3rd one is out (or, should I say, the "expanded DVD"
> version of the 3rd one?).
> I'm glad they didn't have any narrator remind us where the story had
> left off--the way they went right to the scene of Gandalf confronting
> the Balrog... and then showing that loooooong fall down to the bottom
> of the Pit inside the mountain--yeGODS but it was magnificent! And to
> then segue from that to Frodo waking up, startled--as if it were a
> psychic vision/dream he'd been having! Having read the book, there
> were times in FOTR where Frodo has dreams which are precognitive, or
> which tell him what is happening THERE and THEN to Gandalf... so, it
> was nice for TTT to start off this way.
>
> I was also pleasantly surprised by the way they dealt with Gandalf
> the White approaching Theoden: every time I read that scene in the
> book, the impression I got was that Saruman's ONLY influence over
> Theoden was through the corrupt Prime Minister-ship of Grima
> Wormtongue... but I liked the way the film interprets it, as if
> Saruman himself "possesses" the king, like the Devil inside Regan
> in "The Exorcist"--until Gandalf drives him out. It's an interesting
> interpretation, one which Tolkien purists might not appreciate (as
> they will undoubtedly continue to quibble over ANY change made from
> book-to-film), but one which WORKS in the film.
>
> As for the criticism others have regarding Gimli as "comic relief",
> well, I didn't mind it. The story is getting darker and darker... and
> it's only good stagecraft for the screenwriter to provide the
> occasional "relief" from the Doom & Gloom (Shake-speare does this in
> his tragedies, to good effect). The "dwarf-tossing" gag was also used
> in the 1st film ("Nobody tosses a dwarf!"), but it works better
> here... although, perhaps, it WOULDN'T have worked here as well had
> they not used it beforehand, in FOTR.
> The Gimli/Legolas contest for "orc-kills" was true to the book, and
> another good way to offset the carnage of the Helm's Deep battle with
> a modicum of levity. Legolas' "shield-surfing" down the rounded
> incline, shooting arrow after arrow, sure, it seemed a bit
> too "extreme sports"... but I didn't hate it. I loved his one-handed
> flip up onto the horse, in the warg-riding orc battle scene, which
> goes to show that this elf is one nimble pointy-eared fella!
>
> In the novel, Boromir doesn't die until AFTER the "end" of FOTR, in
> the beginning of TTT... and the scene with Shelob is in the book
> TTT... although it won't appear on-screen until ROTK. I don't mind
> that Jackson is taking this liberty, since ROTK will be all-the-more
> horrific with the Shelob scene near the beginning. Tolkien's novel
> is, really, NOT a trilogy, but a work of SIX books, each "volume"
> (FOTR, TTT, and ROTK) containing TWO books of the 6-book total. But
> it's all ONE BIG BOOK... and the way I'm looking at Jackson's THREE
> movies is that, ultimately, it'll all be ONE BIG MOVIE... in three
> distinct "volumes" of film. I look forward to seeing the entire uncut
> saga in about 2 years... preferably on a widescreen HDTV with kick-
> ass surround sound--f***, man, with SENSURROUND!
>
> One way that they COULD have started TTT (which they did NOT do, of
> course, though I wouldn't have minded it if they HAD), is to have the
> scene from "The Hobbit", with Bilbo Baggins finding the Ring (which
> would have given Bilbo a "presence" in this middle-movie), meeting
> Gollum, doing the "riddle game"... and Bilbo escaping with the Ring,
> to the cries of Gollum saying, "We hates it! We hates it forever!"--
> and then CUT TO Gollum, eager for his "fix", skulking after Frodo and
> Sam...
> They DIDN'T do it this way, which--if I had been in charge--they
> WOULD'VE... but, hey, it's okay. That depiction of the Fall of
> Gandalf with the Balrog was astounding.
>
> I loved TTT. Loved FOTR. And I can't WAIT for ROTK. I hope NEW LINE
> takes other great works of literature which deserve to be filmed and
> continues on in this tradition: making GREAT movies from GREAT source
> material. Do it RIGHT and it can't help but pay off in the end. The
> LOTR movies are kicking ass--and hardly anybody gives a shit anymore
> about Lucas' underwhelming STAR WARS prequel saga. If Lucas wants to
> end his prequel trilogy right, he'll let Spielberg direct it--and let
> him hire good writers to re-write it, so that the script is at least
> passable. Lucas made a fun SF fantasy with the original STAR WARS...
> and the first sequel was terrific because of the input of the
> screenwriter and the better direction... but ever since, it's been
> downhill. LOTR has great scripting (even where it deviates from the
> source novel), great direction, and great editing. I, for one, felt
> as if TTT was more along the lines of 2 or 2 and a half hours long...
> it sure didn't seem as long as it was! I haven't seen as well-paced a
> movie since Oliver Stone's "JFK", which was also a 3-hour
> extravaganza, yet was so expertly edited that it just MOVED. You're
> riveted to the screen. Ya gotta admire that.
>
> Patrick
>
> P.S. Never... EVER... piss off an Ent. Payback is a beeyutch!
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Nice reviews Jazzman. As I've seen Empire and Two Towers in the last week, I
would have to say your reviews were right on.
I think Empire was a great idea on paper, but crap once it hit the big
screen. The two page treatment was probably awesome, as it could be a
compelling story, but it didn't translate into the movie at all. I just kept
on wondering why these big time drug dealers lived in the most god-awful
shit hole apartments, when they had millions of dollars in cash. Avoid this
one, even for a rental.
As for The Two Towers, I've been avoiding a review, as everyone has pretty
much covered that base.










