loserfriends.org

Here we have some examples of the kinds of things many losers like to watch. We could use a few more up here, actually. So get busy and write something about that great film you saw the other day.
it's the outstanding one again, posting about outstanding opinions that i might have. anyhow, for the record, the second viewing of Fellowship of the Ring was just as amazing as the first. even on 4 hours of sleep. i was even gonna make my dad go with me when i was home last week, but my mom talked us out of it, muttering something about "three hours wasted in a dark movie theater..." that comment didn't fly particularly well, but they've agreed to go see it together, as soon as she gets the new sewing machine that SHE wants. heh. yeah, okay, anyhow, my real reason for posting was to express my extreme disappointment in Costner's _the postman._ man, it sucked. i simply adored the novel by David Brin, and thought "_Dances with Wolves_ and that Robin Hood movie weren't TOO terribly horrible...this can't be THAT bad..." I was so wrong. it was hideous. i am so sad. The other actors in the film struggled courageously to keep the film afloat, especially the actress portraying Abbie, the love-interest-woman, and the guy playing the sheriff of Pineville. unfortunately, the clumsy direction and idiotic acting by Costner himself ruined the whole thing. the soundtrack was the best thing about the film, the least overinflated thing, but i still ain't about to go out and buy it. Tom Petty cameo? whatever...his bits are the most self-indulgent, most nonsensical parts in the movie. oh well. now i'm off to watch _the name of the rose._ i hope it's better. (love these days of coldness when the only appropriate thing to do is to sit around with a cat and a warm blanket and a cup of cocoa and watch movies!) (matt, the "red boots of wonder" made their debut appearance at the thanksgiving feast of 2000, where Lisa was rightly awed by their wonderfulness. they have frequent showings in austin, however don't tour much.) julie - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 15:57:24 (CST) Mom took Angela & I to see _The Majestic_ last week. 3 words: spoonfed Hollywood mallarky. Baggett - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 17:25:21 (CST) While Pete was home for Xmas, we went to see _Lord of the Rings_. It was great! I loved the movie, even if it was 3 hours long (which I didn't even notice). I can't wait to see the 2nd part - the ending does that to ya. I also saw _Ocean's Eleven_ with a friend of mine the week before Xmas. It wasn't a bad flick. A lot of big name actors but it wasn't spectacular. I was particularly amazed to see what the little Chinese man could do in that confined space... I am really interested to hear if anyone has seen _The Shipping News_. I think Spacey is a great actor. I don't know of anyone who's seen it so far... Mia - Wednesday, January 02, 2002 at 14:47:58 (CST) We also saw "Ocean's Eleven". Mia's right -- it's OK. Not the best movie ever made, but not a bad way to kill 2 hours. It's about these guys who try to rob the vault serving 3 Vegas casinos. It's an audacious plan, to say the least. But there's not a lot of drama otherwise. EVen though it has Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Matt Damon, and the omnipresent Julia Roberts, it's not that bad. Russ W - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 12:06:00 (CST) Ok. Not that anyone's been waiting with anxious anticipation for my 2 cents on the subjects, but... 1. Vanilla Sky is utter crap. What a horrible waste of film. Cameron Crowe ripped off every decent shot clean from the original (and MUCH better Abre Los Ojos). And what he didn't steal was not replaced by anything of value. I take it back. As always, his use of music is compelling and excellent. But the soundtrack couldn't save this one. Tom Cruise gives a wooden performance, and Penelope Cruz is a fine actress in Spanish, but I just wanted to pound the snot out of her in English. Could she have tried any harder to be precious? Ughhhhh. If you've not already seen it, do yourself a favor, rent the original in Spanish with subtitles and avoid this mere shadow of a remake at all costs. 2. Lord of the Rings is just terrific. It's absolutely stunning. The best film of its kind I've seen in 20 years. Easily the best fantasy/adventure film since Raiders of the Lost Ark. I will see it as many times as I can afford a babysitter until it stops sowing in theaters, and then I will anxiously await the DVD release in September, so that I can watch it religiously. I can't believe my good fortune that the other two are already shot and that they will be forthcoming in the next two years, although I dread having to wait a full year for The Two Towers. It was as close to flawless as it could have been. Purists may argue about the expansion of Arwen's role or the elimination of Tom Bombadil. Let them quibble. Peter Jackson managed to capture Middle Earth on film. It's that simple. In many scenes, what I had always pictured in my head was exactly what I saw on screen. It was incredible. Every performance was excellent, especially Christopher Lee and Ian McKellan as Sauruman and Gandalf. The special effects were perfectly employed--used when necessary and not used when not necessary. George Lucas should watch this film and pay attention. Yes George, it's possible to have stunning visuals AND great acting, and there are no need for wooden performances from talentless child actors. I could say more, but it would just take away time that would be better spent driving to a theater to watch this masterpiece. Why are you still reading? GO! Russell Bartholomee - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 00:34:11 (CST) Has anyone seen Memento? Jay - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 08:10:43 (CST) I saw in the theatre a while back. I don't really remember enough to comment much about it, Jay, but I remember that I really dug it. Nathan - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 08:14:56 (CST) I loved Memento. It was my favorite film of 2001 until I saw Lord of the Rings. The Memento DVD was the second item on my Christmas list, right after the Simpsons first season DVD. A close second. Russell Bartholomee - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 09:43:53 (CST) I saw Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back the other day. It's right up my alley: rediculous juvenalia centered on sex jokes, fart jokes, and pot jokes. Lots of funny cameos, including Matt Damon and Ben Affleck making fun of themselves. And a monkey. What could be more amusing than that? It'll be a treat for all you Kevin Smith fans out there. matt c. - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 10:17:48 (CST) Yeah, Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back was totally funny, and we had lots of fun seeing it. Memento was really good, but I wish I had watched it a second time. Not totally because I didn't get it (only slightly that), but just thinking and thinking about it after watching it once, I wanted to see it again so I could sort of absorb it all again. Saw "A Beautiful Mind." Really liked it a lot. Even though you know it's about a guy who suffers from paranoid scyzophrenia, Ron Howard does a really good job of still surprising the audience with it. You gotta love Opie. I agree that Lord of the Rings was a very well made movie, although fantasy is not really my bag. Jeff totally liked it though, and he was very happy with the adaptation from the book. Unfortunately, I hadn't read the book, and the other three people I saw it with had, so the ride home was them picking apart every bit of the movie and comparing it to the book, so it was kind of a boring ride. We rented The Fast and the Furious last night, and I watched the first five minutes and then went to bed. Jeff stayed up and watched it though. I don't know if he liked it. Mariah - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 14:18:37 (CST) C and I saw "Memento". It's a very cool film, although it has some haunting flashes of violence. Russ W - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 22:23:39 (CST) by sheer accident, in blockbuster of all places, i ran into a superb french film that none of us san antones had heard of called (translated) TRAIN OF LIFE. the blurb said it was 'better than LIFE Is BEAUTIFUL -- yeah right i thought. well, it certainly was on par. it definitely has to be the very best film no one i know had (has) ever heard of. a tiny jewish village in france hears rumors that jews are being deported, possibly murdered en masse, so they decide to deport themselves by purchasing their own train, impersonate nazis hauling off jews, and attempt to sneak themselves all the way to palestine. when you think nothing could be more ridiculous (and as brilliantly executed), you will be surprised at how impossibly lighthearted the subject of nazi autrocities could be treated. and when nothing else could happen, when youre ready to log it as a superbly written farse that entertained the pants off you (or maybe someone youre with), then it will slap your pants back on and leave you numb. the music is perfect. the acting sublime. etc etc. a must must must see. cook - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 03:01:05 (CST) Jay, We saw _Momento_ in the theater, and I thought it was worth the viewing. Quite intriguing, and it provoked long conversations afterward, as I remember correctly, discussing the state of the character and what it was that "really" happened. An excellent film, all in all. Darryl Tippens wrote a great piece for Wineskins ((check out http://temp.wineskins.org/content.asp?CID=37455) called "Momento and the Death of Memory", which is definitely worth reading, especially if you've seen the movie. Lisa - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 08:59:37 (CST) We had the great pleasure of seeing "The Royal Tenenbaums" yesterday. Very enjoyable. It's directed by Wes Anderson (an native Houstonian, I believe), and written by Anderson and Owen Wilson. It's very similar in many ways to Anderson's off-beat "Rushmore". I like Anderson's movies because the humor tends to be dry and delivered in a deadpan fashion by eccentric characters. Royal Tenenbaum is the patriarch of a family of overachievers. Gene Hackman plays Royal well. His wife Etheline (Angelica Huston), kicks him out after it is revealed that he stole from one of his sons (and that he's mostly a bum). Etheline raises three overachieving kids. Chas (Ben Stiller) starts his own business as a teenager. Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow), the adopted daughter, is a published playwright early but burns out by her 30s. Ritchie (Luke Wilson) is a washed up tennis star with a serious Bjorn Borg complex; oh yeah, he's in love with Margot, who's married to a famous psychologist (played by Bill Murray). After being evicted by the family (but never formally divorced from Ethel), Royal tells them he's dying in attempts to get the family back together, and the movie is about the attempted reconciliation. The "art direction" of the movie (I guess that's what you call it) is really cool. It's set in 2001, but all the clothing and cars and furniture give it a wonderful "retro" feel that can't be placed in any certain decade. Cool soundtrack, too. If you like movies that are slightly offbeat, try the Tenenbaums. Russ W - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 12:14:42 (CST) This area has been formatted to better fit your screen (it has also been archived). Webmaster - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 11:46:44 (CST) Mia, I saw The Shipping News way ahead of everyone else. I got to see it at a special showing for the Austin Film Society last month. I have a friend that volunteers for them, and she took me with her since we'd seen Kevin Spacey together at Magnolia Cafe here in Austin. (Interesting story of its own.) Anyway, the movie was very good overall. It's certainly no action-thriller, and I seriously doubt this movie will make much money. But then, this was not really intended to be that type of cinema. The plot is very slow, but it develops in a way that is rich and interesting. It was fun to see a movie based in Newfoundland; I learned a little more of the character of that place. Speaking of characters, the characters' names are outright bizarre. Go see it if you are in the mood for a slow (but interesting) movie. Otherwise, I'd wait for it to come out on DVD, since I don't think you'll miss anything on the small screen. Derrell - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 22:12:09 (CST) Pursuant to a post from Calhoun earlier: _Hedwig and the Angry Inch_ is one of the weirdest, oddly engrossing movies I've ever seen. I really enjoyed it, and the music really is good. Nathan - Wednesday, January 16, 2002 at 16:09:28 (CST) Derrell - I'm definitely going to see The Shipping News but I'll probably wait till it's on DVD. I'm not sure any of my friends will want to see a slow (but interesting) movie... Russ - I saw The Royal Tenenbaums the other day and I do agree that it's got a cool soundtrack (another one to add to my collection) but I didn't really enjoy it. Mind you, I did like Rushmore so I don't know why I didn't enjoy this one as much. I guess I was expecting it be a lot funnier. But it was a movie that I enjoyed watching but not one that I would pay $12 CND to go see (it's expensive up here). Saw Vanilla Sky too and that was just a wierd movie. Seems to follow in the line of latest Tom Cruise movies - bizarre. I enjoyed it but I walked away thinking it was the wierdest movie I ever saw...not quite worth the money (probably better on a Tuesday night special)... Going to watch Lord of the Rings again. I really enjoyed that movie and would gladly pay the money (on a weekend, even!) :-) Mia - Wednesday, January 16, 2002 at 20:00:47 (CST) We saw "Amelie" this weekend (yes, it actually played in Lubbock!), and enjoyed it. It's in French with subtitles. Lots of great shots of Paris and the surrounding area (although I admit to knowing zero French geography). When Amelie was a girl, she was kept home from school because her physician father thought she had a heart problem. She didn't have many friends, so she had to use her imagination to entertain herself. When she grows up and moves to the city, she maintains her creative look on life. She finds an old toybox in her flat, and decides to find the original owner. She does so, but anonymously. That was fun, so she continues doing nice things for nice people and back things to mean people. I like the movie because it shows a lot of imagination. The plot's not very deep, but the movie's still enjoyable. It might be a good movie for kids if not