Timeline

[crAZRick]

Not having read Michael Crichton's novel, I was a little disappointed in the way the movie seemed to gloss-over the significance of the wormholes, 'markers' and the reason for the Professor going back in the first place and all..

Upon reading the screenplay, it makes much more sense, and makes me wonder why just a few more precious minutes weren't devoted to explaining the First-Gen marker being left open and all that First-Gen/Second-Gen important stuff, in the final cut...

would have made the movie 8- or 9-stars out of 10, rather than a slightly-less-enthusiastic 6.5 stars, by my standards, such as they are.

still, an entertaining little piece of contemporary mythology, if you like fairly decent time-travel yarns, swords-and-sorcery, or as the DVD box-cover denotes: BRAVEHEART WITH A 21ST CENTURY TWIST

Paul Walker as Chris the cocky GQ-wannabe Professor's son, Gerard Bulter as Andre Marek, in what could be called the Secondary Lead role, and Billy Connolly as Professor Johnston, Frances O'Connor and Anna Friel as the female leads

check it out!
(HEY! A review of a movie I've actually seen!! WOW!)

[danielnoah]

Thanks for the rec. Never saw this one.

[Brendan_M_Burns]

---

danielnoah wrote:
I'll keep things PG here. Google "Casino Royale" and "homoerotic" if you want to read more.

---

*** SPOILERS BELOW (but some really insightful commentary, too) ***

Daniel,

I just watched this movie again last night (first time on DVD), and I have to question again the use of the term "homoerotic" when discussing the torture scene.

The villain Le Chiffre has Bond stripped naked (we see his body only in profile) for the explicit purpose of torturing him by attacking and potentially damaging permanently his manhood, which he suspects would be valuable to a man like Bond. After it becomes clear that no amount of swatting Bond's jewels is going to wrest the password from him, Le Chiffre kicks the chair over and announces he is going to slice off Bond's package and feed it to him (which doesn't happen due to the well-timed entrance of an assassin).

It is a torture scene that works because men can intimately identify with the peril, and women can at least empathize with the humiliation and pain. If you happen to find any part of the above paragraph sexually arousing, you need serious mental health counseling, whether you identify as gay or straight.

*** END SPOILER ***

[danielnoah]

Brendan, any major motion picture that depicts a naked man alone in a room with another man - let alone touching his genitals - is homoerotic by reticent Hollywood standards. Plus, I assure you there are subcultures out there who consider the scene as you described it to be... well, something more than a mere torture scene. I'd be stunned if it weren't deliberate, especially given the generally subversive sexual politics of the film as a whole.

[Brendan_M_Burns]

---

danielnoah wrote:
[cut]I'd be stunned if it weren't deliberate, especially given the generally subversive sexual politics of the film as a whole.

---

Daniel,

Given the reported quotes attributed to Daniel Craig about possible explicit gay scenes in the next movie, I have to agree with you there. (On the other hand, this is the Internet, where we know everything reported is absolutely true...)

[Brendan_M_Burns]

Daniel,

By the way, does this mean I should excise all of the male-genital-touching scenes from my current screenplay? There goes most of the movie!

[danielnoah]

---

Brendan_M_Burns wrote:
Daniel,

By the way, does this mean I should excise all of the male-genital-touching scenes from my current screenplay? There goes most of the movie!

---

No - move them to the first ten pages.

[Ian]

If you happen to find any part of the above paragraph sexually arousing, you need serious mental health counseling, whether you identify as gay or straight.

No offence Brendan, but in the world of sexual dysfunction, this scene is tame. It's child's play.

Cheers,
Ian

[danielnoah]

Anyone seen it? What'd you think?

[danielnoah]

For my money, best film of 2007.

[danielnoah]

A very strong indie film with a highly distinctive voice from writer-director Mike White (writer of the recent 'Making a Killing' article).

[crAZRick]

haven't seen it yet, but with setting the single-day box-office record of $59-million, I guess that means what? 12, 13 people paid for tickets at the grossly inflated prices these days??

$104-million worldwide as of Friday's count, for a $260-million production (closer to $500-million if you believe the gossip) means there will be a Spider-man 4 round about 2012...

too bad the Mayan calander ends around then, so we won't be seeing Spidey 4...

[Ian]

Saw Spider-man 3 tonight and as a Spider-man fan (trust me, I'm a huge Spidey Collector) I enjoyed it, but as a writer and story-teller, I spotted a few too many blunders. I get more specific below.

****SPOILERS****

I question turning Peter Parker into Buddy Love from the original Nutty Professor. I understand having to show that he’s under pressure from the alien symbiote and it's changing him but this went beyond comedic and hit ridiculous. So, too, was the scene in the Jazz club that had Peter playing piano and dancing clumsily to make M.J. jealous. Peter strutting down the street portraying a seventies smarmy club hopper was awkward and laughable.