>
>My bigger problem was with two of the new characters, Faramir and
>Treebeard.  Both, in the book, decide to help the hobbits they encounter
>much more quickly than they do in the film.  Both thus come across as
>nobler and wiser characters in the book.  Faramir’s quick grasp of who and
>what Frodo was, and his refusal to repeat his brother’s mistake, was one of
>the book’s primary examples of the potential of men to be as great as
>elves.  Meanwhile, the idea that Treebeard would be completely unaware of
>what Saruman was doing to Fangorn until Merry and Pippen steered him into
>the middle of it is an insult to Tolkien’s character.  The Treebeard I
>remember from my readings was wise, gentle, funny, benign, dignified,
>charming—one of JRRT’s greatest creations.  This Treebeard has very little
>of that.  We never see his home, never get a sense of his deliberate
>consideration.  The council of the Ents is reduced to a handful of trees
>and made a joke.  I’m hoping this—like the general choppiness of the first
>hour—will be improved in the Extended Edition we’ll hopefully be seeing
>next year.
>
>One more small, negative note: I could do without the heavy-handed
>mysticism of Aragorn and Arwen’s relationship.  I don’t entirely agree with
>Roger Ebert’s argument that Jackson’s films shift the hobbits to the
>sidelines and make LOTR Aragorn’s story, but this was a bit much.  Was it
>done just to give girlfriends something to look at?
>
>OK, those are the negatives.  Now for the positives: Gollum is freaking
>amazing.  I couldn’t take my eyes off him.  The last two thirds of the film
>have a sweep and power that refuse to let you take your eyes from the
>screen, losing the stumbling quality of the opening.  The battle for Helm’s
>Deep is one of the greatest action sequences ever set to film.  The special
>effects continue to be great, the scenery beautiful, the acting superb.
>While I did have reservations, this is clearly one of the best films of the
>year and, like FOTR, a staggering achievement.  I suspect it will play even
>better viewed as the middle part of a nine-or-ten hour marathon screening
>of the entire trilogy—which should be possible before the next Star Wars
>comes out.  I, for one, can’t wait.
>--Jazzman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_eliminateviruse\
s_3mf

----- Original Message -----

From: LordTZer0@...

To: filmemporium@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 1:36 AM

Subject: Re: [filmemporium] "Two Towers" on Charlie Rose

In a message dated 12/20/2002 7:49:10 AM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

As for the comment that there's too many dwarf jokes, I don't know about that,

The best one was about tossing him.  I'm not sure why dwarf tossing has been baned in some places.  Its a way for them to make extra money, and I loved getting tossed when I was little.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

I just bought MINORITY REPORT on DVD, but haven't had a chance to
watch it yet. I thought, when I saw it in the theater, that it was
probably the best SF film I'd seen in the last 10 years, and easily
one of Spielberg's best films. I'm glad that Spielberg is making
different kinds of movies than his "usual" ones... and in different
styles than the "Spielbergian" ones we all know and love (JAWS, CE3K,
RAIDERS, ET).