for the few gratuitous glimpes of flesh that gave it an R rating. Russ W - Wednesday, January 30, 2002 at 10:23:39 (CST) That is, "bad things to mean people." RW - Wednesday, January 30, 2002 at 10:24:40 (CST) We finally got around to watching "High Fidelity" last night. What a Loser movie! The characters and their quirks reminded me and Erin both of so many of us in Loserdom. I wonder if the writers didn't steal from this website for material. Jay - Monday, February 04, 2002 at 07:47:37 (CST) Jay, Read the book. It's even better. Nathan - Monday, February 04, 2002 at 11:17:54 (CST) "brotherhood of the wolves" horrible. cookie - Monday, February 04, 2002 at 23:06:13 (CST) Taking a break from paraphrasing and being paraphrased, I thought tonight's Oscars were really good. What a night for African-Americans. I'm so glad that Sidney Poitier, Denzel Washington, and Halle Berry were recognized. The first two especially are among the finest actors in American film history. RB - Monday, March 25, 2002 at 01:06:29 (CST) RB, I also think the Oscars were good. (How "gandelf" and LOTR - Fellowship didn't win are beyond me, but I am ___REALLY___ biased in this regard) However, I almost got the sense that this was a 'token black night'. Like there was an idea to give Sidney Portier (sp??) a lifetime, and both actor/actress awards to a black to get everyone to shut up about how racist we are, and for the next 15-20 years we can go like we always did. Maybe it's just the cynic in me. rob eby - Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 07:42:42 (CST) Rob, Remember that LOTR has two more installments that are already filmed and which will be released this year and next. The Academy likes to play politics, and they don't always give awards to people in the years that they earn them (Al Pacino for Godfather II, Russell Crowe for The Insider, Paul Newman for the Verdict) and often give awards in later years for impressive, but lesser, accomplishments (Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman, Russell Crowe in Gladiator, and Paul Newman in The Color of Money). With LOTR, the Academy knows not only that there will be sequels, but what the sequels will be about, most of the dialogue, and who will be in them. Ian McKellan will get a statue in 2002 or 2003. Peter Jackson will get director in 2002. LOTR 2 or 3 will win best picture (smart money is on 3). As for the token issue, you may well be right. Certainly Denzel has been passed up twice when he deserved it (Malcolm X and Hurricaine). And I didn't see Monster's Ball, but I understand that Judy Dench in Iris was the stronger performance. But on the other hand, there happened to be really strong performances this year by African Americans. Will Smith was stunning in Ali, Denzel was great (as always) in Training Day. Halle Berry impressed a lot of people. And Sidney Poitier certainly deserves a lifetime achievement Oscar. If it was orchestrated, it's ok with me, if only because the barrier has been removed, and more black actors and actresses will get lead opportunities. Ah, politics. RB - Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 09:10:23 (CST) An interesting observation, I'd say. Perhaps the academy watches for "staying power" more so than, say, the Grammys (anyone remember Milli Vanilli?) Two thumbs up to Denzel. Don't forget his performances in _Philadelphia_ and I've heard _Glory_ was really good too although I haven't seen it. I personally liked _Fallen_, although it probably isn't his stellar acting performance. Thanks for reminding me that Crowe was in _The Insider_. That was a great movie that I'd forgotten was him. I personally hated _Gladiator_ so it's nice to remember him with a better movie. He was in LA Confidential too, another great movie although I don't remember it much now. lisa - Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 10:03:32 (CST) Lisa, Russell Crowe was great in LA COnfidential, and I had forgotten about that one. So thanks right back at you. In retrospect, I really liked that movie better than the year's winner, Titanic. But in retrospect, I'm almost never happy with who won best picture. A few of the last 22 years' worth (that's how long I've been paying attention) of best pictures were honestly deserving, but most were the lesser film. I'll be happy to break it down for anyone who cares for my 2 cents. This is not just for Lisa, but for anyone who'd care to consider it. It's a thought I had recently that I think is not profound or terribly riginal, but I share it anyway. Warning It has the word "homosexual" in it. Read at your own peril. Skip it if you want to. Ian McKellan (Lord of the Rings) was nominated for, but did not win, Best Supporting Actor. He lost to Jim Broadbent (Iris), who I understand is quite deserving of the award. I have no quibble with him. Plus I think McKellan will get it in the next couple of years. On to the point: In a recent conversation about this, someone remarked, "I'm just glad they didn't give it to Ian McKellan." When pressed, the person (not in so many words) seemed to think that Ian McKellan was unworthy of the award because he was openly gay. (Ok so it has the word "gay" and not "homosexual." Sue me). I don't remember who they would have preferred to win, but he was straight, middle-aged, and single. I don't know for certain, but I'm willing to bet that the actor in question was not an evangelical Christian and has probably had sex with women to whom he was not married. So why is it ok for him (the straight fornicator) to get the Oscar, but not Ian McKellan (the homosexual fornicator)? I already know the answer of course, and it's the double standard of social unacceptability. But it made me think about something else as well: A colleague of mine (who I can hardly stand) is an overly pious evangelical Christian man who is highly critical of most things. He got really mad the other day when a kid said that something of his had been "jacked) meaning stolen. He was mad because in his little mind, jack can only have a sexual connotation. I tried to explain that of the 40 or so colloquial uses of "jack" only a handful (pun fully intended) were of a sexual nature. This one comes from the 1800's and predates the masturbatory reference by decades. He didn't care, it was still nasty, blah blah blah. That's the kind of guy we're talking about. Anyway, he was all up in arms when Harry Potter came out, since it's being used by the church of Satan to indoctrinate little kids as warlocks and witches. (For fun, do a search on Harry Potter at the Onion.com and read a very funny parody). He is dead serious that this movie should be avoided at all costs. But he watches "Friends" every Thursday night without fail. Does anyone else see that as utter hypocrisy? And do you see how it relates to the Ian McKellan story? I'm curious to know what this esteemed group makes of my pop culture rant. RB - Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 23:03:19 (CST) Russell B. I have had that same conversation with my husband at least a dozen times. The latest was a couple of weeks ago. We usually watch the TV show "Once and Again" together, but the week that the show was portraying a teenage girls exploration of her sexuality, he actually went to bed early rather than sit and watch this character try to figure out whether she was in love with her best friend who is a lesbian. Well, I watched it, and yes, it does bother me that these two girls kissed (and not just a peck on the lips, either). But Jeff had no problem watching the same show when it focused on two heterosexual people, one divorced and the other only separated from her husband, were making out and having sex at every opportunity. It does really make me crazy when people complain about the "homosexual agenda" being pushed on everyone via the television medium, and yet it's not a problem when straight people are sleeping with people left and right. Nobody calls that the "heterosexual fornication agenda." That's just good entertainment. Anyway, to sum up, you and I are totally on the same page with this one. By the way, my money was on Ben Kingsley for "Sexy Beast." Mariah - Wednesday, March 27, 2002 at 09:37:46 (CST) I should have said "by the entertainment industry," rather than "via the television medium," because it's hardly limited to television. Mariah - Wednesday, March 27, 2002 at 09:45:42 (CST) Mariah, You win the prize for making sense of my quandry. That's exactly what bugs me. And it bugs me as much about myself as it does about the people I referrenced above. I think it's fine and dandy to be offended by the scene encouraging homosexuality. But if you want to be consistent, you need to be equally offended by the heterosexual scene, the scene that encourages gossip, or the scene encouraging lying. Last night's Frasier had all three. Daphne and Niles decide to move in together. Everyone acts thrilled that the fornicating couple is taking this step. But when her mom comes for a visit, Daphne lies to Niles about wanting to wait, because she has been lying to her mother that she is a virgin. And they gossipped about everyone who wasn't in the room. That ought to bug me as much as any homosexual content. Maybe even more so, since it's been going on much longer and more subtly for years. Something to work on. RB - Wednesday, March 27, 2002 at 10:27:09 (CST) RB, Maybe the promiscuity and gossip doesn't bug us because that has been on the screen longer. Sorta like our parents and grandparents longing for the 50's, when everyone was a christian and nothing bad was ever shown on tv or heard on the radio, ...... I suppose in 15-20 years, our kids and that generation will roll their eyes about the old fogies (us) and what we get annoyed about on the screen. rob eby - Wednesday, March 27, 2002 at 15:41:16 (CST) RB: Your post brought to mind, the sermon that the preacher at my church did recently about how television shows corrupt the mind and no one who's a good Christian person should be watching them. Well, he brought up Friends. He thinks that Friends is a very bad example to kids and to adults. He went on to say that whoever watches the show will become like them, immoral and corrupt. I thought it was quite funny 'cuz I didn't think anyone who had any sense would really listen to that. Everyone knows that TV shows are not "real", right? I did think that until I was at my friend's place and we just happened to flip on the TV and Friends was on. Well, his mom went on and on about how it was such a bad TV show and that we shouldn't watch it, etc, etc... I just don't understand adults sometimes... Mia ps - I think that LOTR should have won best picture as well and why should it matter that he's gay. I was shocked when they showed him and his partner but that was just 'cuz I didn't realize he was gay. Mia - Wednesday, March 27, 2002 at 16:32:50 (CST) I already knew he was gay, but I was shocked at the fact that his partner looks to be about 25. But then there's Jack Nicholson with Laura Flynn boyle. Same difference. RB - Wednesday, March 27, 2002 at 18:45:12 (CST) Sugar daddy? Probably wants to re-live his youth and deny that he's getting old. Isn't that the same reason why guys go for younger females during their mid-life crisis? Mia - Thursday, March 28, 2002 at 17:11:46 (CST) MIA: the middle aged men go for younger women not only to feel themselves younger; our culture is obsessed with pedamorphic features in general. and so to many middle aged men, younger women are simply more (we've been taught) attractive. the hyper-preference to pedamorphic features also plays a part in yellow fever, as asians tend to retain their figures and youthful skin longer -- so the stereotype goes. (i was first introduced to the yellow fever concept in a sociology class ala UT so PCers back off) haha cookie - Friday, March 29, 2002 at 01:36:28 (CST) I once read an article about Ian McKellan, and in it he said that when he stays in hotels, he gets out the Gideon Bible and tears out the page from Leviticus 18 where it says a man should not lay with a man the way a man lays with a woman, (not sure the exact quote), because, he said, (a paraphrase) pornography like that shouldn't be left around for people to see. Mariah - Saturday, March 30, 2002 at 09:21:55 (CST) We saw "Death to Smoochy" this weekend. I give it a C+. It sounds funny on paper -- a look at the 'dark side' of children's television. Robin Williams plays "Rainbow Randolph", a popular children's TV host. He gets busted by the feds for taking bribes for putting kids on TV, among other things. His network replaces him with Sheldon Mopes' character (Edward Norton) "Smoochy the Rhino." Mopes is a sensitive new-age guy who really wants to make the world a better and more socially responsible place. He doesn't care about the money, but he soon finds out that many people are trying to make a buck. Randolph thinks Mopes stole his timeslot, so he sets out to ruin him; he does ruin Smoochy, but Smoochy gets vindicated. Organized crime comes in and out of the picture. People get beat up and killed in the process; this is NOT a children's movie. Norton does a great job of playing Mopes/Smoochy with sincerity and earnestness. Catherine Keener (the slutty lady [besides Cameron Diaz] in "Being John Malkovich") is the libido-driven 'Roz Doyle' of children's TV producers; she nails the role of 'slut' once again. Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) is woefully miscast as a sleazy network executive. Devito (he directs) casts himself as Mopes' duplicitious agent. We rarely see Williams at his manic best; he spends much of his time spouting profanities at his 'enemy' Mopes. Those of you who spend time listening to Barney and Veggie Tales might enjoy this "reinterpretation" of the children's TV genre. One of Smoochy's best songs: "Your Step-dad is not mad, he's adjusting." It's not bad, and it has its funny moments, but it's not nearly as good as I'd hoped it would be. Russ W - Monday, April 08, 2002 at 12:46:54 (CDT) Okay, I know there's some other geek Losers other than me. Who went to see Spiderman this past weekend? The wife and I went Friday night and I'll say that I enjoyed it for the most part. It wasn't the thrill ride that I had hoped for but I think they laid the groundwork for the next ones to be...well...amazing. First of all, I was an avid Spiderman reader in my younger days and I was glad to see that they stuck to a lot of the original story points, like Spidey going into wrestling, the death of his uncle, the choice between MJ and a bunch of school kids, etc. These will make more sense once you've seen the film. The one big change was that he actually shoot webs from his body and not self-made machines. I'm not crazy about that but I'll live. I think the casting was fairly solid. Tobey Maguire fits the roll of Peter Parker perfectly. He could have used a little more gusto as Spidey but, all in all, he did well. Kirstin Dunst was pretty solid as Mary Jane, the object of Peter's affection. But, most importantly, Willam Dafoe was great. In the scenes where he's battling his inner demon (or whatever), he just rocks. Anyway, not a brilliant film but a fun viewing, especially if you're already a fan of the web slinger. b e blair - Tuesday, May 07, 2002 at 00:46:04 (CDT) (i just wanted to beat nate to it...so here goes...) Ignore any bad reviews of Attack of the Clones you've read. and go see it as soon as humanly possible! it seriously kicked butt. yeah, there were less-than-great bits, the acting was stilted all over the place, the exposition got real old after a while, jar-jar TRULY needs to die... but then there were the special effects. flawless. the animation (yoda, various other non-human things) was seamless. soundtrack hit all the right buttons (listen for the arrival of the Imperial (darth vader) leit motif...my heart got caught in my throat the first time it seeped into the string section). shoutouts in just the right places for those of us raised on Luke and Leia, Chewie and Han. and of course, the action sequences. if everything else had absolutely bitten rocks (which it didn't), the action scenes alone would have been worth it. i spose i should go get some work done now. can't believe i'm here, really. what a dedicated state worker bee, am i. julie - Thursday, May 16, 2002 at 10:00:26 (CDT) Saw Star Wars Episode 2 at the theater in Plano that has digital projection (one of only 90 in the country). While it was cool to be among the few who will get to see the film "as Lucas intended," I can honestly not see that big a difference between the two formats. The digital picture was no crisper or sharper than the film print I saw a few days earlier. And I thought the film print had better depth of color in certain scenes--fire especially looked better on film. Weird. Maybe George needs to work on the technology a bit longer. As for the film itself, I thought it to be the third best of the series--which ain't saying too much. That it's better than Jedi and Episode 1 is a bit of a dubious honor, it seems to me. But it was definitely better than both of those. Even scaled down to a minute and a half, Jar Jar was on screen too long. Hayden Christenson is the most wooden actor since--well, Jake Lloyd. But even some great actors turned in flat performances here. Sam Jackson was cool with a light saber, but the rest of the time, he was phoning it in. Same with Natalie Portman (brilliant in The Professional...what happened?). Only Ewan MacGregor and Christopher Lee (reprising his Sauruman role, minus the long hair) seemd really at ease on screen. I suspect that's because George Lucas is a famously bad director of actors. The dialogue he wrote didn't help much, my young padawan learner. What a drag. I'm quite beside myslef. The "love story" moved like pond water. Unconvincing pond water. Now then. That said, I thought the last hour rocked. From the moment Anakin goes to find his mom to the last shot, it was a great movie. I think it's because it finally recaptured what worked so well in the first 2. Those were action movies first, interspersed with a little exposition and comic relief second. If Lucas can remember to do that all the way through Episode 3, he'll have another classic on his hands. The only classic moment in Episode 2 is the scene with Yoda and Dookoo, which I would rate as perhaps the finest moment of the entire series. At least top five. (Nod to High Fidelity). RB - Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 17:35:42 (CDT) Saw "Monsoon Wedding" this weekend; very good. I couldn't believe it was playing here in Lubbock. The film is directed by Mira Nair (whose directing credits include 'Mississippi Masala', 'Kama Sutra', and 'The Perez Family' (set in Cuba but without any actors of Cuban heritage, go figure), among many others. The central event is a wedding that will take place in a few days. The eldest daughter of a family will wed a man 'arranged for' by her parents. But besides the logistical and financial problems of staging an elaborate outdoor wedding (during the monsoon season), many other things are going on. It gets complicated, as in a John Sayles movie (Limbo, Lone Star). It's an ensemble cast. The film is sort of half English and half in an Indian dialect (I read that they're from the Punjabi culture) with subtitles. In many cases, the characters start a sentence in one language and end in the other. I had trouble keeping the names straight, but the characters are easy to follow. Along with showing a good story, it's very interesting to see all the traditions of another culture going into this wedding. It's very elaborate. (And I also learned that marigolds are edible.) Plus, they have some wild and crazy Indian marching band music in the opening credits and at the end -- sort of "Love Kitchen" meets...I don't know, a bunch of Indian guys...meets a New Orleans brass band. Anyway, I highly recommend Monsoon Wedding. Russ W - Monday, June 10, 2002 at 12:22:18 (CDT) I know it opened like a month ago, but I saw Spiderman, and it was great. Best comic book movie so far (barely edges out X-Men and Darkman). There were two scenes where the CGI was annoyingly fake looking. If you saw the film, I'm sure you can guess which I mean (building jumping, wrestling-suit walk walking). But otherwise, I loved the hyperkinetic energy of it all. Sam Raimi has managed to capture on screen what a Spiderman comic book should look like if it could move. Toby MacGuire was perfectly nerdy as Peter Parker, and Willem Dafoe was great as the Green Goblin. You all probably saw it, so I'm telling you what you already know. But if you haven't seen it, you should. It's a highly entertaining couple of hours. I wish George Lucas would watch Spiderman, the Matrix, and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon very carefully before making Episode 3. RB - Monday, June 10, 2002 at 23:04:24 (CDT) Saw two very different movies recently.... The first was the Powerpuff Girls movie. I'm not ashamed to admit it -- the Powerpuff Girls are very cool! However, the typical 30-minute TV episode is more interesting than the feature length movie. The movie goes into great detail about how they were born/created and about how they got involved fighting the evil monkey Mojo Jojo. It's good, but I recommend it only if you are an established PPG fan. And, any kids who go to see it should be at least 4 or 5; the screaming 2-year-old down the row from us did not like all the noise. Russ W - Saturday, July 06, 2002 at 15:38:19 (CDT) The second one was a rental, The Shipping News, starring Kevin Spacey and Julianne Moore. It's based on the book of the same name, and you can tell that they had to leave a lot out of the film. It's directed by Lasse Hallstr�m (Chocolat, The Cider House Rules). This naive guy named Quoyle (Spacey) falls in love with a prostitute named Petal (Cate Blanchett), and they end up having a daughter together, named Bunny. Petal keeps turning tricks, but she and Quoyle and Bunny still live together. Quoyle has been a milquetoast all of his life. His abusive father dies, and then Petal dies in a car wreck. Quoyle is visited by his aunt (Judi Dench), and she convinces him to move from upstate New York to Newfoundland, where the family comes from. There he carves out a new career as a writer for the local paper, even though he's had no training. Everyone in the film comes to terms with a lot of their family secrets, some of which are quite dark. It's a good movie overall, but definitely not light fare. Russ W - Saturday, July 06, 2002 at 15:46:21 (CDT) "Road to Perdition"--Holy cow, was that a beautiful film. The cinematography was gorgeous. Hanks and Newman were flawless. Darn near a perfect movie if there ever was one. As the credits rolled, I just sat stunned and speechless. At 2 hours in length, not a moment was wasted. It's definitely worth the $8 ticket. Go see this movie! Mariah - Monday, July 15, 2002 at 08:43:45 (CDT) If you're looking to rent something totally goofy and pointless, try "Zoolander." (When Will Ferrell plays the bad guy, you know it's a farce.) It's Ben Stiller's movie -- he stars, directs, and co-wrote it, I think. He plays Derek Zoolander, a wildly successful and totally moronic model. His nemesis is Hansel, played by Owen Wilson. Christine Taylor (Stiller's wife and Marcia Brady lookalike) plays a reporter who exposes Zoolander's idiocy in Time magazine. It's a parody of the fashion world (Stiller and Wilson as models?). Ferrell plays the ridiculously coiffed Mugatu, who schemes to kill the prime minister of Malaysia in efforts to keep the sweatshops open. It's similar to what you'd expect from an SNL movie, but slightly better (it's a VH1 production). Not great art, but good for a few laughs. Russ W - Monday, July 15, 2002 at 12:22:20 (CDT) _Reign of Fire_ I really wanted to like this film, but it stank. I was really looking forward to this post-apocalypitic/medieval/fantasy movie, but it just wasn't that good. At some point there was a decent film there, but that it was left on the cutting room floor. The plot had so many holes that it left you wondering how they'd made the jump from one part to another. In short the spent their script/editing money on special effects which were quite good. The dragon animation was done very well, but it wasn't worth the theatre price. Save it for DVD. Nathan - Monday, July 15, 2002 at 14:03:12 (CDT) _Minority_Report_ Wife and I saw it this weekend, and really enjoyed it. I don't care much for Tom Cruise, but he was fairly good in this one. Also, even though you "know" some future scenes from earlier in the movie, there is still a few twists and surprises. They did a decent job with some of the metaphysics of predicting the future, and if you see the future are you doomed to repeat it question. Worth the price if you go matinee, maybe even prime time. Definite pg-13. Rob Eby - Monday, July 15, 2002 at 14:15:00 (CDT) A cold beverage to the one who can name the first tv show that Christine Taylor (Ben Stiller's wife) regularly appeared in. Regularly means more than one show in a row. RB - Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 10:38:48 (CDT) My source says she was on "Ellen" twice in 1994. She was in an episode of "Dallas" in 1978, it also says. Russ W - Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 13:25:23 (CDT) Russ, The one episode of "Dallas" isn't regular enough, and there is something before the appearances on "Ellen." However, my compliments on being such a go-getter. No so much a hint as a clarification: She regularly appeared on this series for at least one season. Prior to that, she only did commercials and the occasional guest spot (a la "Dallas"). RB - Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 13:53:21 (CDT) RB- For the life of me, I can't remember the name but it was an afternoon teen show that took place on a summer camp ranch. If I remember correctly, it was called "Oh Boy!" or some other lame title. I guess I could go research it but I just don't have the time right now. And, yes, I did watch it from time to time. I thought she was cute and isn't that really all that a guy needs to watch a program? b e blair - Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 14:00:16 (CDT) b e blair, You're very close, yet still beerless. P.S. You would have been about 18-20 when that show was on. How sad that you were watching a kid's show to scope out chicks. How sad that I was too. RB - Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 15:07:52 (CDT) Not that I really know the answer, or care for that matter, but could beblair be speaking of "Hey Dude"? If I'm right, I'll split my beer with ya, Brian. Evan - Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 15:25:18 (CDT) Saved by the Bell? I'll stop guessing now. Russ W - Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 16:08:59 (CDT) Nice work, Evan. The beer is yours. With whom you share it is up to you. What'll ya have? "Hey Dude" was a 3 season series on which network for another frosty beverage? (Open to anyone who wants to play). RB - Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 18:16:43 (CDT) I believe it was Nickelodeon, and I'll have a Guinness. Evan - Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 18:50:06 (CDT) Evan, You'll have two! Well played, sir. I have both in my fridge right now. If you're in the DFW area, you can come copllect them, or if I am going to be in your neck of the woods (still Abilene, right?) I'll bring them with me. RB - Wednesday, July 17, 2002 at 01:15:19 (CDT) I just realized that I still owe Jef Waltman a cold one, and that I saw him last Thursday night IN A BAR and forgot to take care of my debt. I am a very bad man. Jef, I owe you 2 now. Anyone else I owe? RB - Wednesday, July 17, 2002 at 01:17:39 (CDT) "Hey Dude" "Oh Boy" They're so close. I'm bummed I couldn't recall that fact but, at the same time, I'm kind of grateful. Here's where it gets really sad. One of the guys from "Hey Dude" went on to play the boyfriend on several "very special episodes" of "Blossom." I'm a pathetic human being. b e blair - Wednesday, July 17, 2002 at 02:17:37 (CDT) b e blair, Well, I saw those very special episodes of "Blossom." And I distinctly remember saying "It's Ted from Hey Dude." I was 20. So there you go. RB - Wednesday, July 17, 2002 at 09:00:39 (CDT) RB, I believe you owe me 5 or 6! Scott - Wednesday, July 17, 2002 at 14:35:47 (CDT) Saw "Goldmember" this weekend. It's very funny. At one point, I laughed until I cried. Michael Caine plays Austin's father. Beyonce Knowles is good as Foxxy Cleopatra. The Goldmember character (Mike Myers) is quite lame, but that's all beside the point. Mini Me has a bigger role (if that's possible) in this one. There are several actors in cameo appearances that are quite funny. This one has its share of toilet-related humor, but it carries on the Austin Powers legend well. And Britney Spears dies, so that's worth $5 right there. Russ W - Sunday, July 28, 2002 at 18:27:33 (CDT) I also saw "Goldmember" over the weekend. I will agree with my brother that it does a fine job of carrying on the Austin Powers tradition. I can't pinpoint the location where RW laughed until he cried, but it's got several good laugh out loud moments. It's worth the time to go see it. I also saw a very strange Sci-fi movie last week called "CUBE". Random people are taken from their jobs or homes and placed in a giant rubix-type cube and must venture into different rooms and face high tech boobie-traps to escape. The premise of the movie is very good, but it can get a little stupid and strange at