Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock on December 15, 2003, 02:38:14 PM
-
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/sony/spiderman2/
Wow, wow, wow, wow. July 2004. Too long of a wait. Must see more, want more. More wanting. Go. Coherency is at a loss and cohesion is but a trickle in my feet. Need more.
-
Looks like Dr. Octopus will be really good. His fx look great in that trailer. And it's the Comte from "Chocolat" even!
-
Chocolat. Must add that to my wishlist.
The trailer is really awesome. Go Mary Jane!
-
Go Mary Jane!
Indeed.
Kirsten Dunst... <insert drool here>
-
That and Mary Jane is only the coolest female comic book character ever.
-
I'm going to have to have you read some of Peter David's Supergirl stories some time.
-
Don't read them! She's too super for Mary Jane!
-
Which is kind of the point.
-
Perhaps.
I know little about Supergirl outside of the Supergirl movie.
-
ack! Burn that out of your mind! Quick! Before it rots!
-
Ok then. Note to self, Supergirl the movie is not a good basis of impression for Supergirl as a comic book character.
-
I didn't think the movie was that bad, to be honest. About even with most of the 80s movies that came out at the time. What do you find so wrong with it? Besides the flatness of Supergirl's character?
-
the flatness of all the other characters, the boring nature of the movie...
-
Love Mary Jane.
Hate Kirsten Dunst
Her last good role was in Interview with a Vampire.
She can't act, is dumber than a box of rocks, and is nearly painful to look at with that gigantic empty head of hers. It's like an orange on toothpick.
Okay, rant over.
-
You have blasphemed the holy one!
(who cares about intelligence, she LOOKS good)
/me sends out ninjas
-
Her acting is not that bad. You want to pick on someone, go off on Natalie Portman.
-
C'mon SE, she looks like somone put a pumpkin on a microphone stand. Her body just looks out of proportion. And lets not forget her empty head.
Natalie Portman has proven to be a fine actress outside of any movie with either the word "Star" or the word "Wars" in the title. I blame Lucas.
-
Love Mary Jane.
Hate Kirsten Dunst
Her last good role was in Interview with a Vampire.
She can't act, is dumber than a box of rocks, and is nearly painful to look at with that gigantic empty head of hers. It's like an orange on toothpick.
Sorry, you're wrong. I don't think she'll win any Oscars, but I think she's a fine actress, and she's very very pretty. And my opinion is probably worth more than Eric's because it's not hormonally driven.
-
i thought the hormone factor was what we were ARGUING about.
-
I say that would be something worth having, a kirsten dunst. Something I'd like to have atop my nightstand.
-
Amen.
-
*blink*
-
I've seen other Natalie Portman movies and her acting is just as flat in those as in Star Wars. Though I will have to say that the infection of flat acting that afflicts Episode 1 and 2 is probably due to bad directing.
Kirsten Dunst is much more well rounded and very pretty. You're smokin' something Mr. P.
-
Kirsten Dunst isn't that ugly. Though I think it's about time her mother told her what a bra is for.
-
I'm sure she knows 42. But her costume designers and image consultants have convinced her that 70s is back in.
-
Oh sure, blame her image consultants and costume designers. They must be some really bad image consultants and costume designers. The only thing that should jiggle that much in public is Jell-O.
-
Or bigger breasts.
-
Its kind of obvious who they're targeting with the movies. Adolescent's who have little ideas of comics, and men who enjoy the boobage. Put mayhaps it won't be so prolific in this next one. Because well, MJ was always so 'stand-outish' in the comics.
-
Kirsten dunst - plain. She was... unattractive in the wet t-shirt scene.
Natalie portman - not bad, but nothing to write home about i think.
Prefer the woman in PotC to both.
But i don't know if she is that bad an actor. She did not stand out as bad...
-
Keira Knightley. She was very pretty. And she wore a corset through most of the movie, so no jiggling issues.
-
Keira Knightly is hot in Bend it like Beckham as well. A little skinny, but still hot.
And there is even a scene with here shopping for a bra, so we know that she knows about suport.
-
Unlike the entire female cast of Soul Caliber 2?
-
Ugh. I though that subject had been contained a long time ago in a thread far, far away. But unfortunately not forgotten.
-
You all are not going to convince me.
I don't find Kirstin attractive in the slightest. Sorry. Not my type. I think it might have to do a bit with her hollow noggin' though. Everytime she opens her mouth in an interview her IQ drops a point.
