Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Patrick_Gibbs

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Movies and TV / Re: review: The Departed
« on: October 18, 2006, 04:36:22 PM »
Saw this today. Was impressed and greatly enjoyed it.

However, I do not think this is award winning. Not the real big ones anyways. But we'll see what else is released in these final months of 2006.

I will not guarrantee that it will win Best Picture, though I think it will, but if  Scorcese does not win Best Director, I pledge that I will personally marry a goat.

"Gangs of New York" managed to get a nomination just because the Academy wants to honor this guy. GANGS OF NEW YORK, for cryin' out loud.

They want to give it to something that personifies him as an artist, and this is that movie. The only thing monkey wrench that can be thrown into the works is if someone else, especially an actor, makes a film that is seen as more personal, a true labor of love (such as Kevin Costner with "Dances With Wolves" beating "Goodfellas," or Eastwood with "Million Dollar Baby." While I can't wait for "Flags of Our Fathers," they won't give it to Eastwood over Scorsese again this soon.

Scorsese will win. I stand firm on this.

Movies and TV / Re: review: All the King's Men
« on: October 02, 2006, 10:17:52 AM »
I remembered the reference, and found it amusing.

Thanks. I'm glad someone did.

Movies and TV / Re: review: All the King's Men
« on: September 28, 2006, 07:10:25 PM »
Okay, point taken - the incident was two years ago, we should have made more specific reference  to what was said.

Rock did a long riff about actor who seem to appear in everything. He specifically singled out Ewan MacGregor and Jude Law. "I mean, who is Jude Law, anyway?" Rock said. "His name is on like, every movie that comes out. Even if he ain't in it, you look on the ending credits, and he brought cookies or something." He then went on the assert that if producers can't get the top names, they should await, ending with "If Denzel ain't available, and the best you can get is me . . . WAIT."

Later, when Sean penn was presenting an award, he remarked "By the way, to answer the question 'Who is Jude law?,' the answer is, he's one of our finest actors."

Trust me. People made a big deal out of it at the time. But I'm the kind of guy who actually remembers the Oscars and never, ever plays video games, so I acknowledge that I have a bad tendency to be out of step with everyone else on here.

Movies and TV / Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« on: July 27, 2006, 02:19:19 AM »
The thing with Signs is that's it's a character movie.  He had these great characters and then threw them into a scary situation that only turned silly in the last 10 minutes of the movie (though I admit I loved seeing River Phoenix smashing the alien with a baseball bat).  So it's like M just threw together a ok, all be-it hokey, plot for his characters to act in.

As for the science, who cares?  How often is any Sci-fi movie actually accurate?  And you can't complain about anything in this movie if you like any star wars movie, Star Trek, aliens, superman, spiderman, ect.

Spriggan - I agree with you on much of this - it was indeed a good character movie, and it was only the last ten minutes that realy got silly (what with all of the bits with the water glasses, "Swing away," etc, I somehow expected the EXTRA BACON on Mel's Cheesburger to figure into the alien's demise).

The point oabout the science is avalid one, but this movie was setting itself up to be taken more seriously than STAR WARS or SUPERMAN - "Signs" was supposed to feel as if it took place in the real world, and it didn't. Still, I like the film a lot. The fact is, it's one of Gibson's best performances.

One last note: RIVER Phoenix was suffering from a serious bout with death at the time "Signs" was filmed, and to my knowledge has not yet recovered. It was his brother JOAQUIN who beat the terrible visual effect to death with the bat.

Movies and TV / Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« on: July 20, 2006, 01:51:42 PM »
I can't help but think that the reason Shayamalan's movies are getting progressively worse in the eyes of critics is because they're getting sick of him as a director and person.  It's sad when a person's reputation begins to get in the way with the person's work, ala Michael Jackson.  I've liked all Shayamalan's films so far, and I think that if each of them had been released under a pen name or something, people would have been more wowed by them.  Sixth Sense got into the hype machine, and when Shayamalan emerged, I think the press had tainted him, turned him into something else.  Now that same press is criticizing a monster it helped to create.

I see your point, but I think people would have watched those other movies and thought "their just trying to make another Sixth Sense." The stamp is unmistakable.

I think your accusation about the press helping to create a monster and then tearing it down is valid -  Tim Burton, Kevin Costner, Leo DiCaprio and Ben Affleck are all examples of this, just to name a few  - but the fact is, for whatever reason, Shymalan seems more concerned with his image than his his actual work.

Movies and TV / Re: Review: Lady in the Water
« on: July 20, 2006, 02:32:06 AM »
Good review.

I think the clocks are a little out - the review was more positive than I expect from a 3.5. Thats traditionally been 'it's ok but don't go out of your way for it'. While the review seemed more like a 4 to me - 'good, but not going to be remembered as a great'.


As far as the clocks are concerned, that's not up to me, but my definition of 3 star is "Solidly entertaining and worth seeing, but nothing to get too excited about." This was a seriously flawed movie, but in the end, I simply can't deny that I had a lot of fun with it.