times. If you're really into this sort of movie, go get it. Otherwise, your life won't mean any less if you don't. Evan - Wednesday, July 31, 2002 at 15:26:38 (CDT) It's been said here several times (even by me) before, but it merits saying again. I just watched _Memento_ again, and it's brilliant. Every time I watch it, I pick up new things. If you haven't seen it, do so. If you have, pull it out every now and then and look for new surprises. RB - Saturday, August 10, 2002 at 02:28:10 (CDT) We saw "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" today. It's very good. This is an independent film, and it's become a "sleeper" hit this summer. Toula is 30, living in Chicago with her mom, dad, and brother. She works at the family restaurant. Her parents (and her whole extended family) hound her constantly for not being married. And of course, she must marry a Greek man and produce lots of Greek babies. (Most Greek boys are named Nick, apparently.) She finally breaks free from the restaurant, starts taking some college classes. She meets Ian Miller (John Corbett, "Chris in the Morning" from Northern Exposure), falls in love, and then has to deal with the fact that he's not Greek. It's sort of a standard plot, but it's funny without being too sappy. It's about a wedding, but it's not solely a "love story"; single Losers need not fear it. If this film has made it too Lubbock (the theater was packed, to my surprise), maybe it's in your neck of the woods. Russ W - Saturday, August 17, 2002 at 19:03:11 (CDT) Oddly enough, I was coming on here to mention "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" because Kobbi and I went to see it tonight. I guess I'm just a little behind my man Russ. For the most part, the storyline is pretty simple and it seems like a backdrop to tell Greek jokes but it still works. I laughed harder than I've laughed in some time while watching this movie. I'd easily suggest it to any of you that get a chance to see it. One of the points that interests me is that Joey Fatone (yes, of NSYNC) plays one of the Greek cousins. Like the guy or not, I have to give him credit for taking a bit part in a minor film. To be in the biggest band in music and to take part in a film where he wasn't going to draw large amounts of attention was a classy act. These days, when we've got big budget films with Britney, Mariah and Eminem taking staring roles, it's refreshing to see someone willing to sit back and learn. Now, he wasn't that good in it but that's beside the point. b e blair - Sunday, August 18, 2002 at 01:35:09 (CDT) Saw a classic from 1974--Chinatown, directed by Roman Polanski, starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway. It's very much a film noir. It's set in L.A. in the 1930's, before the city turned into the huge place it is today. It concerns the battle for control of water in dry southern California (and for power and money). Nicholson plays a cop-turned-private investigator. He's hired by the water commissioner's wife to investigate her cheating husband. Turns out, the woman wasn't his wife, but an actor employed by someone trying to sink the commissioner's career. It's a complex story with a fair amount of suspense. John Sayles' "Lone Star" echoes some of the themes in this movie. Nicholson and Dunaway are great. It's a classic. Russ W - Sunday, September 08, 2002 at 16:37:12 (CDT) We rented "Last Orders" this weekend, but were very disappointed. Set in London, it's about a widow, her son, and her husband's best friends as they carry out his "last orders" made just before he died. It's got great actors--Michael Caine, Helen Mirren, Bob Hoskins (OK, he's not so great)--but the story is tedious. We quit halfway through. Russ W - Monday, September 09, 2002 at 09:57:49 (CDT) The Royal Tenenbaums is a brilliant film. I put off seeing it for a very long time, mainly because so many people told me it was uneven or downright terrible. I don't know what film they saw. But I was enthralled the whole time. Gene Hackman was absolutely hilarious as the title character. In fact, I'm not going to break it down by peformance--everyone was excellent. I laughed out loud more than I have at any recent film. It's a very dark comedy (and I suppose that's why a lot of people didn't like it), but I gravitate that way anyhow. Dark though it is, there is genuine affection, remorse, forgiveness, love, et al. expressed. Wes Anderson has made 2 such classics now--this one and Rushmore. If you haven't seen either one, rent them post haste. Or buy them. RB - Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 23:42:28 (CDT) Oh, almost forgot. I also highly recommend Gosford Park. Yes, I know Robert Altman said some really stupid things after 9/11, and I know that his work is not always on the money. But this is a great murder mystery and a beautifully directed film. It's also a great examination of the hierarchical society of English country living. If you ever wondered what the difference between a butler and a valet was, all will be clear. Helen Mirren, Emily Watson, and Ryan Phillipe all turn in exquisite performances. It's like a perfect blend of episodes of Poirot, Jeeves & Wooster, and the unspoken subtext of Remains of the Day. Really good stuff. RB - Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 23:47:38 (CDT) _Whore_of_the_Rings_ Well what can you say. Fodo was a disappointment. The Dark Seductress' performance was derivative at best. Gancock well he just didn't seem to have his mind on the authenticity of his role. The special effects were poor. Especially when Gancock was frozen after seducing the dark seductress. Her lackluster performance when she was orgasmed into oblivian was just plain pathetic. Then there was the completely disconnected scene when the nine servants start fondling Fodo's companians. Then she ends up with only one of them. Where were the other nine. Were they summoned somewhere. Can we just have some continuity in the script. Is that so much to ask. This reviewer found it terribly difficult to suspend disbelief. anonymous - Thursday, October 03, 2002 at 10:52:51 (CDT) For the record, I never fully endorsed Ted for Jay's running tape. He asked to change one of my pics for a Ted song and I gave it the OK. Still, I give my approval to the list. Jay, enjoy Chicago as much as you can. We'll see you at Homecoming. You are still coming right? Evan - Tuesday, October 08, 2002 at 00:55:32 (CDT) I saw _Spiderman_ last night at a friends house. I wasn't looking forward to it since I've never been a comic book or superhero fan. It might have been a lousy movie if the writers had taken the "serious" (ala Batman) approach. Thankfully, the writers took a heavily humorous bent while trying to be true to the comic folklore. I practically cried on the floor in laughter when scrawney Peter Parker came into the wrestling ring wearing his home-made pajama-looking spiderman costume with red ski mask, while whimpering that his stage name ("The Human Spider") was pronounced incorrectly. The goofy grin on his masked face after his victory was worth a few more laughs. Definately a good rental. Baggett - Saturday, November 23, 2002 at 11:15:59 (CST) anyone seen the second Harry Potter yet? i have to admit that i'm quite looking forward to it, yet didn't manage to go to the 12:01AM show the day it opened. reviews i've read have been mixed, but largely not adoring. except for the reviews i've read written by kids...they loved every minute of it! which is what i wanna hear, because my love for the series is definitely based on my childhood over-active imagination/love for fantasy ("the dark is rising," anyone?). anyhow, will report on my own opinion next week when i finally go see this (peter's promised to see it with me, once he gets here...). julie - Sunday, November 24, 2002 at 14:03:33 (CST) I've wondered Where in the World are Carmen Sandiego and Peter Pak. Greetings to Pete from Lubbock. Russ W - Sunday, November 24, 2002 at 18:03:24 (CST) I just now got around to watching the first Harry Potter, and I must say I was utterly underwhelmed. It was one big long yawn after another. How true to the book was it? I've considered reading it, now that I have time to read things besides history books for masters classes. But if it's anything like the movie, I'll skip it happily. On the other hand, I today watched the extended version of Fellowship of the Ring. It was 30 extra minutes, every one of which was brilliant. It didn't feel too long, and the additional bits actually helped explain a few things that those who have never read the books would probably have wondered about during the next installment. Now THAT'S a film I can't wait to see. RB - Sunday, November 24, 2002 at 20:02:01 (CST) I've seen both Harry Potter's and I will say that I'm pleased with the second one. They are saying extremely true to the books. Chris Columbus does suffer a bit from trying to include so many of the details of the early stories that those who've read the books will realize will be needed in later movies. Russell, I reccomend giving the books a shot. The first two are relatively quick reads and are to a degree the weakest of the series. The books progress (as does the subject matter) from one to another as Harry advances each school year. Read these books with the same mind for fantasy that you first read the hobbit or the chronicles of narnia as a child. I've found them engaging and rewarding, and I suppose necessary to enjoy the movies. Nathan - Monday, November 25, 2002 at 10:25:35 (CST) On your recommendation, sir, I'll give the first one a go. But I stand by my feeling that the first film was painfully dull. Chris Columbus is a bad director, so I'm not terribly surprised. RB - Monday, November 25, 2002 at 13:50:33 (CST) okay, just be aware that the first HP book is also fairly dull...it's written at or below grade level. the STORY is great, but her telling of it is mildly repetitive and tedious. but only mildly. the second book is a large improvement, and the third and fourth are immensely better. i just don't want a possible convert to go judging them all on the first novel and accompanying movie. julie - Monday, November 25, 2002 at 16:42:03 (CST) Russ W: I hear that Peter Pak will be dining in Austix, TX this Thanksgiving weekend. Look for him at Derrell's residence. Peter Pak Fan - Monday, November 25, 2002 at 17:24:36 (CST) Where do you join the Peter Pak fan club? NKOTB fan - Monday, November 25, 2002 at 17:50:36 (CST) I'll take it under advisement, Julie. But if the first book just sucks, I'm not going to move past it. The first book in any series is allowed some leeway for exposition. But it should still be a good book. I will give it an open-minded, honest read, though. Promise. RB - Monday, November 25, 2002 at 19:44:15 (CST) I saw "Far From Heaven" last night. It is directed by Todd Haynes, and stars Dennis Quaid and Julianne Moore. I think this movie is excellent across the board, and very much worth watching. The movie is set in the 1950's, and deals with the trials of a particular family -- actually the "ideal," even "archetypal" 1950's family -- in Hartford, Connecticut. I don't want to give too much away about the story (the reviews on the web can do this perfectly well); I walked in with no preconceptions about the movie (one of the benefits of no tv at home, I suppose), and left with my jaw hanging. matt c. - Saturday, December 07, 2002 at 18:38:14 (CST) Saw _The_Two_Towers_ at the opening show last evening. It was good and I enjoyed it, but there were some plot divergences from the books which don't make a whole lot of sense to me. All in all it was good, and worth seeing. It was also entertaining to be there with all the little nerdkins in custumes. There was even a contingent of Christopher Lee fans in Star Wars get up... Nathan - Wednesday, December 18, 2002 at 10:31:30 (CST) Had an interesting rental the other day: "Scotland, PA." It's got James LeGros (he was on 'Ally McBeal' for a while), Maura Tierney (News Radio, ER, and 'Primary Colors'), and Christopher Walken. It takes the core of Shakespeare's "Macbeth" and retells it in 1970s Pennsylvania. Tierney plays the aggressive Lady McBeth role well, LeGros is good, and Walken does well as the odd Lt. McDuff who has come to help with the investigation. Tierney and LeGros are really too old to be playing 20-something newlyweds, but that's OK. The video box had Showtime and Sundance channel icons on it, so maybe you could catch it there if not at the video store. It's rated R for the 'f-word'. Other than that, I thoroughly recommend it. Russ W - Thursday, January 02, 2003 at 17:17:15 (CST) This has been our week to get out to the picture show, what can I say. Saw "Catch Me If You Can". It's pretty good. Since it's based on a true story, it struck me more as a documentary than as entertainment. It is funny and witty, but it's not as "entertaining" as I would have preferred. But, I was not at 100% strength that day, and that could have affected my enjoyment of the movie. Saw "About Schmidt" today, and I really liked it. It's Jack Nicholson's movie, and he's great. It's about what one man goes through after he retires. It's one of those funny, heartwarming, sad, crazy, all-around good movies that I think everyone will enjoy. It gives you a lot to think about without getting you down. (Just be prepared for some scary old people nudity---eewwwwww!!!) Go see "About Schmidt" (before your appetite for Nicholson is ruined by the preview for his upcoming movie with Adam Sandler). Russ W - Friday, January 03, 2003 at 18:32:33 (CST) When I said it was Nicholson's movie, it's not that he directed it, but that he's the primary character; all the rest are in supporting roles. RW - Friday, January 03, 2003 at 18:33:31 (CST) russ w, on CATCH ME, haha, i concur. great caste, good acting, slow moving script made slightly better with the knowledge that it's somewhat true. jlc - Monday, January 06, 2003 at 01:45:18 (CST) I think we're on the verge of something big, make that historic, this week. Kangaroo Jack appears to have the makings of the worst film ever made. Add to that the previews for that ridiculous Martin Lawrence movie (bopping the cop the butt with a moving police car and stating "you're resisting arrest") and Fox's Man vs. Animal special on Wednesday night, and this may be one heck of a fun week. Jay - Monday, January 13, 2003 at 09:24:09 (CST) I agree with Jay, the Kangaroo movie appears to be the most stupid thing on film within the last 10 years. Evan - Monday, January 13, 2003 at 13:06:56 (CST) I don't know. Was Steel Magnolias more than 10 years ago? RB - Monday, January 13, 2003 at 15:15:17 (CST) here, here, there is at least one brilliant movie this week: saw "the pianist" last weekend. completely amazing. completely exhausting. best