Although there are so many things I dig about MINORITY REPORT, I
think that two particular scenes were particularly memorable.
The first one is where Tom Cruise jumps off the wall-riding "car of
the future" onto a balcony... and somersaults over into an awkward
posture--only to be "met" by a yoga-stretching woman crawling towards
him (in a similar posture to his) like some bizarro crab. This, in a
Spielberg movie!... where the hell did THAT come from?!
The second one is where Cruise--after having gotten a transplant of
some Japanese guy's eyes--has to chase after his OWN eyes as they
roll down an inclined hallway. Now THAT is something you're not
likely to see in ANY movie... except for THIS one!

Patrick

I only saw this once, in its original theatrical release, and didn't
like it (excepting for certain scenes). I loved PULP FICTION and
RESERVOIR DOGS, and TRUE ROMANCE (though I would like to see
an "alternative" version, edited as the screenplay was), but it
seemed to me that NATURAL BORN KILLERS should have been a Quentin
Tarantino film, and NOT an Oliver Stone film. It's like Oil and
Water, it just didn't "mix" right for me.
Those of you who have seen the "extended" version of NBK... is it
better than the original cut? Is it MUCH better, if at all? If so,
might it be worth a re-appraisal on my part?

Patrick

I saw "The Two Towers" on opening night (Wednesday) here in Fargo.
Having read the LOTR about 5 or 6 times, both FOTR and TT are flicks
I eagerly anticipated seeing; those who were more impressed with
FOTR, might it not be because it was where Tolkien's world was first
fleshed out in live-action? The 2nd film is, to my mind, merely the
continuation of ONE story--a story which won't be finished until
after the 3rd one is out (or, should I say, the "expanded DVD"
version of the 3rd one?).
I'm glad they didn't have any narrator remind us where the story had
left off--the way they went right to the scene of Gandalf confronting
the Balrog... and then showing that loooooong fall down to the bottom
of the Pit inside the mountain--yeGODS but it was magnificent! And to
then segue from that to Frodo waking up, startled--as if it were a
psychic vision/dream he'd been having! Having read the book, there
were times in FOTR where Frodo has dreams which are precognitive, or
which tell him what is happening THERE and THEN to Gandalf... so, it
was nice for TTT to start off this way.

I was also pleasantly surprised by the way they dealt with Gandalf
the White approaching Theoden: every time I read that scene in the
book, the impression I got was that Saruman's ONLY influence over
Theoden was through the corrupt Prime Minister-ship of Grima
Wormtongue... but I liked the way the film interprets it, as if
Saruman himself "possesses" the king, like the Devil inside Regan
in "The Exorcist"--until Gandalf drives him out. It's an interesting
interpretation, one which Tolkien purists might not appreciate (as
they will undoubtedly continue to quibble over ANY change made from
book-to-film), but one which WORKS in the film.

As for the criticism others have regarding Gimli as "comic relief",
well, I didn't mind it. The story is getting darker and darker... and
it's only good stagecraft for the screenwriter to provide the
occasional "relief" from the Doom & Gloom (Shake-speare does this in
his tragedies, to good effect). The "dwarf-tossing" gag was also used
in the 1st film ("Nobody tosses a dwarf!"), but it works better
here... although, perhaps, it WOULDN'T have worked here as well had
they not used it beforehand, in FOTR.
The Gimli/Legolas contest for "orc-kills" was true to the book, and
another good way to offset the carnage of the Helm's Deep battle with
a modicum of levity. Legolas' "shield-surfing" down the rounded
incline, shooting arrow after arrow, sure, it seemed a bit
too "extreme sports"... but I didn't hate it. I loved his one-handed
flip up onto the horse, in the warg-riding orc battle scene, which
goes to show that this elf is one nimble pointy-eared fella!

In the novel, Boromir doesn't die until AFTER the "end" of FOTR, in
the beginning of TTT... and the scene with Shelob is in the book
TTT... although it won't appear on-screen until ROTK. I don't mind
that Jackson is taking this liberty, since ROTK will be all-the-more
horrific with the Shelob scene near the beginning. Tolkien's novel
is, really, NOT a trilogy, but a work of SIX books, each "volume"
(FOTR, TTT, and ROTK) containing TWO books of the 6-book total. But
it's all ONE BIG BOOK... and the way I'm looking at Jackson's THREE
movies is that, ultimately, it'll all be ONE BIG MOVIE... in three
distinct "volumes" of film. I look forward to seeing the entire uncut
saga in about 2 years... preferably on a widescreen HDTV with kick-
ass surround sound--f***, man, with SENSURROUND!

