Movies

[Idun]

M. Butterfly - I don't think I've ever seen Jeremy Irons kiss a man. Very poetic movie. 5/5.
Zombieland - 3/5. Not enough zombies/action. Filler "want a family" dialog. Good action with Woody Harrelson though.
Paranormal Activity - 2/5. Boooooooring. If the movie was like the last 5 seconds, maybe it would have been better.

9 coming on Monday.

[Meeplelard]

Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian: Being the only other book in the series I've read besides the Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, I figured why not?

This movie gave me the following impressions:

-Wow, they diverged quite a bit from the book, contrast to the previous movie which followed it rather well
-Wow, I really don't remember Prince Caspian nearly as much as I remembered its predecessor!

Things I do remember involved such like the book opening with the 4 siblings in the train station, just having idle banther, eventually leading to "Wait, why are we by the ocean!?"  instead of the nonsense with Peter and his superiority "I'M AN ADULT AT HEART DAMN IT!" complex.  Well, no, the movie started with Prince Caspian retreating from his castle, which...isn't too bad; that's merely making the movie more chronologically which fits for a movie and makes the beginning a little more interesting, but relative to the book, yeah, the stuff in the "real" world felt unnecessary cause I don't remember them actually dealing with that  shit in the book, and felt like they were just trying to force some character traits again to bring out more development that the book didn't have.

I mean, one thing I remember explicitly about the book was that Caspian was definitely the protagonist, NOT Peter.  The 4 siblings were introduced first, but then they meet a dwarf and we get into a rather long narrative about Caspian, and its pretty much about him.  Maybe my memory is faulty (The book was significantly less memorable than the Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe), but I remember more focus on Caspian and less on Peter.    There were other minor plot points that I know they changed; for example, I remember it was Edmund who figured out it was their castle they were standing in the ruins of, and through deductive reasoning, NOT Lucy.  Minor point, but its stuff like this that when you remember things specifically, the changes stand out, and there was no real reason to change that, minor as it was.
I also remember thinking Prince Caspian was significantly younger than the Movie displayed him...but maybe that was me being young and naive at the time, but that's definitely the impression I remember thinking.

Either way, first movie was better by a significant amount, this movie had more action and stuff, but...meh, wasn't as fun.  Then again, first book was also significantly better than the second, so yeah, guess that's to be expected!

[Cmdr_King]

I want to say that Caspian was 11 or 12 in the book?  Younger than Peter definitely.
The sad thing about that movie though is that I don't think it did terribly well, so I'm not sure they're going to do Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which is a shame.

[Sierra]

IMDB lists it as being in post-production, for what that's worth.

[Dark Holy Elf]

I remember it was Edmund who figured out it was their castle they were standing in the ruins of, and through deductive reasoning, NOT Lucy

I'd imagine that was a change made to give the girls more of a role in the story; the book is a bit dated in that regard. I remember thinking that book in particular actually came off as rather sexist when I reread the series as an adult a few years back, but no longer remember what specifically prompted those thoughts. To be fair, Prince Caspian is my least favourite in the series by quite a ways so my memory of it isn't going to be very good. I've actually heard that the movie is better, since it gives Peter a shred of character depth (something nobody has in the book!) but I've never seen either movie myself.

[Shale]

Closer: Didn't like this one at all. The movie amounts to a collection of scenes showing terrible people at their worst moments, with little to establish why anybody should care. The most absurd example is a one-year time jump from Jude Law's character admitting that he's been stalking Julia Roberts, to Law and Roberts having fallen in love and having a year-long affair. When Law's character first admitted to it I thought he was delusional, and I still say that makes more sense than what actually happened. Also, Portman's performance was the worst I've ever seen her give, including Star Wars.

Edit: What the fuck she won awards for that? It was like listening to a community-theater actress read her audition piece.

[superaielman]

The Stand: First time I've ever sat down and seen the miniseries, in spite of being a fan of the books.