movie i've seen in a very, very long time (counting both LoTR installments). this is Roman Polanski's retelling of the story of Wladyslaw Szpilman (played by Adrien Brody), Warsaw's (and probably Poland's) premier concert pianist at the start of WWII and his (barely) escaping extermination by the Nazis. watching Szpilman, always slightly removed from his own life, wrapt in his inner world of passion for his music, as the rest of the world gradually retreats from sanity to complete and utter insanity was one of the most harrowing movie-going experiences i've ever sat through...the use of sound in this movie was brilliant. the artist's passion for his art and gradual, but ultimately complete loss of the ability to create, is absolutely soul-crushing, and this film portrayed this loss from within the artist's psyche. Completely found myself lost in this character, even while his actions were passive. and, i must add, best use of chopin in a film, ever. here's a far better review than mine: http://www.sunspot.net/entertainment/movies/bal-to.pianist10jan10,0,7166777.story?coll=bal%2Dmovies%2Dutility julie - Monday, January 13, 2003 at 16:11:21 (CST) We rented John Sayles' "Sunshine State" over the weekend. It was good, but not what I expected. Now I see why it didn't last long in theaters. The previews I saw left the impression that it is kind of a dark comedy, a satiric look at life in Florida. Well, it's certainly dark, and it has its comic elements, but I wouldn't call it a "dark comedy". The movie has an ensemble cast. It's about an area of Florida called "Plantation Island", which is home to working-class people. Developers want to buy it out and turn it into an exclusive community. The area has a considerable black population that is underrepresented. At the middle of it all is an old motel/restaurant. If the developers can get them to sell, then they'll have leverage to get the rest of the land they want. There are many subplots as well. Angela Bassett plays Desiree, who has come to visit her mother for the first time in many years; there's a lot of baggage from the past there. Edie Falco is great as Marlee, who runs the motel for her father and is just plain 'stuck' in her life; Falco doesn't look very Southern, but she's great for the part. Mary Steenbergen is the earnest community activities guru who wonders if it's all worth it. Like Sayles' excellent film "Limbo," this movie has a lot of naturalistic themes: man vs. nature, man vs. man, survival of the fittest. It's about having power and about being powerless. A group of golfers serves as kind of a Greek "chorus" throughout the film. The ending is not what I would have expected. It's 141 minutes long, and it's slow in parts, but I think you'll like "Sunshine State" if you like John Sayles' other work. Russ W - Tuesday, January 21, 2003 at 09:05:56 (CST) I've liked every Sayles' movie that I can remember watching and this one has looked like one I wanted to check out. Last night, Kobbi and I rented "The Good Girl" featuring Jennifer Aniston. I'd heard a lot about how this was the first good movie from a Friends star (of course, every time they say that, I think they must be forgetting Lisa Kudrow's films). I thought it was a pretty entertaining little dark comedy. Aniston plays a small town Texas girl that is bored with her marriage, job and life. She spots Hollywood's new "it" boy Jake Gyllenhaal when he starts working at the same store as her and they strike up a friendship that eventually turns into a more serious relationship. Then, her life gets increasingly complicated. Although the script has some predictable moments, it also offers some surprises and I was interested in some of the places the story decided to go. I'd recomend it. Also, I finally went to see Bowling For Columbine and was blown away by it. I thought it was going to be a major anti-gun film but, at it's heart, it really isn't. It's an impressive, thought-provoking piece and another film I'd recomend. b e blair - Tuesday, January 21, 2003 at 23:35:16 (CST) b e blair, Re: "I'd heard a lot about how this was the first good movie from a Friends star (of course, every time they say that, I think they must be forgetting Lisa Kudrow's films)." I agree that they're not giving Lisa Kudrow her props. They're also overlooking "Office Space", in which Anniston plays the waitress. Incidentally, Ron Livingston, who played the lead in "Office Space" so well, turns up as a screenwriter's agent in "Adaptation" (review forthcoming). Russ W - Wednesday, January 22, 2003 at 11:05:43 (CST) "The Opposite of Sex" "Romy & Michelle's High School Reunion" "Office Space" "Analyze This" The first "Scream" What else am I missing that was good and had a Friends star? RB - Wednesday, January 22, 2003 at 12:43:40 (CST) Schwimmer's been in some movies, but I've never seen any to know if they're good. Matthew Perry movies generally don't go so well, either; the one he was in with Salma Hayek was somewhat mostly tolerable, if I remember correctly. Russ W - Wednesday, January 22, 2003 at 15:05:44 (CST) Didn't Matthew Perry have a small role in the first 10 minutes of The 5th Element? matt c. - Wednesday, January 22, 2003 at 15:11:37 (CST) RB, I think you got most of the list and I'd agree that each of those was decent movies. I especially liked "The Opposite Of Sex." The only other Friends' movies that are worth a wooden nickel are "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective" featuring Cox and "Apt Pupil" that Schwimmer had a small part in. The point that a lot of writers are tryint to make is that you have a cast of a hugely successful TV show and they keep getting these movie roles but not many of the films have any value. That's what makes the Kudrow films and "The Good Girl" such a big deal. b e blair - Wednesday, January 22, 2003 at 15:18:42 (CST) blair, I never saw "Apt Pupil." Is it good? I love Bryan Singer as a director, and I think McQuarry wrote that one as well, so it intrigues me. I forgot Ace Ventura, which definitely has its moments. But Cox is not really responsible for any of them. I can't believe I forgot Matt LeBlanc in "Ed." Ok, not really. RB - Wednesday, January 22, 2003 at 17:31:32 (CST) It's been a couple of years since I watched "Apt Pupil" and, due to my age, my memory isn't what it used to be but I do remember liking the movie. It's another one of those movies that's based on a Stephen King story that you can't believe came from him (like "Stand By Me" and "Shawshank Redemption"). Still, it has some dark and evil moments that are more disturbing that just about any other King story you put it against. Ian McKellan is amazing as the former Nazi general that has made a new life for himself in America without any of his neighbors knowing his true history. Brad Renfro is a high school boy that discovers his secret and, then, pushes him into talking about it. The more McKellan's character talks about it, the deeper the both of them get pulled into that mindset. It's certainly worth watching, if you're in the mood for something that might make you a little uneasy. As a matter of fact, I may need to watch it, again. Back to the Friends discussion, I don't know that I've ever seen a LeBlanc film and that includes "Lost In Space" and "Charlie's Angels". And, yes, I searched InternetMovieDatabse.com to see what movies each of the six had been in. Otherwise, I wouldn't have had a clue that Joey was in "Charlie's Angels." b e blair - Wednesday, January 22, 2003 at 18:20:46 (CST) "Ed" was a monkey playing baseball movie. I didn't see it either. And it was certainly a tongue in cheek reference. I forgot he was in Charlie's Angels. I wonder how that could be possible... RB - Wednesday, January 22, 2003 at 19:46:29 (CST) "Adaptation" is a great film. Go see it. It's a wonderfully twisted movie that merges with "real life", whatever real life is. The screenwriter for Adaptation is Charlie Kaufman, who also did "Being John Malkovich". The movie is about Kaufman in "real life" as he struggles to turn a popular book into a movie. The book, "The Orchid Thief" is a real book written by a real author, Susan Orlean. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=17GWABTOS4&isbn=044900371X&itm=2 The book is wonderful, but defies being turned into a movie. So much so that Kaufman turns what what supposed to be a screenplay for "The Orchid Thief" into "Adaptation." He becomes one of the primary characters in his own screenplay, but not in a self-indulgent way. The stay of the show is Chris Cooper, who plays John Larouche. Larouche is the focal point of the book; he's a self-made orchid expert who goes into protected Florida lands to steal rare, protected orchids. Cooper is phenomenal; he has to win the Oscar when he's up for it. Kaufman imagines author Orlean (Meryl Streep) getting involved and having an affair with Larouche, and writes it into the screenplay. It doesn't end the way I thought it would. Nicholas Cage is excellent as the self-loathing, pessimistic, idealistic Charlie. Cage also plays Charlie's twin brother Donald, a slacker who decides to pick up screenwriting on a lark and sells his first script. This is not one of those cheesy "twin" story lines; it works. Any guy who's ever been single will see a lot in Charlie to identify with, I think. Just like "Being John Malkovich" (also directed by Spike Jonze), the lines between reality and fantasy get blurry in this film. Check it out if you haven't. Russ W - Friday, January 31, 2003 at 13:15:49 (CST) It's been a couple of weeks, but we recently rented "Italian for Beginners". I recommend it. It's one of the "Dogma" or "Dogme 95" films, which means that it was made according to the principles set by a group of Danish film directors. Here's a description of the principles: This is a gently mischievous manifesto agreed in October 1995 by a founding group of four Danish film directors, among them Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg. They asserted it was a �rescue operation to counter certain tendencies in film today��they aimed to break away from what they saw as the stifling conventions of film making that created barriers between actor and audience. They agreed to create films according to ten self-denying precepts. Among others, these lay down that films must be shot entirely on location with no outside props; the camera must be hand-held; there must be no artificial lighting and all sound must be recorded on location; action must take place in the here and now and everything seen on screen must actually take place (so ruling out, for example, scenes of murder). http://www.quinion.com/words/turnsofphrase/tp-dog1.htm Anyway, "Italian for Beginners" is about a group of Danish people who meet to take lessons in Italian. They are an odd group to say the least. The class meetings become an important social outlet. One person who joins the class is a "temporary vicar" for the local church; the original vicar has been suspended. Parts of the movie really make you think about church and religion and God's place therein. Romance is an important element in the film, but it's not necessarily a 'romantic comedy.' If you like "art films", give this one a try. Russ W - Friday, February 28, 2003 at 11:02:24 (CST) Will Ferrell hosts Letterman on Thursday; should be interesting. I can definitely see him filling in for Conan, but Letterman's got a different type of show. We'll see. Russ W - Monday, March 10, 2003 at 19:37:48 (CST) We saw "Shanghai Knights" at the discount theater the other day. If you're looking for something totally escapist, this is it. It's got more fighting (and more elaborate stunts) than the first one, Shanghai Noon. And the anachronisms are all over the place. But it's fun. Owen Wilson and Jackie Chan make a pretty good pair for a film like this. There are also some great outtakes before the credits. Russ W - Monday, May 05, 2003 at 01:01:32 (CDT) We saw "A Mighty Wind" this weekend, the latest mockumentary from Christopher Guest and company (see also Spinal Tap, Waiting for Guffman, and Best in Show). The plot (which is usually pretty thin in these films) is that a famous producer of folk music albums has just died, and one of his sons wants to get all the old acts back together for a tribute concert. It's fun. Not quite as funny as I'd hoped, but still fun. Per usual, it's an ensemble cast, and most of the usual suspects are back. This time, the cast is so big that you don't get a lot of "face time" with people like Guest himself or Michael McKean; I think Guest is a riot, and I wish he'd been more prominent. Eugene Levy is not his usual hyperkinetic self. He plays Mitch, who has dealt with mental illness since leaving the folk music spotlight. His partner back in the day was Mindy (Catherine O'Hara, also rather mellow). The one guy who's as hyper as ever is Fred Willard, manager for a folk group that performs at an amusement park in Florida. ("Wha happened?" See the movie and you'll get it.) Other regulars are Parker Posey, Bob Balaban, John Michael Higgins, Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, and a bunch of other's you'll recognize from "Waiting for Guffman." Guest and company wrote the folk songs that they sing in the film; I'm sure that after I can get my hands on a soundtrack CD, they will be even funnier. Anyway, we liked it. Go see it soon, or wait for the DVD. Russ W - Sunday, May 11, 2003 at 18:19:06 (CDT) about schmidtt. worth seeing. hysterical in some parts, poignant in many, the use of the new 'realistic' camera angels is done about as well as it can be and generally works. i knew the film was worth seeing when i left the theatre, but the movie has fostered so many discussions on many different aspects of social life that i have to move it into the good category. jlc - Friday, June 06, 2003 at 12:45:41 (CDT) saw FRIDA yesterday. out on dvd. fantastic. the biography of frida rivera, sometimes wife to the late painter diego of mexico. first, as a biography it is compelling. second, as a visual piece it is stunning. third, though i have seen films that utilized intertexuality between writers' bios and their work, i have never, ever seen such convincing intertextuality, especially when the text is the corpus of a painter's life. the paintings literally emerge in front of you while referencing events in Frida's life as you are often caught between her painful life and creative outlet. not only that, but as far as tastefully demonstrating the bohemian sexuality of many artists' lives (yes, there is exquisite nudity and a few brilliant lesbian scenes), as well as the complex socialist politics of the larger context from which these artists emerged, FRIDA is simply a work of art. for godsakes, shave the unibrow and we've got a winner. jlc - Tuesday, July 01, 2003 at 00:58:49 (CDT) My friend