One way that they COULD have started TTT (which they did NOT do, of
course, though I wouldn't have minded it if they HAD), is to have the
scene from "The Hobbit", with Bilbo Baggins finding the Ring (which
would have given Bilbo a "presence" in this middle-movie), meeting
Gollum, doing the "riddle game"... and Bilbo escaping with the Ring,
to the cries of Gollum saying, "We hates it! We hates it forever!"--
and then CUT TO Gollum, eager for his "fix", skulking after Frodo and
Sam...
They DIDN'T do it this way, which--if I had been in charge--they
WOULD'VE... but, hey, it's okay. That depiction of the Fall of
Gandalf with the Balrog was astounding.

I loved TTT. Loved FOTR. And I can't WAIT for ROTK. I hope NEW LINE
takes other great works of literature which deserve to be filmed and
continues on in this tradition: making GREAT movies from GREAT source
material. Do it RIGHT and it can't help but pay off in the end. The
LOTR movies are kicking ass--and hardly anybody gives a shit anymore
about Lucas' underwhelming STAR WARS prequel saga. If Lucas wants to
end his prequel trilogy right, he'll let Spielberg direct it--and let
him hire good writers to re-write it, so that the script is at least
passable. Lucas made a fun SF fantasy with the original STAR WARS...
and the first sequel was terrific because of the input of the
screenwriter and the better direction... but ever since, it's been
downhill. LOTR has great scripting (even where it deviates from the
source novel), great direction, and great editing. I, for one, felt
as if TTT was more along the lines of 2 or 2 and a half hours long...
it sure didn't seem as long as it was! I haven't seen as well-paced a
movie since Oliver Stone's "JFK", which was also a 3-hour
extravaganza, yet was so expertly edited that it just MOVED. You're
riveted to the screen. Ya gotta admire that.

Patrick

P.S. Never... EVER... piss off an Ent. Payback is a beeyutch!

I got this response from someone that I don't think is in the group (his
email is bcanada92@...). I sent him a thank you and invited him to
join. Anyways, here's what he had to say, in case anyone is interested:

Wellll.....  about the only other mainstream thing he's directed

that I know of is "The Frighteners." But be warned--his other

films-- "Dead Alive (aka Brain Dead), " "Bad Taste" and "Meet the

Feebles" are VERY over-the-top, gross-out, offbeat farcical

cultish films, that may not sit well with you. It's not that they're bad

films, but they're definitly not going to appeal to everyone. That's

why I was extremely skeptical when it was announced he would

be directing LOTR. Happy to say my fears were ungrounded.



Matt

The new "Premiere" magazine has a thing on Peter ("Lord of the Rings")
Jackson's previous films, so here they are. Jackson is a big horror buff and
most of his flicks have been in that genre (I think it also influenced
"Rings" in a big way; it's as much gritty horror as fantasy).
  "Bad Taste" (1987): spent 4 years making it, about aliens turning humans
into fast food. Mixes humor and gore. 3 out of 5 stars
  "Meet the Feebles" (1989): a whacked out puppet movie, "Muppets on acid"
("puppets commit rape and mass murder, shoot heroin, food-binge"). 3 out of
5 stars
   "Dead Alive" (1992): an over the top zombie movie (Jackson said on Charlie
Rose he'd like to do another zombie movie). 3 out of 5 stars
   "Heavenly Creatures" (1994): Kate Winslet's debut; got a screenplay Oscar
nomination. A "study of the passionate friendship and fantasy life shared
between two real-life New Zealand girls in the '50's, a bond that resulted
in matricide. "Premiere" considers it his masterpiece and gives it 5 stars.
   "Forgotten Silver" (1996) - a "mockumentary" about  a pioneer of New
Zealand film industry in the silent era. 4 out of 5 stars.
  "The Frighteners" (1996) - - Jackson helped found the FX shop WETA and was
able to do excellent FX cheap, so Hollywood came a knockin'. This ghost
story starring Michael J. Fox underwhelmed people. 2 out of 5 stars.
   "Fellowship of the Ring" (2001) - - never heard of it. Anyone?  4 out of 5
stars.
   OK, what do Oliver Stone and Peter Jackson have in common? - - - Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: <veetus@...>
To: <filmemporium@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: [filmemporium] Oliver Stone is "Great"