-
I think, perhaps, the only thing more amusing than 42 initiating a discussion about Kirsten Dunst's breasts would be my joining said discussion, so I will leave off further comment on the subject.
As for the acting talents of the three young women in question, I'd have to say that I found Miss Knightly to be the most talented, considering the movies I've seen. However, Miss Portman is said to be a very fine actor, assuming she's cast in a non-Lucas role.
-
Sorry, Kirsten Dunst is still very pretty. I don't know where Dr. P is getting this large noggin thing. Maybe she's dumb, but she's pretty.
-
As my friend steve allwayse says: "I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating cookies."
-
It would be physically impossible to kick her out of bed anyway. Her enormous head would anchor her to the pillow.
-
I think we've had this discussion before, but I'll restate my position anyway. Kirsten Dunst is quite attractive, but I always feel guilty when I think that, because I always still view her as a child actress - specifically, I still think of her as the little girl in Little Women.
I also think that Keira Knightly is the best looking and best talented of the three, with an emphasis on the 'best looking' aspect.
-
She's almost too thin... like throw the girl a sandwhich thin... Dunst may not have lots O'Brainpower but she is cute in a real chick kinda way.
-
I guess if you find bobble-heads cute that she could be somewhat attractive.
;D
-
seriously, dude, where do you get this gigantic noggin thing? I don't think her head is even remotely large in proportion. Other parts of her anatomy, yeah, but still.
-
I dont know where your getting that she has a huge head.... Unless you have a misshapen shrunken head and judge all heads on that standard.
-
I first noticed it in Maxim magazine a few years back. She was in her skivies, as all women in Maxim are, and she was supposed to look sexy, but her huge, out-of-proportion head loomed so large that all sexiness was immediately cancelled out.
Now every time I see her I see the big head pictures.
-
I think you have issues that a psychologist needs to explore with you.
-
Why? You're the one with the big head fetish.
;)
-
Did someone say analysis?
-
Dr. P: denial is one of the signs.
Gemm: no, no one but you said that word in this thread.
-
Mr. P, I think you are blaming Kirsten for a bad photographer. Kind of like I judge all of Uma Thurman's acting on the bad directing in Batman & Robin.
-
really? I blame all of Uma Thurman's bad acting on all that bad acting she's done.
-
Okay, so I went and looked at some recent photos of her. She has grown into her head a little more, but its still big. And I just don't find her attractive.
-
that is because you're a freak.
And not just a regular freak like the rest of us.
You've attained all new levels of freaky freakiness.
You're like Gemm.
-
Whoa Whoa Whoa!
Let's not all get crazy here.
I'm the one that find the unattractive girls unattractive. I think you're the one who is as crazy as Gemm is.
-
I forgot, where did you stand on the Nicole Kidman issue?
At any rate, I'm the one who's normal here. Most of our posters who've commented think she's pretty enough. YOU'RE the freak. Whatever normal is, I fit into it, and you're the psychotic weirdo with strange obsessions.
-
Well there's that too. Wasn't impressed by her or the other guy in Gattaca. Did anyone else think that movie just lacked?
-
It was a little slow, but it was a very interesting movie
-
A few points, in no particular order...
1) Not psychotic. I'm the only sane one here it seems.
2) Nicole Kidman: Amazingly, stunningly beautiful. Gorgeous lady.
3) Gattaca was a slow, slow movie, but being as I got my degree in biology and studied bioethics heavily, it was very interesting to me.
-
1) uh.. that's kind of the definition.
2) see, now we KNOW your taste can't be trusted. Try "skanky ho" next time.
3) shrug.
-
In an order befitting our befuddled Dr. Pepper:
1) Nicole Kidman is anything but gorgeous and/or a good actor.
b) Dr. Pepper, you are a crazy, crazy person. Bioethics.
Omega) Never saw the movie, must be very boring.
-
Whoa again.
You're telling me you think Kirsten Dunst is amazingly hot but you think Nicole Kidman is a skank-ho?
Saint, that is just insane. Completely insane.
I guess there's no accounting for taste.
-
yes, I am saying that. Kidman radiates skank.
-
Yeah I think the board consensus was that Kidman was a skank
-
Kidman is plastic. Ugh!
-
What is wrong with you people? Quit deriding my betrothed.
-
I'm pretty sure you have to have some sort of marriage agreement with the person or an agent acting on their behalf to make her "betrothed."
-
Well, I'm sure that as soon as she finds out, she'll agree. She'd already know if it wasn't for those pesky restraining orders.
-
and *i'm* the psycho one.