Forgive me, but a man fighting an evil that threatens to permeate his being, I thought, would have been far more sinister than campy.

Adding a partner to the original crime where Uncle Ben got shot and killed was done for a single reason – to add another villain. That story line is done. The Spidey fan in me loved it, but my writer senses were tingling from the unnecessary story line. Take all of the Sandman scenes out and you’d have a much tighter film. Only problem with taking out the Sandman is that you wouldn’t see that amazing fight sequence in the subway tunnel. Excellent.

One thing that made me groan was the writing in the web supporting the cab in which M.J. was being held captive. The message was something like "TRY AND STOP US SPIDER-MAN". That was amateur and way below the standards not only of a Spidey film, but of any film. The Sandman and Venom both know that Spidey is Peter Parker and they kidnap M.J. for the express purpose of calling him out. Why write anything in the web? Sam Raimi, shame on you.

The reporter that says, “Oh, the brutality…” made me instantly think of the WKRP In Cincinnati episode where Les exclaims, “Oh, the humanity…” I was waiting for someone to follow that up with, “As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.”

J.J.J. was, as usual, a wonderfully over-the-top treat in this film, except for the buying a camera from a little girl scene - just way too cheesy for a film of this calibre.

I think the critics have it right for the most part, but they are heavy-handed in their final analysis. Yes, too many villains muddy the waters of this deep story and there were some very bad choices in conveying what is essentially a great message. This is definitely a good movie with far more positives than negatives. I give it 7 out of 10. I'm going to be first in line to buy the DVD (which will go along with my dozens of action figures, playing cards, Kliks candy dispensers, balls and so on and so on...)

Cheers,
Ian

Check out this my space page which I'm invovled with: http://www.myspace.com/spidermans_fan_club

And, this is a serious collector of Spider-man stuff: http://www.spidermancollector.com/

[crAZRick]

Opening weekend for this poker-centric film, domestic (not world-wide) release: just over $2.5-million; opened in just over 2,500 theaters, which means it brought in $1,000 box-office gross per theater, or that 100 people paid $10 for tickets per theater = 250,000 people saw this film on its opening weekend.

OK, sure this was SPIDER-MANIA weekend around the world, but these numbers give me hope; at least I'm not the only one who can't do a poker-centric movie justice!




my idea is better-suited for a TV series any way, I think...

[Ian]

Try not to equate a films quality with its box office totals. 'Lucky You' could be a wonderful film that opened at the wrong time. I've seen one preview for it over the hundreds for Spider-man 3. Plus, all the talk show appreances by Spidey actors helps to bury any other project.

One of the most beloved films ever made did poorly in the theatre: 'The Princess Bride'. On its opening weekend it lost to three films, the winner being a film that grossed less than two million dollars in its lifetime, 'The Big Town' (no, I can't remember that film either). 'The Princess Bride' never ranked higher than third in 11 weeks.

Small box office doesn't always mean they got it wrong. Pass judgement after you pay your ten bucks.

Cheers,
Ian

[crAZRick]

I agree, Ian, box-office take doesn't necessarily indicate a film's greatness, 'Princess Bride' and 'Shawshank Redemption' being 2 of many box-office 'duds' that went on to be considered 'great' works of contemporary mythology in their own rights.

Being a pokerholic and a writer myself, I'll eventually own 'Lucky You' regardless the reviews or its business at the box-office. Drew Barrymore is a good enough draw, although maybe they shoulda cast her opposite Adam Sandler to complete the little trilogy they got started with 'The Wedding Singer' and '50 First Dates'

as for passing judgment on a film only after I've seen it...

BAH! I don't let the fact that I don't see flicks in theaters (if I see them at all) influence my judgments on them while they run their course at the box-office. Some day, perhaps I will limit myself to judging and reviewing only movies that I have actually seen... some day too, there might be more than 3 folks posting to boards/clubs such as this....

Miracles Do Happen, I suppose...

[ThaddeusRMcGil…]

Due to budgetary reasons I don't hit up movie theaters much, but I recently see Grindhouse and it was magnificent...until Death Proof. Robert Rodriguez's half, Planet Terror, was pure fun and didn't take itself too seriously. It was goofy gory, had some great lines, and made the movie experience fun again.

Death Proof was a letdown, at least in my opinion. Quentin spent waaaay too much on dialogue, and while I do love dialogue-laden movies that wasn't what I had come to see. With all the hype before Grindhouse, it had made it clear that these movies were choppy, gory affairs. Death Proof was not gory at all, and was veeeery slow in spots. I'm still going to see it by itself though, maybe my reaction will be different.

It's still worth a watch though, especially for the fake trailers put in between the two films.