>   Yeah, I'd agree "Platoon", "Born on the 4rth of July" (my favorite),
"JFK"
> and "Wall Street" are his classics. "Nixon" might be his best film in
terms
> of juggling elements and objectivity. I think "Heaven and Earth" is
> underrated. Some of his films aren't for everyone. I liked "Natural Born
> Killers" and "got it", but I can see why some wouldn't like it (hate it,
> actually). As a Doors fan I was disappointed in "The Doors" but it's my
> favorite for throwing on the DVD and watching some scenes. "Any Given
> Sunday" was OK, but after doing a film a year for 10 years (1985 -95) that
> and "U-Turn" were underwhelming. "U-Turn" and "Talk Radio" are my least
> favorite and the only ones I don't have on DVD, except his first 2,
> "Seizure" and "The Hand", which aren't available. I have a rare VHS of his
> first movie, "Seizure" (1973), starring Jonathan Frid (Barnabas of "Dark
> shadows") and Herve Villachaize. Off the wall but a nice curiousity.
> "Variety" says "Alexander the Great" ranks with his best scripts and I'm
> glad to see him doing politics again ("Nixon"'s flop kinda messed up his
> momentum). His documentary about Castro premieres at the Sundance Film
> Festival next month and he also did a doc about the Middle East. He's only
> done 2 features in the last 7 years (the mediocre "U-Turn" and "Any Given
> Sunday") so it's time for a comeback (and studios with guts again). - - -
> Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <MTotsky@...>
> To: <filmemporium@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 9:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [filmemporium] Oliver Stone is "Great"
>
>
> > I would welcome a comeback film from Stone. It's seemed like awhile
since
> we really got a great movie from him. In my book, "Platoon," "Born on the
> 4th of July," "JFK," and "Wall Street" are all classics. I also liked
> "Nixon." "The Doors" was average. I never saw "U-Turn" and I couldn't make
> it through the first half hour "Any Given Sunday." I thought "Natural Born
> Killers" was garbage and the equivilent of cinematic masturbation.
> >
> > The bottom line: A decent film from Stone would be "Great!"
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

I forgot "Salvador". Stone made "Seizure" in 1973, "The Hand" in 1981, and
then "Salvador" (early '86) was the first of the 10 films in 10 years. Some
consider it his best (including Quentin Tarantino), preferring it's
grittiness to his later more polished films. It's an excellent film, mixing
social commentary and humor, with an emphasis on it's wild characters (based
on Richard Boyle's real exploits). MGM just released a solid DVD with new
extras, including a doc. - - - Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: <veetus@...>
To: <filmemporium@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: [filmemporium] Oliver Stone is "Great"


>   Yeah, I'd agree "Platoon", "Born on the 4rth of July" (my favorite),
"JFK"
> and "Wall Street" are his classics. "Nixon" might be his best film in
terms
> of juggling elements and objectivity. I think "Heaven and Earth" is
> underrated. Some of his films aren't for everyone. I liked "Natural Born
> Killers" and "got it", but I can see why some wouldn't like it (hate it,
> actually). As a Doors fan I was disappointed in "The Doors" but it's my
> favorite for throwing on the DVD and watching some scenes. "Any Given
> Sunday" was OK, but after doing a film a year for 10 years (1985 -95) that
> and "U-Turn" were underwhelming. "U-Turn" and "Talk Radio" are my least
> favorite and the only ones I don't have on DVD, except his first 2,
> "Seizure" and "The Hand", which aren't available. I have a rare VHS of his
> first movie, "Seizure" (1973), starring Jonathan Frid (Barnabas of "Dark
> shadows") and Herve Villachaize. Off the wall but a nice curiousity.
> "Variety" says "Alexander the Great" ranks with his best scripts and I'm
> glad to see him doing politics again ("Nixon"'s flop kinda messed up his
> momentum). His documentary about Castro premieres at the Sundance Film
> Festival next month and he also did a doc about the Middle East. He's only
> done 2 features in the last 7 years (the mediocre "U-Turn" and "Any Given
> Sunday") so it's time for a comeback (and studios with guts again). - - -
> Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <MTotsky@...>
> To: <filmemporium@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 9:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [filmemporium] Oliver Stone is "Great"
>
>
> > I would welcome a comeback film from Stone. It's seemed like awhile
since
> we really got a great movie from him. In my book, "Platoon," "Born on the
> 4th of July," "JFK," and "Wall Street" are all classics. I also liked
> "Nixon." "The Doors" was average. I never saw "U-Turn" and I couldn't make
> it through the first half hour "Any Given Sunday." I thought "Natural Born
> Killers" was garbage and the equivilent of cinematic masturbation.
> >
> > The bottom line: A decent film from Stone would be "Great!"
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

It's a Friday. The kids are in bed. My wife is watching the 2-hour series
finale of "Providence." This is the perfect opportunity for me to catch
something cheesy on DVD that I want to see, but I know she doesn't.