Carlos recently saw "El Hijo de la novia" (Son of the Bride) from Argentina recently; he recommends it. While the rest of you are watching films with artistic merit, I've been watching escapist fluff like "Old School." Yes, I gave in to the siren song of the Will Ferrell movie. It's not bad. Mitch (Luke Wilson) is a lawyer. He comes home from a conference to find his girlfriend (Juliette Lewis, remember her?) having a 'slumber party' (not much slmubering) with some 'friends from the internet'. Devastated, he moves out. He rents a huge house across from the local college campus ("Harrison University"). They don't specify where the film takes place, but it's a Hollywood version of Abilene or Lubbock in the sense that it's a town where people get sucked in by the local college and they never end up leaving. His friends Beanie (Vince Vaughn) and Frank (Ferrell) throw a huge party for him and life is good. But the dean of Harrison University is a nerd who took his share of abuse from Mitch, Beanie, and Frank the Tank back in the good ol' days. He exacts his revenge by "rezoning" Mitch's rent house (school property) to kick him out. Beanie then comes up with the idea of starting a fraternity in order to qualify for Mitch to live on campus. So, it's the old frat boys vs. the administration story line. There is one huge party scene, but--mercifully--the film has slightly more going on than 90 minutes of frat partying. Slightly. It's rated R for the f-word, gratuitous female nudity, and more of Will Ferrell's butt than you ever cared to see. When you want a movie that's "less artsy, more fartsy," try Old School. Russ W - Wednesday, July 02, 2003 at 09:40:26 (CDT) After seeing its promo when we went to see About Schmidt, Jef and I saw _Bend It Like Beckham_ in the theatre a few weeks ago. It's set in London, and follows the story of a teenage Indian girl whose first love is soccer, but whose family is struggling to keep to the old traditions of Indian culture. The promo we saw called it "the surprise hit of the season". It's a relatively light drama/comedy. I suppose it may appear low-budget compared to Hollywood, but we found this movie to be thoroughly enjoyable. There were several layers of interest for me --- first, the whole British dialect thing, funny sayings and all, then, the Indian culture in London, and of course, the soccer. What impressed me most was the way this movie was able to take what could have been generalized charicatures and instead make them endearing, flawed but lovable, people. Rather than cultural differences, I saw similarites. It's rated PG-13 for some British swearing & some sexual content, but no nudity or violence. Overall, a relatively clean film. If you miss it in the theater, it's definitely worth a rental. Lisa - Wednesday, July 02, 2003 at 15:34:16 (CDT) Julie, Just found out that the gig got cancelled because the cokehead owner went off the deep end. It's just as well, that place was never my favorite. We'll be back for "Yallapalooza" sponsored by KVET the last week of August. Sorry. Evan - Wednesday, July 23, 2003 at 13:17:58 (CDT) We just saw 'Whale Rider' before it exits Lubbock. It's very good. A small village of native New Zealanders (who speak Maori, according to imdb.com) is looking for a new chief. The boy who would have been chief was stillborn, but his twin sister, Paikea (named after the legendary chief of the people) survived. The current chief is Pai's grandfather. The heart of the story is sort of formulaic, with the grandfather and his old ways and Paikea who challenges them. But the story is interesting with the other characters. Paikea is played brilliantly by Keisha Castle-Hughes, who couldn't have been more than 12 or 13 when she did the film. The New Zealand backdrop is beautiful, and it was very thought-provoking for me to observe the native people and their lifestyle and beliefs. Go see it if you can, or rent it when it's available. It's PG-13. Russ W - Saturday, August 02, 2003 at 16:25:31 (CDT) Saw _28 Days Later_ last night. Good concept. Scary as hell. Pretty thought provoking (read disturbing). more later. Nathan - Monday, August 11, 2003 at 17:47:25 (CDT) "I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer!" Homer Simpson - Wednesday, August 13, 2003 at 22:15:06 (CDT) I know that Finding Nemo has been out for months now, but we just saw it yesterday. It's another Pixar film, of course, and of course it's beautiful and shows a lot of technical brilliance. But it's not nearly as funny as the other Pixar movies. And the subject matter -- a daddy fish trying to find his only son who got scooped up by a diver -- is much heavier than usual. But of course, it's one of those triumph-against-adversity films, and it certainly ends well. But Monsters, Inc., it ain't. Russ W - Friday, August 29, 2003 at 09:12:11 (CDT) We saw "Dirty Pretty Things" this weekend; it's a good film. Some parts left us squeamish, but on the whole it's interesting. It's set in the "underside" of London, focusing on the immigrants who struggle to survive. One is Okwe, a man from Nigeria framed for a crime back home. The other is Senay, played well by French actress Audrey Tautou ("Amelie"). It's a viscious cycle of dead-end jobs, risks, dreams of passports and asylum, and desperate acts. It really made me think. The ending was definitely a surprise. It's a definite R-rating for violence. But overall, I recommend it if you're up for an interesting film. Russ W - Tuesday, September 09, 2003 at 22:14:39 (CDT) julie's first loserpage film review: so i just saw jarmusch' "dead man." wha...? okay. so 1. wildly different concepts of death between the white man and native american - the white man seeing death as the end, and as a rather disposable commodity (if that phrase doesn't quite make sense, i can't think of a better one right now), and the N-A view as a journey to a different, perhaps better, world "where the spirits live." 2. mindless violence inherent in the [white man's] system vs. absolute altruism and perfection of the native american way. 3. the white man's culture as overrunning (and ruining) the west. at least, that's the overwrought and hyperbolic meanings i got out of it. not that there's not a kernel of truth in nos. 1-3, it's just that. dang. romanticize much, jim? c'mon. someone here loves this movie and wants to defend it as not being so incredibly black-and-white (pardon the pun). right? on the plus side: 1. fantastic soundtrack that wouldn't make sense out of context, that is, it's the perfect accompaniment to 2. amazing cinematography. dang, the cameraman/photo-op planner, whatever-you-call-that-guy was a freakin' genius. 3. johnny depp. i loves me some johnny depp. (plus that chick from stargate. i like her, too.) julie - Monday, September 22, 2003 at 22:16:04 (CDT) Julie, I loved Dead Man. I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. It's terribly hyperbolic, almost to the point of being a morality play. And that's what I think he was trying to do. I think it's in black and white (no grey areas) for that reason. A morality play for Native American religion. Flawed, but on purpose. Probably to provoke just this sort of discussion. You left out one thing that I love: Crispin Glover in the opening scene. I loves me some Crispin Glover. RB - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 at 07:41:20 (CDT) huh, that's interesting. the two friends i already had this argument with (big western freaks, actually) completely said i had it all wrong, that this film was about the Hero's Journey, had nothing to do with black-and-white morality etc., that Nobody was NOT an american-indian caricature/stereotype (the way i feel he was), etc. so i thought someone would argue AGAINST me here, as well. but anyhow. glad to be agreed with, also. :) and yes, i was remiss in leaving out crispin glover. he really was a highlight, even though he's only in the first 10 minutes. julie - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 at 10:54:20 (CDT) Try this one: www.brokensaints.com It's a flash webmovie. It's anime, and the first I've ever watched. I won't try to make any comparisons, therefore, or even try to provide a final judgement on whether its worth your time. I haven't even finished it yet (20+episodes of ~.5 hours each, I'm on episode 12). What I found fascinating was the format (free webcast), and the fact that it holds my complete attention each & every episode I watch. Plus, it was made primarily by just a couple of people. Give it a whirl, see what you think, and spout off. Remember, no promises.... but I'm interested in what you guys think of it. Ender - Friday, October 10, 2003 at 15:58:29 (CDT) "Lost in Translation' was in town, but it slipped away before we could see it. So, we ended up at 'School of Rock' instead. We didn't go in with any preconceptions -- it's definitely a formulaic, predictable flick. But there's no doubt that this film sticks it to The Man. Jack Black plays Dewey, a loser wannabe rock star who has crashed at his friend Ned's place for years. But Ned's uptight girlfriend is tired of Dewey, and she forces Ned to give Dewey the ultimatum. Needing cash, Dewey intercepts a phone call intended for Ned, with the offer of a substitute teaching job. Dewey pretends to be Ned, gets the job, and the rest is history. Not having a clue about teaching or education, and having been dumped from the band he formed a mere month before a 'battle of the bands' (we all know those are rigged), Dewey glimpses his students in orchestra rehearsal. He decides to turn his kids into a rock band and enter them in the battle. Even though you can see what's coming a mile away, it's not a bad show. There is some cursing, so it's not a film for young kids. And what can you say about Jack Black? There is no rational explanation for him being in movies or in rock bands. But he's out there, gettin' it done. It's hard to root against him in this one. Russ W - Saturday, October 25, 2003 at 22:28:56 (CDT) I second my wise brother's recommendation for "School of Rock". It's a little too cute at times, but it's a good story and a good show. Sarah Silverman does a great job of playing the "evil girlfriend" of JB's roommate. The kids play convincing characters, and the ones who make the band really CAN play their instruments, especially the piano-turned-keyboard player. It's a good show with some good tunes. Evan - Sunday, October 26, 2003 at 20:51:13 (CST) Just rented a great pre-Thanksgiving movie. "Home for the Holidays," with Holly Hunter, Robert Downey, Jr., Dylan McDermott, Claire Danes, et al. It's from 1995, and after I'd viewed it, I had that weird feeling that I had previously seen it years earlier, but had to see the whole film again to be reminded of the first time I saw it. Maybe that only happens to me. It's a funny-sad-heartwrenching-heartwarming movie. It shows what happens when one family gets together for Thanksgiving (it's set in Baltimore). It was definitely worth the $2.15 we paid Hollywood video. Russ W - Sunday, November 16, 2003 at 23:44:28 (CST) Just saw the last Matrix movie. Didn't see much in it that was worth mentioning. The special effects, although technically on par with the original (or maybe better), were uninspiring - and amost seemed to detract. Perhaps others felt the same about the original, but I thought the effects helped the 'unreal' aspect. Whatever. Anyway, my vote is to rent this one. It might lose some "wow" on a little screen, but there isn't much "wow" to begin with. Anyone see it in IMAX? Ender - Monday, November 17, 2003 at 11:32:25 (CST) Last weekend we rented 'Bend It Like Beckham'. It was OK, but I wouldn't really recommend it. It's basically another younger generation vs older generation dramedy in the context of an Indian family in London. Jess (Parminder Nagra, now on 'E.R.') is the younger daughter; she wants to play football (soccer). Her parents don't like it and want her to concentrate on helping with her sister's upcoming wedding and getting to work on finding her own husband. A girl named Juliette (Kiera something, was just in Pirates of the Caribbean) sees Jess playing in the park, encourages her to try out for her team, and Jess is a big hit. So, she has to figure out how to play without her parents knowing. This is basically a teenager's movie, which I found out too late. The football sequences are really pretty awful. 'Monsoon Wedding' is a much more interesting movie that also deals with Indian culture; I wish we'd rented that instead. Russ W - Saturday, January 10, 2004 at 17:25:44 (CST) I haven't seen too many movies in recent years. On Thanksgiving day mom dragged us, along with my 2 young nephews, to the theater to see 'Cat in the Hat'. ...30 minutes into it I remembered why I quit watching movies. Spent the next 45 min. reading posters in the lobby. Man, it was bad. Anyone have any suggestions on how I can make up these 30 minutes of my life that I lost?? Baggett - Saturday, January 10, 2004 at 23:24:35 (CST) We saw "Down with Love" the other night. It's OK. It's based on "Pillow Talk", a Rock Hudson-Doris Day movie, which I haven't seen. The key to both movies is kind of a mistaken identity thing, where people fall in love without being aware that they'd not like each other if they really knew who the other person was. Down with Love is set in the early 1960s. Renee Zellweger plays Barbara Novak, who writes a book called Down with Love. The book empowers women to take control of their relationships and to demand equal treatment in the workplace, and it sets off a world-wide phenomenon. Ewan McGregor plays Catcher Block, a jet-setting "ladies' man-man's man-man about town" reporter. He's supposed to write a cover story about Novak, but keeps putting her off; Novak gets fed up and a feud ensues. The first 30 minutes of the film were pretty slow, and the whole thing seemed like a bad send-up of the 60's. It did get better. The film features many double-entendres, some of which are witty. The ending is somewhat different than you might expect, but it's still a romantic comedy. Zellweger's OK. McGregor plays the part of the cad well. I do plan to check out the soundtrack; some good swingin' stuff there. Russ W - Monday, January 19, 2004 at 13:51:46 (CST) Hey kids, do you like the Netflix? We're recent converts. Now that it's on DVD, we finally saw 'Lost in Translation.' I must say that Cecily and I were both underwhelmed by it, with all the Oscar nominations and such. It's a good film, but not as great as I'd hoped. It's about two Americans staying in a Tokyo hotel. Bill Murray plays Bob Harris, an aging movie star who has come to be in ads for a brand of whisky. Scarlett Johansson plays Charlotte, a recent college grad. Her husband, played by Giovanni Ribisi (Frank Jr. from Friends), is John, a photographer on