As for "The Village," I enjoyed the atmosphere, but there were just SO MANY errors in judgement made by the writer/director. The scene with William Hurt and Bryce Dallas Howard (the Howard that I was referring to, though I see the basis for the confusion) in the woodshed, where we learned the secrets of the monsters, was one of the biggest missteps in movie history. Anyone who can put two and two together and not come up with 22 knew right then and there that the only logical reason for this deception was the fact that the story took place now. Consequently, there was no tension whatsover when Howard was being pursued by the monster, which we knew wasn;t really a monster. Now, if you edit out the woodshed scene alltogether, you'd still have a movie full of plot holes, but you'd at least have a twist that would have left you feeling surprised.

On the other hand, if you want to talk about logic, why the hell did this group of psuedo intellectuals choose to live their lives without penicillin? Does that really qualify as one of the evils of the outisde world? These people weren't Chrsitian Scientists, for crying out loud. They just thought society had become corrupt. They would have had to have a village doctor, and he would have been resonsible for going into town and getting resupplied now and again.

I mean, think about it: this was a fictional world they lived, one that seemed like one part "Little House on The Prairie," one part "The Crucible," and just a dash of Jim Henson's "The Dark Crystal" thrown in for good measure. Why go to so much effort to maintain the illusion of a specific time period? It wasn't for the benefit of the children of the town, but for the audience, so Capatin Ego could pull one over on the "howdedodats" in the audience, who are smarter than this jerk gives them credit for.

Movies and TV / Re: review: Pirates of the Caribbean 2
« on: July 11, 2006, 08:49:19 PM »

I meant more in the "every young girl growing up will fall madly in love with him when they watch this movie" sort of way.

That makes a lot more sense. And I must say, I forgot two other good performances from him - his guest shot on "Seinfeld" and his turn as John Houseman in "Cradle Will Rock."

Movies and TV / Re: review: Pirates of the Caribbean 2
« on: July 11, 2006, 11:39:21 AM »
Im not so sure I see Orlando becoming like Cary Elwes...

You mean having a career that goes nowhere, giving a terrible performance in "Twister," and then fading into oblivion? Even if Bloom never makes another movie, he's had more success tahn Elwes, who is only noteworthy for "Bride" and "Glory."

Movies and TV / Re: review: Pirates of the Caribbean 2
« on: July 11, 2006, 11:36:42 AM »
I've been going into this one with  some trepidation, because of the 'back to back format" they are susing to shoot the sequels (which usually leads to a second film that feels like it's just a commericla for the third, and a third that goes nowhere), and while it did show signs of that syndrome, the bottom line is that it was a lot of fun, and I will definitely see it multiple times.

I know everyone is going on about Depp, as well they should, but I have to say that I really liked Orlando Bloom in this one. He just keeps getting better with each film, and no one out there does action better. The fight on the wheel was incredible.

Movies and TV / Re: review: Pirates of the Caribbean 2
« on: July 06, 2006, 07:16:17 PM »
Of course there will be a sequel - it's in production right now, and schedule for release next year.

Movies and TV / Re: Superman Returns
« on: July 01, 2006, 12:14:59 AM »
"But he does turn into a cartoon like Neo in The Matrix Reloaded."

Is there supposed to be a "not" in there?

Also, I'm not sure about the "icily" comment. How was her performance icy?


Crap. There was indeed supposed to be a NOT in that sentence. My bad.

Who's performance was icy? You must be refferring to a post - we didn't describe anyone that way in the review.

Movies and TV / Re: Superman Returns
« on: June 30, 2006, 04:14:44 PM »
No there wasn't earth like gravity on the moon in that movie, but there was some gravity.

It ws close to Earth- like gravity - when Zodd drops the flags, they just drop to the ground, full force, exactly like they would on Earth.

Movies and TV / Re: Superman Returns
« on: June 30, 2006, 04:12:38 PM »
So why does 4 stars equal 5 out of 6 clocks?  There was nothing negative in the review except perhaps saying that Superman looks a tad cartoony at times.


I agree with you - I think it's a 6 clocker, certainly more than a 5  (in fact, we were commenting on the fact that Superman DOESN'T look cartoony, as opposed to Neo in "Matrix Reloaded," so there's nothing negative at all.). But we've been over this territory before, and certain anal retentive people who have nothing better to do than complain and call people "Silly" when they can pull themselves away from their playstation don't seem to want to discuss this issue anymore, so salavee.

Movies and TV / Re: Superman Returns
« on: June 29, 2006, 07:44:41 PM »
If people are complaining about this movie from a science stanpoint, than they must have hated the other films, especially "Superman II," where there is gravity on the moon.

Movies and TV / Re: review: X-Men: The Last Stand
« on: May 30, 2006, 06:13:32 PM »
Ooooh, that article made me furious. For one thing, "M:I-III" was so much better than X3, though I can't argue the point that Cruise scared people off is true.

But what really upsets me is the remore possibilty of GANDALF winning his overdue Oscar for a campy performance in a bad film (meaning "Da Vinci," not "X3," though I do think Howard did a much better job directing than Ratner did.)

And two other points: 1:) there can not be a thinknig man's Michael Bay and 2:) Ratner is not a thinking man's anything. Not that that he's awful - Ratner actually did a better job with Hannibal Lecter than a great director like Ridely Scott, and better than a not so great director like Jonathan Demme. But he's not particuarly talented.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10