-
BTW
Gattica is one of the greatest movies I have ever seen. If I ever craft a story that well-done...well, I may just have to retire.
-
Hear hear! Gattaca is one of my top three fav films ever.
Dunst: mild.
Kidman: medium
Portman: nearing picante
Knightly: hot
Thurman: coolly beautiful. Salsa can't describe her.
-
Maybe polygamy isn't the answer. Maybe just a harem.
-
ok, you people are strange. Uma is a total dog. MADONNA is more attractive than Uma. I take back the previous one, though. She's not a dog, she looks like her face has been chewed up by one. Nice legs, but that head.... <shudder>
-
different strokes for different folks
this thread seems to be manifesting people's problems with heads. The only head that bothers me (just a little) is Christina Ricci's.
-
I know that Uma Thurman works as a professional model on the side, but she looks like a walking skeleton. She's beyond looking like a heroin addidct or an anerexic. If her eyeliner didn't contain super-glue then I'm sure her eyeballs would just fall right out.
And Gattica: great story, mediocre movie. And what was with all the Bauhaus visuals? So...oppressive.
-
I don't care for Uma either. I'd take Kidman over her. Now Ricci is another matter, how could you not like her?
-
Bauhaus? The majority of the architecture (exterior) was Frank Lloyd Wright. Specifically, it was the Marin County Civic Center.
-
Like I said, different strokes for different folks
-
Frank's philosophy for the Marin County Center is very much in line with the Bauhaus movement and it was finished by William Wesley Peters and Aaron Green. Wright's later works are also more consistant with the Bauhaus style, even though Wright began his career by antagonizing the Bauhuas movement. Wright's later works incorporate much of the industrialization and futurism that was the basis of the Bauhaus movement. This is also a big sticking point among art historians and art critics.
-
Gattaca the story was well-done, but the movie seriously lacked. I don't care if the lack of emotion/feeling/excitment/intonation in the movie was supposed to be making a statement about the culture, there are other ways to accomplish that.
-
Lack of emotion/feeling/excitment/intonation?
Wow. Guess they should have added more explosions. Don't worry--once Arnold is done being govenor, he'll probably make some more movies for you. Until then, you can always count on Jerry Bruckheimer to take care of you. I hear he's doing Kangaroo Jack 2.
-
Well, it does lack emotion/feeling/excitment/intonation if you're not interested in the genetic/bio-engineering aspects. If you can't find drama in a chemestry textbook, then Gattaca is probably not the film for you.
-
I completely disagree. One of the main characters commits suicide, for goodness sake. That's one of the most emotionally-charged scenes I've seen in cinema. In addition, the scene with the two brothers swimming out to sea...with that classic line, "I never held anything" back...that's a character climax unlike any other.
In fact, the entire point of the movie--that of a man seeking to fulfil his dream in life despite physical handicaps and a hostile establishment--is charged with emotion. Like any good SF, the movie is not ABOUT the science, but about the effects that science has on people.
-
EUOL I think you're deliberately ignoring what's really being said to defend a movie that you like.
I have to agree with MoD, mostly. The story was solid. The acting and directing was not so much. The suicide was like a dead-pan to me. The swimming competition a little forced and meladramatic. The film moved slow.
-
EUOL I think you're deliberately ignoring what's really being said to defend a movie that you like.
I am confused. 42 implied that the movie had no emotion to it, and was essentially a 'chemistry textbook,' implying that it was only about science. My response to that, then, was to explain why I thought the movie included a great deal of emotion.
Finding the scenes melodramatic is a completely different argument than the one 42 was making, and the one I responded to. In fact, if you thought a scene was melodramatic, than you're arguing the OPPOSITE of 42's point. (However, you'll have to explain what you mean by dead-pan. I understand that term to mean something was delivered with deliberate lack of emotion in order to heighten the emotion. A dead-pan comic, for instance, tells a joke with a flat, expressionless face to make the joke more funny. I assume this is not the definition you are using when you say that the death scene was dead-pan? I assume you mean that it was poorly acted, and therefore did not convey the emotion that it should have.)
How did my response ignore what 42 said? I ask that you please show me.
-
actually, I didn't notice 42's statement, I thought you were responding to MoD. One strike against me for not reading carefully.
I agree with you that 42 goes too far there. It was hardly a chemistry text book, after all, the main plot was about pursuing dreams and the subplot about a romance/trust relationship.
I also wrote when tired (strike 2). Dead pan is not the word I should have used. I felt it was dry and barren. I had absolutely no emotional response whatsoever to the suicide, and I should have, since he was a pretty major supporting character.