assignment shooting rock bands and such. John is out most of the time, leaving Charlotte bored in the hotel. In my view, the film is basically about loneliness. Harris come to Tokyo alone to get away from his wife, yet misses her. Charlotte ponders the wisdom of marrying John at a young age. And they're both just tired of being couped up in the hotel. They kind of find each other and hit it off from there. Is it romance? Is it not? We must ponder these things. Another part of the loneliness is that of being in a foreign country, especially one with a culture so vastly different. I felt some of that being in Sweden for two weeks, but it's probably easier to find someone there who speaks English. As Cecily noted, there's really not a lot of dialogue, and maybe that has shaped by impressions of the film. There are some funny sequences, especially when Harris is receiving instructions on how to act in his commercials. But the film is somewhere in between comedy and drama...maybe 'listless observation.' Rated R for a scene with nude dancers, and for Charlotte sitting around the hotel room in her underwear all the time (she must not have packed her gym shorts). Russ W - Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 10:28:54 (CST) ditto, russ. saw 'translation' last night. a good film, but not great, not award winning material. charlotte, i will add, is the schoolgirl pianist that goes down on billy bob thornton in 'man who wasnt there' which made it that much more interesting and disapointing that now, as a young adult in her panties half the movie, you didnt even get a peek. the build up lasted two movies and still zip, nada, quaker oats. i think she is going to be one of those denise witherspoon actresses who does one or two indie flics early on and then repeats the character over and over and over. too bad. jlc - Tuesday, February 24, 2004 at 10:49:58 (CST) Passion of Christ - A-OK Glad Hollywood can take a break from belching out stupidity & filth every once in a while. Baggett - Friday, February 27, 2004 at 22:28:13 (CST) ... because two hours of unmitigated violence and gore is a-ok if Jesus is the subject. matt c. - Saturday, February 28, 2004 at 09:58:23 (CST) Yes, matt, so get over it. Baggett - Saturday, February 28, 2004 at 11:57:55 (CST) I should "get over it," Brian? Such an INSIGHTFUL comeback, there. Did you really expect your post not to elicit some critical feedback? [cue special effect: flames] The constant bawling and bitching and moaning coming from conservative Christians over movie violence and sex [cue sound effect: cats in heat] spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y to me when they refuse to turn a critical eye toward the (dare I say it? I dare!) gratuitous violence of the Passion. I heard on the radio this morning that one reviewer calls the Passion "the Jesus chainsaw massacre" [cue sound effect: chainsaw revving]. A friend of mine -- a fellow NT student here at Chicago, actually -- described the violence as pornographic [cut to images of s&m, bondage]. Them's strong words there. Brian, just based on the reports which I have read and heard, I have a question for you -- how much time do the Gospel writers spend discussing the torture and violence in their Holy Week accounts? I mean, the trial gets a lot of time. So does the crucifixion itself, but Jesus' pain is hardly mentioned. Just a few lines here and there, mostly (it seems to me) to describe the indignities committed against him. No interest in narrating the fall of each drop of blood, of each slow-motion flick of a whip or cane, no agonized screaming on the way to Golgotha. Instead the SIGNIFICANCE of the action, the fulfillment of scripture and the transcendent conduct of Christ all stand out. So this "factually accurate" and "biblical" movie version of Christ's last 12 hours seems to linger on precisely those narrative elements which the Gospel writers give short shrift. Why might that be, I wonder? Could it be because Gibson's claims are total crap? Could it be because he reads the gospel through the lens of the hollywood blockbuster action movie? Believe me, Brian -- I'm over it. What could I possibly expect in terms of theological depth from someone who describes the Holy Spirit as a co-author of the script? He remains an action-movie lunkhead with the intellectual sophistication of your average turnip, regardless of whether he is telling the story of a some cop on a mission of vengence or of Christ on the way to the cross. What I'm not "over" is the crass hypocrisy of the conservative Christians who have adopted this movie as "the most powerful evangelistic tool in the last 2000 years." Gimme a break. If the church were doing what it was supposed to be doing, people wouldn't need a movie to narrate the story -- we would be LIVING the story's full implications. We would disavow the corruption of temporal power and strive to form a meaningful alternative to the world's obsession with money -- an obsession completely in evidence in the marketing of this movie! [cue sound effect: cash register bell.] But no, the power to tell everyone else what to do is a fundamental presupposition of conservative Christian political discourse at the moment. And the Passion becomes a powerful aid to their imagination as they moan about their "sufferings" and "persecutions" at the hands of secular humanists -- it's just like Jesus on the way to Golgotha! Nothing is more disgusting than martyred expressions on the face of religious demagogues who portray their lust for power as "God's work." [cut to smug images of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson] These are my impressions based on the media storm. Just me, using my brain and a basic capacity for critical thinking within a framework of my own devout Christianity. The sappy chain e-mails I've been receiving assert that it's the most powerfully spiritual movie ever made, soliciting prayers for Gibson who is being somehow persecuted by the media for making categorically stupid public statements. [cue sound effect: retching] So, please do forgive me for turning a harsh eye toward the "phenomenon" of the Passion as yet another shameful, embarrassing absurdity. The quality of the movie itself is almost beside the point. You can chalk up my comments to liberal intolerance if you like, that seems to be the common trope when anyone dares to criticize a Christian or Christianity in our culture today. [cue special effect: matt's head turning into a demon mask] Or you can just chalk it up to good-ole' matt-the-bastard, at it again. [cue Sean Connery's line from The Untouchables: "here endeth the lesson."] matt c. - Saturday, February 28, 2004 at 16:32:31 (CST) Wow ? you think too much on such a small subject. Yes, matt. 'Get over it' is my only purposeful comeback to you as you can't seem to get over anything the mass Christian public of this nation approves of (politics, Jesus movie, etc). I knew you of all on this list would be the one to write a cute sarcastic quip of my non-review. I don't expect everyone in the Jesus believing community to agree on everything, especially those in academia. But you have quite a few degrading opinions of a movie you admit to not having seen. I apologize if 'get over it' was insulting to you. It's a phrase I have used since a friend said it to me 7 years ago. After the initial offense, I realized, "Yes, I DO need to get over it". And it felt good not to hold on to stuff anymore (I got over 'it'). Why do you academia types act so smug and elitist about such popular items in the Christian culture (or everything for that matter)? Are you just THAT much smarter than everyone? Are those who spent $26M the first day of the movie just that stupid and easily influenced by hype? Do we have to have PhDs to be 'real' Christians? I kept my sarcastic comments to myself over the Harry Potter mania on this page and I'm still amazed that you and other grown adults posted about it for weeks. Isn't that just children's fantasy literature (emphasis on children)? But I can't degrade all of you HP fans as I've never actually read the book, but I heard more than enough hype like you have with Passion. I'm still surprised no one here has mentioned Passion yet. Everyone talked about LOTR and Star Wars I weeks before they were released. Maybe no one was brave enough to put up with the wrath of intellectual hooey. Or maybe I'm just like those church-going hicks that went to see Passion and therefore wouldn't know any better. Bro, if we're both in the body of Christ (and I assume you're a Jesus freak too) then why tear each other down with sarcasm and cynicism? Sarcasm has no love. If you don't like the movie, fine. Share with us why. If you haven't SEEN it, then don?t try to make me or anyone feel like a dumb ass for doing so. We could debate intellectual stuff about the time length the gospel writers spent on Jesus' torture. But WHO cares? Not me. Gibson set out to make a movie of the last 12 hours and he did it just fine. Watch it and judge for yourself. Theologian types go around in circles about everything and produce little for the practical world. Don't judge Passion by what your peers say or worse, chain emails. And don't mock Gibson's claim about the HS. You have no way of knowing that. Oh wait...I'm sure that's a whole different intellectual post with half a bible commentary quoted. I challenge your claims of Passion being some Hollywood action flick written by a lunkhead. Don't make such claims unless you see it. Thanks for your self-depreciating comments in closing. I found them funny which helped ease any tensions I might have made. In closing [cue baby crying: WAAAAAAAAA]. Get over it. I know you can. Baggett - Saturday, February 28, 2004 at 21:39:33 (CST) I haven't seen the film, so I don't feel it makes any sense to comment on it specifically. When I see it (and I see most things eventually), I'll give my opinion. I have to say, Matt, that your reaction reminds me a lot of religious fundamentalists' reaction when The Last Temptation of Christ came out. They were royally pissed that Scorcese would make such a horribly inaccurate Christ story, and they loudly implored people not to see what they decried as a distortion. But none of them had seen it. They were basing their opinions on second and third hand reports, reviews in publications not known for their lack of bias, and from illegally procured scripts that weren't even the one Scorcese used. To hear these folks, Jesus was protrayed as a homosexual bygamist. Nothing could be further from the truth. When I saw the film, I was for the most part favorably impressed with how the humanity of Christ was so eloquently presented. There were errors galore, but the heart of the film was (I think) really great. Now, I wan to stress that I'm not looking forward especially to seeing The Passion of the Christ. I have misgivings about it. I know, for example, that a lot of extra-biblical Catholic dogma is in there (like Veronica wiping the Lord's face, and the beefed up role of Simon who bore the cross for a while). I'm troubled deeply by comments I've heard Gibson's father make about the Holocaust being a myth, not to mention the fact that Mel belongs to a sect of Catholicism so severely stuck in traditionalism that they reject the second Vatican Council (the one which did away with the centuries-old charge of deicide against all Jews). I'm skeptical. In fact, I'll go so far as to say it wouldn't surprise me if your misgivings were dead on the money. I'm not surprised by much of anything in the religious world these days. Could be utter crap. But it's nonsense to spew vitriol at a film you haven't seen. You don't have to see it, but you have to see it to have an opinion about it--especially one as final as yours. I'd really like to hear what you (or anyone else) thinks about it AFTER a viewing. Beforehand, any heartfelt opinion offered is only going to reveal the preconceptions and biases you already have, and not your open-minded take on a film you thought about critically. Seems to me you've already closed your mind to the possibility that it might be better than you fear. Maybe you'd like to borrow a crowbar? RB - Saturday, February 28, 2004 at 23:12:03 (CST) didnt know when i posted this morning that a conversation was already in heat. anyway, matt, it isnt gratuitous. you are right to point out that the violence christ suffered isnt the central point of the gospel narratives. it is even questionable whether the death on the cross is the central point, as we arent to literally die on the cross but be transformed by it and transcend the evil in the world through it. what this movie does so tremendously is depict a jesus transcending the violence, not striking back, a jesus with human fear who, through the most fearful prayer ive ever seen portrayed, endures the violence. peace on earth, good will among men (sic) were never god's promises. god did not promise to keep us from the lion's den or the fire or desert or even the violence of the cross. he did (and does) promise that he will be with us while we go through the den, while we combat our evil nature. this movie, though graphically portraying the violence inherent in power-knowledge regimes, demonstrates transcendence through prayer despite and perhaps in spite of its producer. as a movie it damn masterful. i feel that this movie, like all good movies, will be viewed first through expectations and only through time will it be viewed as a work of art (or artless). it moved me. and this thickheaded, stubborn, selfabsorbed, selfish, failure of a human being is pretty hard to move. jlc - Sunday, February 29, 2004 at 20:49:18 (CST) Don't allow him to make any more films. I think his old man might have been a communist. And his grandfather was a jailbird. Hell, it couldn't be artistic if decades ago the director said something racist, or if his father was antisemetic! Mccarthy - Monday, March 01, 2004 at 12:32:39 (CST) this movie has affected me so much. everyone at work is talking about it. yes, there is the normal young, seattle chic anti-christian right jabs. none of them have seen it. when i, with my lefty pot smoking credentials, as the cool manager that goes to bat for them, explain that christianity isnt about pat "go fuck yourself" robertson or being a republican or staying sober (for the most part) or america or anything established, they perked up. this movie gave me the opportunity to remind them that when the party ran out of booze, jesus didnt turn water into skim milk. since the anti establishment lefties (myself included) are so concerned with the disenfranchised, the marginalized, etc, it gave me the chance to tell them the story of a king who suffered for meek, who commanded the people to see not jew, nor greek, nor color, nor nationality, nor