Good: Casting/acting. It was for the most part accurate. Kudos to the casting for Tom. That was literally the actor I envisioned when I read the books before the mini series came out. It also shows off the utter depth of Lloyd's damnation as well or even better than the books do. He isn't sympathetic at all, just a two bit criminal who leaps at the chance for life and to be important for once in his life. Flagg's actor did a fantastic job as well.
Bad: The bad casting jobs. Gary Sinise didn't physically fit the part of Stu. He was just old enough chronologically but looked too young for the part. Not a big deal, he did a good job.

Molly Ringwald as Franie was not only an inaccurate casting for the age, Ringwald did a terrible job with a tough role. Franie isn't sympathetic in the least in the movie considering how little time they spend on her PoV, but she is played as an *insufferable* bitch and it annoys the hell out of me. Oh well.  Other than that, the miniseries was a lot of fun and almost sticks 100% to the books outside of the very end which suits me fine.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

So the magic ghost hand ISN'T the original ending for The Stand?

...Thank fucking god.

[Idun]

La Femme Nikita - seen it my bagillionth time. Realized that the subtitling is ridiculously off-balance. IE, there's some typos when the person says huit, but the number that shows up is 7. When someone says s'il vous plait, there's an extra sentence that adds too much context to that phrase. Etc. Good movie, but I feel that her last mission was a little too anti-climatic now. Still a 5/5. I'm a Luc Besson/Jean Reno whore, so sue me.

9 - I think that this has the best animation that was executed with its artistic vision that I've ever seen. There are way too many subtleties, such as 1's sagging eyes visually represented in his lens, the eyebrows stitched in, a salt shaker top, etc. Light was amazing, fog/special effects was amazing. A sad story, really. Two anticlimatic movies in one night. Not a bad ending, but definitely not what I was expecting. Since there was no humanity left (I'm not spoiling anything by saying that), the too-open ended ending makes it a bit disappointing for the adventure. Typical characters, but thankfully the meter of the movie continually rises. Action packed compared to many other animation movies. Impressive. Not a 5/5 because of the ending. Gave Le Femme Nikita a 5/5 because of nostalgia. Wouldn't say this is exactly a kid's movie - I don't think the point of animation necessities G-rated movies. Yeah. Good movie overall. Up was much more comedic, but 9 is on a different level of entertainment.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

Black Dynamite- 11/10. 10 points for the movie, 1 point for using the phrase "Kung Fu treachery."

[superaielman]

So the magic ghost hand ISN'T the original ending for The Stand?

...Thank fucking god.

Nope, that is the end of Vegas and Flagg. The book adds a bit more.

Spoilers:

It takes long months for Stu and Tom to get back to Boulder, and Flagg has a cameo where he appears somewhere in south america. They just cut out a lot of the filler about what happens to the free zone after Flagg's gone and what Stu and Franie do after she gives birth.

[NotMiki]

The Secret of Kells - this came out in NYC, went to see it with my sister who happened to be in town.  Very, very pretty animation.  Highly recommended for art dorks (read: Idun), but I'm not sure there's enough in there for anyone else to care about aside from the visual style, which may be best described as Celtic Okami.  On the other hand, a movie that has a plot but doesn't go out of its way to tug your heartstrings is pretty refreshing in a way.  Short movie, anyway, and worth the time.

[Grefter]

You wound me Jim.

Alice in Wonderland - Why are people not talking about this and going to watch it?  This is really quite good.  Not in the same way that Sherlock Holmes justified Hollywood for me again, but good in the way that you know, Tim Burton justifies his existence once again.  It is quirky and well told, very true to the source material.  Johnny Depp is of course absolutely wonderful in it and Stephen Fry is a marvelous Cheshire Cat who you can spend hours listening to on loop.  The animation for the Cat is also superb, absolutely great.  Those are just the things and characters I fixate on though (being things that mirror some of my more general neurosis, though that can be said of most of the entire Alice universe).  Anne Hathaway gets praise for doing what must have been fairly difficult the entire time (she does everything with proper elegance.  Bends and swoops and ducks and swerves like the total caricature that the White Queen is of Grace/Elegance/Royalty) and she pulls it off.  It looks awkward and it must have felt it, but that is exactly what it is meant to do (you should not have to turn around a full circle just to walk 2 paces and use a telescope, but she does).