I went to Blockbuster and scanned the shelves. I was tempted by "Reign of
Fire." "Eight Legged Freaks" beckoned me, but I resisted. I even considered
"Planet of the Vampires." I opted for the latest entry in the Austin Powers
series: "Goldmember."

I am not a huge fan of this series, but there were enough funny bits in the
first two films that made me want to see this one for myself, despite the
mixed reviews I've heard about this movie. Overall, I thought it was pretty
lame. I didn't really laugh at all. I missed parts of it because I was
starting to fall asleep. I think the concept and execution of this franchise
is getting tired. I'm not sure I could withstand another installment.

I didn't hate it on the scale that I did "Pumpkin," I was just bored by it.
If you liked the first two movies, then you might as well check this one out,
just to achieve a sense of closure. If you didn't like the other ones, then
avoid this at all costs. It is by far the lamest and unfunniest of the bunch.

I think Mike Myers is a talented guy and I hope he starts to reinvent himself
some times soon. He needs to come up with some new ideas before he gets in a
rut.

Matt

Yeah, I'd agree "Platoon", "Born on the 4rth of July" (my favorite), "JFK"
and "Wall Street" are his classics. "Nixon" might be his best film in terms
of juggling elements and objectivity. I think "Heaven and Earth" is
underrated. Some of his films aren't for everyone. I liked "Natural Born
Killers" and "got it", but I can see why some wouldn't like it (hate it,
actually). As a Doors fan I was disappointed in "The Doors" but it's my
favorite for throwing on the DVD and watching some scenes. "Any Given
Sunday" was OK, but after doing a film a year for 10 years (1985 -95) that
and "U-Turn" were underwhelming. "U-Turn" and "Talk Radio" are my least
favorite and the only ones I don't have on DVD, except his first 2,
"Seizure" and "The Hand", which aren't available. I have a rare VHS of his
first movie, "Seizure" (1973), starring Jonathan Frid (Barnabas of "Dark
shadows") and Herve Villachaize. Off the wall but a nice curiousity.
"Variety" says "Alexander the Great" ranks with his best scripts and I'm
glad to see him doing politics again ("Nixon"'s flop kinda messed up his
momentum). His documentary about Castro premieres at the Sundance Film
Festival next month and he also did a doc about the Middle East. He's only
done 2 features in the last 7 years (the mediocre "U-Turn" and "Any Given
Sunday") so it's time for a comeback (and studios with guts again). - - -
Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: <MTotsky@...>
To: <filmemporium@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [filmemporium] Oliver Stone is "Great"


> I would welcome a comeback film from Stone. It's seemed like awhile since
we really got a great movie from him. In my book, "Platoon," "Born on the
4th of July," "JFK," and "Wall Street" are all classics. I also liked
"Nixon." "The Doors" was average. I never saw "U-Turn" and I couldn't make
it through the first half hour "Any Given Sunday." I thought "Natural Born
Killers" was garbage and the equivilent of cinematic masturbation.
>
> The bottom line: A decent film from Stone would be "Great!"
>
> Matt
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Earlier I said the Charlie Rose interview said Peter Jackson gets 5% of
"Lord of the Rings". Actually, it's Miramax which gets that. They were going
to do it first but I think wanted to make it one film. They agreed to give
it to New Line for the costs of development and a percentage. - - - Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: <veetus@...>
To: <filmemporium@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [filmemporium] The Other Films of Peter Jackson


>   The new "Premiere" reviews all Jackson's films. I'll go through them
> later. - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <MTotsky@...>
> To: <filmemporium@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 8:38 AM
> Subject: [filmemporium] The Other Films of Peter Jackson
>
>
> > OK, we all know that Peter Jackson is "God's Gift to Directing" at the
> moment, but I haven't seen any of his films except "LOTR." Can anyone
> recommend another Jackson-directed effort? The only one I've even heard of
> is "Heavenly Creatures."
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> filmemporium-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>