As for melodramatic, i guess that is a contradiction (strike 3 against me? well... not really). But all I really mean is that in some parts, it's too dry. There was no tension over finding who the murderer was, though there was some over whether they were going to nail our hero for it: but he doesn't take any effort to really get out of it either. there was also no tension at spots where they almost find him. And like I said, no emotion when the guy burns himself.
In the swim scene, however, they go over the top. they spend so much time with no emotion, with only a few scenes conveying it (like when the crippled says he'll go to someone who can do what it takes, watchin the hero get his legs extended had a good impact), that getting all worked up seemed implausible.
Because of all this, I didn't think that the actors or the director pulled it off very well.
However, I did like the movie. As you say, the writing was pretty good. There are some great moments and inticricies, though I don't have the supreme opinion of it that EUOL does.
As a jump away from the conversation that was already off track of the original topic, though: IMO, most narrative stylists have improved greatly over the last 2000 years. Narrative/prose writers in general are now better at communicating the small things in between the great moments and at giving motivations to the characters than in ancient and medieval writing. Where am I going with this? Well, I still like medieval stories. Even though the narrative style isn't the greatest in most of it, there are some amazing ideas that form people and their cultures.
Same thing here: even though the whole movie wasn't carried off well, there still is some GREAT material that deserves acknowledgement and makes the film pretty darn good.
-
I think I'm being misinterpreted. For some people a chemestry textbook is very emotional and dramatic. And I think Gattaca captures that kind of drama very well. It that kind of problem-solving and speculating drama that makes the movie good.
Though I have to agree with SE about the suicide. It is completely contrived to wrap-up the plot. I've met quite a few people who have atttempted suicide and Jude Law's character doesn't portray any of them to the least.
-
IMO, most narrative stylists have improved greatly over the last 2000 years.
I should damn well hope so.
-
Entropy, just because it's different doesn't mean it's better. It's more complicated than you appear to be assuming.
-
I find Gattacca to be highly emotional, with a lot of drama and a great deal of suspense and emotion. I've seen very few scenes in very few movies that had more drama and suspense and emotion than the one where Jude Law claws his way up the stairs.
-
ok, that one was a good one. But that one was atypical, imo
-
Well, since I haven't seen the movie, I have no opinion. But of course the question is - is it one that I ought to see? From what people are posting here, the answer seems to be yes.
-
Yes you should see Gattaca. Then you can go see Spider-man 2.
-
*tries to remember how the two were connected in the first place*
I'm sure I'll see Spiderman 2. I think we've decided to make it a point to support this new wave of comic book-movies. Well, except for LXG. We didnt' see that one, and heard we didn't miss much.
-
/me moves Fuzzy's marker into his "good side" column.
Trying to get a copy of Condorman on DVD for under $60 is a pain in the butt, but otherwise, I've got a nice collection of superhero movies. It's nice to see the genre finally being done well in places other than the 4-color monthly format.
Still, despite never seeing even a halfway decent superhero novel, I'm convinced it can be done.
-
SE: The mark of a true gentleman debater is the ability to admit that your argument was hasty. It's certainly something I have trouble with sometimes. Good show. You know, I would be interested to see someone write a good superhero book. You should give it a shot once you're established.
Fuzzy: I would recommend the movie--however, it has been established that I am hardly unbiased. I would put it in my top-ten movies of the 90's.
-
i know this is a little late, but I have been too busy to post lately, so here is my opinion of all the gals being discussed lately:
Kirsten Dunst: I agree with Mr. P, she is not in the least bit appealing. She is a good actress, but she is just odd looking. SHe looks like her mom and dad were brother and sister.
Natalie Portman: She just gets more beautiful every year. Hot with a capital H, and a great actress. My favorite Natalie Portman movie is still Leon (one of my all time favorite films), quite a few years before she grew into a sex symbol.
Keira Knightly: Does for corsets what Betty Grable did for fishnets. She built a career on resembling Natalie Portman (she was the queen's double in Phantom Menace), but has now finally stepped out of Natalie's well-proportioned shadow and into her own light. SHe has signed on to do the sequel to PotC, so I look forward to seeing more of this babelicious new star.
Nicole Kidman: Sorry, but she looke like a horse's back end. No looks, no talent, and no taste in men. She is just a gold-digger.
And please let me add my own opinion to the list: Jessica Alba! Now that Angelina Jolie is 28 and getting older, Jessica (a wise and worldly 21) has replaced her at the top of my list. Cute, athletic, and talented. What's not to like?