I don't know, there isn't much to say.  It is Tim Burton, it is Lewis Carrol done correctly in full LSD haze, it has an amazing cast and a sky high budget that is put to use.  Worth watching.

I saw it in 2D for obvious reasons with impaired vision and have heard the 3D does not do much for it, but beautiful nonetheless.  Go see this movie.

Oh and it isn't really for kids, but that goes with both Alice in Wonderland and Tim Burton.  They ... bedazzle and confuse them and make them think (which is why every child should be read Alice in Wonderland or at least watch a classical interpretation of it), but it is every bit as much there for the parent/the stoners as these things will ever be.

Blah blah blah Tim Burton strong female lead done right way more so than your normal Disney female blah blah blah.

[Lady Door]

I went and saw Alice with Andrew Friday night in IMAX 3D. I was underwhelmed.

The main hitch was the actress playing Alice. Maybe I just didn't "get it," but she felt so flat and uninspired the whole time. It made understand why it went from thing to thing a little more clunky. My teeth grated a la nails on the chalkboard at her return to not-(w)Underland.

Enjoyable movie, though. The 3D did what 3D does best: add depth, not camp. It was very, very pretty and had fantastic design elements.

[BaconForTheSoul]

Spoilers for a shitty movie you don't want to see, but have probably already seen!


Ocean's 12:  This movie is beyond bad... seriously.  The entire movie is to steal something they already stole?  Why the fuck did they go through the trouble of getting caught in the first place?  It makes no damn sense!

[Sierra]

Yes. The worst part is when they have the Julia Roberts character pretend to be Julia Roberts and everyone acts like this is actually supposed to be funny. If there's one word that characterizes Ocean's 12, it's "lazy."

[Meeplelard]

My sister spoke about Ocean 12, how she watched the first 15 minutes of it, then turned it off cause everyone was acting out of character and that is never a good sign.

Pity, cause the first movie was actually kind of neat.

[Hunter Sopko]

My sister spoke about Ocean 12, how she watched the first 15 minutes of it, then turned it off cause everyone was acting out of character and that is never a good sign.

Pity, cause the first movie was actually kind of neat.

Not really... say what you will about the second movie, no one really acted out of character.

[Lady Door]

But Ocean's 12 is the one with the crazy laser dance scene, isn't it?

[BaconForTheSoul]

Okay that looked cool, but IIRC there is one seriously wrong issue with that.

They mention early in the movie that the lasers are random.
They then show the guy practicing some little dance in his backyard.
Then they show guy doing his dance to dodge the so called random lasers.

Now... unless the dance was different and just looked identical to my untrained eye then these so called random lasers were not random at all, which would make me wonder why the cast said they were.  Great intel assholes.

[Lady Door]

But... LASER DANCE.

[Grefter]

Late response, but the real star of Alice in Wonderland isn't Alice, but everything else in the movie.  When you set the mundane character up against a world as fantastic as Wonderland, the mundane will lose.

[NotMiki]

But..shouldn't Alice be interesting in her own right?  I mean, she certainly wasn't pedestrian in the books.

[Lady Door]

In some bizarre dystopian way, dead Alice in (w)Underland is a perfectly Tim Burton-esque way to portray the character "all grown up."

On the other hand, the final scene still really bugs me and would especially do so in this suggested context. She's supposed to be a young woman who "comes into her own" by the finale, and I just don't see how she gets there. Maybe that, too, is commentary in its own way, but if so it is extremely poorly executed. I think I agree with Ebert's assessment -- the third act is all kinds of disappointment.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

But..shouldn't Alice be interesting in her own right?  I mean, she certainly wasn't pedestrian in the books.

You can be interesting on your own, but be totally outshone by everything else. When it comes down to it, she's still an ordinary person and everyone around her is an opium hallucination. The coolest real person you know is probably still not going to be as cool as James Bond.