-
"28 and getting older"?! Yeah, 28 is sooo old. :P
And Slant, thanks for clearing up that Keira Knightley was the princess's double in SW1--I always wondered how they did that, and whenever I've seen Keira in other things I think I'm seeing Natalie Portman and feel very confused. Now I know why.
I'm surprised that Condorman's been put on DVD at all, Saint. It's one of those that's pretty much impossible to find on video, I thought. There are a couple of movies that I want badly to find on DVD, too, but even finding them on video is hard. They're Cary Grant movies mainly--My Favorite Wife is my favorite Cary Grant movie, hands down, and I've never been able to find it. There's also Bringing Up Baby and Meet Me In St. Louis (which is Judy Garland, not Cary Grant, but oh well).
-
Condorman (http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/frameset/index.asp?frame=find%5Ftitle%2Easp) (also readily available on half.com, ebay, and amazon's used materials area). I can easily find DVD versions for sale, but on amazon the best price is like $70. On ebay you have to bid and it's going just a little higher than I'm willing to pay.
Cary Grant films (http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/frameset/index.asp?frame=find%5Ftitle%2Easp) There's no "My Favorite Wife" but there is Dream Wife (http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/frameset/index.asp?frame=find%5Ftitle%2Easp) co-starring Deborah Kerr about marrying an Arabian Princess dedicated to serving men. Would this be what you're looking for?
Just to make it easy on you, here's Bringing up Baby (http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/frameset/index.asp?frame=find%5Ftitle%2Easp) and Meet me in St. Louis (http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/frameset/index.asp?frame=find%5Ftitle%2Easp)
and for my next trick.....
-
Nope. It's My Favorite Wife, with Cary Grant and Irene Dunne. The wife is lost at sea, and 7 years later Cary Grant has her declared dead so he can marry again, and the wife returns that very same day. Comedy ensues.
And those others are on video, yes--not the easiest to find, but yes, available. (Well, you found them much easier than I did.) But I want them on DVD. There's the rub. I don't think they've been put on DVD yet.
-
Yes - see it. It's not just about pursuing one's dreams. For me it's the whole human vs. technology (although the technology is human, interestingly enough.) It's a sci-fi John Henry for me. It also imo makes excellent use of symbolism.
And other well done scenes besides climbing the starirs and "I didn't save anything for the trip back" (which I thought was great)? Escaping the restaurant, waking up at her place/at the beach, both scenes where they offer hair, when Jerome explains his medal, towards the end when Jerome is home bored. And the last urine sample - I wanted to cheer.
That sounds strange, wanting to cheer about a urine sample. Oh well.
-
My favorite Natalie Portman movie is still Leon (one of my all time favorite films), quite a few years before she grew into a sex symbol.
Wasn't Leon the title in French? In the USA I believe it was released as The Professional. And yes, excellent movie. Jean Reno, Natalie Portman, and an oh-so-creepy Gary Oldman.
-
It was released as Leon here. Great film.
-
see, Kije, at least half of those scenes you mentioned didn't do it for me. No tension. i just didn't feel the director and the actors did them well..
-
The Profesional is a great movie, just make sure to see the uncut European version (for those of you that are stateside and Birits, who got the same US edited version originaly). Natalie Portman signed on to do a sequal that focuses on her chatacter as a hitman about 15 years later.
-
Whats different about the edited us version?
And when was this contract signed? Soon after they did the first one, or only recently? I don't think Leon is 15 years old now...
-
There's 24 new minutes in the unedited version, Titled Leon-The Professional (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000AGQ6Y/qid=1072114513/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-0069658-5824869?v=glance&s=dvd). She signed the contract last year or the beginning of this year, can't remember wich.
-
Sorry for the delay. I was in CA with no reliable internet connection.
Lack of emotion/feeling/excitment/intonation?
Wow. Guess they should have added more explosions. Don't worry--once Arnold is done being govenor, he'll probably make some more movies for you. Until then, you can always count on Jerry Bruckheimer to take care of you. I hear he's doing Kangaroo Jack 2.
I wasn't talking about the movie as a whole EUOL. I agree the story is a great one. I just think the acting stunk. But it stunk universally and that generally means bad directing.
Kangaroo Jack 2? That's harsh. I realize that I wasn't very specific, but all I was trying to say is that I'd rather watch Hitchcock.
And stacer, I know the feeling. I've been breathlessly awaiting How to Steal a Million with Audrey Hepburn and Peter O'Toole for the past couple of years. I hope they get around to it.