gender and told the stinking sorry ass rich folks to give everything they had to the poor and that the rich people killed him for it. they dug my jesus. the smarter, nobler, selfless, enlightened jesus (as many lefties see themselvesand can identify with) who spent his whole life with the poor, with hookers and thieves, who enjoyed life so much he was always accused of being a glutton and a drunk. "funny," i said, "how quick you are to point out that the corrupted media spins reality to make a buck or effect culture, but the only thing you trust the tv to be portraying accurately is christianity. could it be that the corrupted media is selling you a false christianity so you dont find the real stuff?" shit, you shouldve seen them. false christianity / real stuff? the didnt know whether they hated the media or christianity more. they did know they hated the christianity that they had seen on the tv that lies to them. next week im taking the entire crew to see the movie. an entire row. it is showing at the ridgmar tavern with plenty of leg room and beer on tap. im going to sit down with a pitcher, for effect, you understand. matt, i love you, but stuff that up your ass. what an opportunity. maybe theyll like it. maybe they wont. but the chance to talk about christ to a bunch of young bmx ers who otherwise are pretty unapproachable is unique and welcomed. dont judge the movie by the hype. dont judge it by politics. dont falsely relate it to some ridiculous 700 club movement. it is, simply, a movie, and a damn fine one. jlc - Monday, March 01, 2004 at 13:03:57 (CST) Saw the movie last night. While I saw a lot of catholic theology during the movie, I was more than moved by what I saw. I will never take communion the same way again. I will never look at my own child in the same way again but understand that my love for my child does not and can not equal the love God has for me. The symbolism throughout is excellent. I needed to be reminded of what he went through for me. We all talk about being at the foot of the cross. Well, I was reminded that being at the foot of the cross is not pretty -- it is messy and there are all kinds of people there. Many of us wonder how Peter could have denied him 3 times. After seeing the movie, I think we all would have done the same thing and probably have with our actions at some point in our lives. Matt, I appreciate your comments but do not agree. But that is OK -- we didn't agree half the time at ACU either! :) I do agree with you that the violence was awful. The difference is that I do not believe it to be gratuitous. This film is similar to a documentary -- doing its best to depict what is believed to have happened. I suggest everyone go see it. It will impact each person differently but, for those of us who know Christ, our relationship with Him WILL be strengthened -- even if you don't agree with the whole movie. Kind of like church sometimes, is it not? It helps us grow. Scott F. - Monday, March 01, 2004 at 14:47:48 (CST) Since most of us have some sort of connection to ACU, here's the Optimist review of The Passion of Christ. http://www.acuoptimist.com./vnews/display.v/ART/2004/03/01/404391db33bf2 Scott F. - Monday, March 01, 2004 at 16:17:32 (CST) Cook - that's the Jesus I know and that's the kind of "missionary" work I can support. Keep at it. Baggett - Monday, March 01, 2004 at 20:37:23 (CST) I've seen the movie in the meantime. There have been some interesting replies to what I wrote above, and I'll get to those in a moment. I want to emphasize something about my previous post, however, which Brian, jlc and RB seem not to have grasped: I was remarking about (1) the media & "grassroots" blitz and its sociological implications, especially hypocrisy toward hollywood movies on the subject of graphic violence, and (2) the stupdity and absurd inaccuracy of the claims made about the movie by the director and many of its proponents. As I said, the quality of the movie is BESIDE THE POINT when it comes to these matters. Such certainly informed my perspectives before I entered the theater, and I posted them here because I thought they should inform the perspectives of others as well -- as a counterbalance to the canned buzz which has been circulating. All right, then. The good things. The photography and special effects are stunningly beautiful. Excellent use of light and shadow. Scenery and costumes are completely persuasive. The landscape in which they filmed is perfect. The gore is believable, beyond a doubt. In other words, the technical aspects of the movie are extremely well-executed, and deserving of high praise if not academy awards. The millions of dollars of Gibson's own $$ were completely in evidence in the designs. Also: the Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin pronunciations were fluent (although historically inaccurate, in the case of the Latin). This must have taken a LOT of coaching. Now the critique. First, some background. I hate Steven Spielberg's movies (with the exception of the Raiders) for one reason: he is not content to let his readers respond in their own ways to what he is showing them. He artificially elevates the emotional levels in order to ensure that the ONE response he wants from his audience is the ONE response that he gets. I always walk out feeling pimped. Schindler's List illustrates my point well. He wanted us to witness the brutality of the Nazis, and boy-howdy, did we -- the violence and psychological brutality on HIS part as a director ensured that we could have no other moral choice than to join in his condemnation. The brutality of his subjects justify his own brutality. He lacks GRACE, in that he just keeps pounding us with his emotional hammer until we concede: "okay, all right, already! I agree!" The psychological investigations of Hitchcock on the other hand rely on our imaginations as viewers, and he moreover tends to humanize his characters to display their struggles between bad and worse choices. Hitchcock consistently reveals a respect for his audience's judgment and literacy. The sins of Spielberg are committed times TEN by Gibson in the Passion. Let's start by positing a definition of "gratuitous violence." In my view, such violence does not contribute in any way to the escalation of the narrative or the theme of the movie, unless THE VIOLENCE IS THE THEME OF THE MOVIE. A good example of a film where the violence is a major part of the theme would be Pulp Fiction. The narrative stucture of the Passion depends very loosely (and I mean VERY) upon the Gospels, for one simple reason: the Gospels do not exemplify a narrative structure which would qualify as "cinematic" in any sense of the word. Peter Jackson had a similar problem with LOTR, and most of his revisions to the story are corrections to meet the expectations of his audience who, after all, have come to see a movie, not read a book. Ditto for the Harry Potter movies. The Passion has a rather special set of difficulties along these lines. I mentioned one in my last post: Gibson has, throughout his career, worked in the action-movie genre. Good characters may have flaws; in fact they're expected to. But bad characters are EVIL, and only in the most rare cases do such movies make any attempt to put us inside the bad guys' reasons for doing what they are doing, beyond greed or lust or other such mortal sins. That's because the evil characters don't need reasons, they're just evil and that's all there is to it. Gibson himself has latched onto the "forces of darkness" persecuting him (note carefully the flashback during one of the most gruesome scenes to Jesus saying: If they've persecuted me, they'll do the same to you). It seems to me that he really believes that the world comes down to action movie heroes and villains. (This dovetails nicely with the "spiritual warfare" popular theology which flattens all human opponents to fundamentalist Christianity into manifestations of demonic power in our society.) Within the movie, one can see this article of his faith in the way he handles Annas and Caiaphas. I don't believe that he is anti-semitic, but I can definitely see how his reshaping of the high priests as action-movie bad-guys could lead some to be suspicious. We never find out why they so desperately want to kill Jesus. We never find out why Judas betrayed him. The Gospels supply answers to both of these questions. The former feared his popularity and criticism of their power, and the latter was under satanic influence -- the ONLY character to be under Satan's direct control, according to the texts. Gibson could have spent some flashback time on developing his evil characters a bit, but instead he treated us to fanciful bullshit about Jesus the child or Jesus making a modern table (btw, the custom at the time was to lie down to eat). On the other hand, Gibson devotes a lot of screen time to Pilate's indecision, as well as that of his main assistant. Guess what, folks. The Gospels don't care about Pilate's indecision; the canonical traditions justify the actions and responses of the Pharisees and priests to Jesus, but they don't do the same for the Romans. This is what I would call a gross distortion, a blatant inaccuracy. Funny how the fundy Christians didn't notice it in their rush to label the movie "accurate" and "biblical." Now, back to the "gratuitous violence." Once the torture scenes begin, the movie morphs into a series of extremely violent music videos, with periodic narrative interruptions -- and bad music. (RB, it's a pathetic ripoff of Peter Gabriel's Last Temptation soundtrack. I was crying, but not for the same reasons as everyone else in the theater.) For instance, did Gibson REALLY need to drag out the flogging into twenty minutes? How does that meaningfully advance the narrative? About five minutes in, the fatigue begins to set in. He could have done a lot more by showing us the end result of the flogging, and maximizing the sound and the facial expressions of those looking on. The march to Golgotha: we stop at each station of the cross for a few moments of narrative or a flashback, but these are vastly overshadowed by the long blocks of time devoted to looking at some Roman pounding Jesus' back with a whip while chunks of flesh and pints of blood fall on the ground. I was wondering if we were ever going to make it to Golgotha. Same story there, though. NICE JOB, Mel, with the vulture picking at the criminal on Jesus' right for mocking him -- those bad guys always get what they deserve, don't they? Thirty seconds at least for each spike. Closeups on Jesus' rolling, bloody eyes and flayed flesh in case we missed the point. Gotta brutalize the audience, since we wouldn't want them to think that Jesus didn't suffer enough when he carried our sins to the cross. Ah yes, and God's falling tear -- of course! That's when the bad guys' temple gets some comeuppance. Showed them! OOPS, we missed the tearing the veil in the Holy of Holies, the audience might not understand that. Not dramatic enough anyway, never mind that THAT'S THE CLIMAX of the Synoptic passion accounts. And the resurrection scene: Jesus is BACK and, with a determined expression, he strides out of the tomb to KICK SOME ASS. But IS the violence the point? Isn't the big idea here that Jesus suffered for our sins? Wouldn't that make the violence perfectly justified? Um, NO, at least according the Gospels and Paul. The latter in fact never says that TORTURE is the penalty for sin, rather DEATH, and this just might be why Paul underscores not the torture, humiliation and suffering of Jesus, but his death, burial and resurrection. This focus dominates the Gospel accounts as well. Now Brian, you said "So what?" when I pointed this out before. I can't imagine how you could be so flippant about so central a subject to the GOOD NEWS which led you to commit your life to Christ. This ain't just academic navel-gazing here, irrelevant or insignificant to your own personal devotion. As Scott mentioned, his communion time will never be the same. But is the suffering of Christ what we are celebrating in the Lord's supper? Again, NO. It ain't the good news! The violence is NOT the theme of the Gospels, but it IS the theme of The Passion. This constitutes a major discepancy between the movie and its source materials which it claims to transparently communicate. I don't really mind the fact that Gibson advocates both the cult of Mary and the cult of relics in the movie. But it seems to me that the protestant Christian fundies might have noticed these "inaccuracies" and mentioned them in their published responses to the movie -- but I don't really suppose that one can get enough oxygen to keep the brain functioning when one has one's head planted between one's buttcheeks. But enough sarcasm. If these criticisms have any merit, Gibson has perpetrated some substantial distortions, enough to render any claims of "accuracy" implausible. But it's just a movie, right? What is Matt-the-bastard getting so worked up about? We're back to my objections in the previous post. According to all involved, it isn't just a movie, it's "perhaps the most powerful evangelistic tool of the last 2000 years" and "a life-changing event." As such, it merits careful, critical examination not just by academics and theologians but by anyone who finds it impossible to "think too much," unlike Brian who would apparently rather think too little, just like the "mass Christian public" for whom thought is anathema to the integrity of their faith. I find it so ironic, Brian, that you can accuse theologians and academics of smug elitism when they apply their academic training and rigor to major questions and controversies, while at the same time you can accuse us of "going around in circles about everything and producing little for the practical world." Criticism (constructive and deconstructive) is our practical contribution. Perhaps it's you that's making judgments based on opinions which have been fed to you, not me. Jlc, RB, I certainly respect your opinions and critical capacities -- your heads are certainly getting enough oxygen. I want to remind you both once again that my previous post was focused on the social phenomenon of the movie and the comments of Gibson about it. I believed that I was perfectly clear about what I was objecting to within that post, so I find parts of your responses a bit surprising. But whatever. No matter who you are, if you read all the way through this long post, you have my gratitude. matt c. - Monday, March 01, 2004 at 21:13:20 (CST) matt, i applaud your intellectual achievements and believe with all the oxygen in my noggin that they will impact a generation or more of future students, ministers, and christians. i really appreciate you demonstrating some of the inaccuracies that i missed, though i am not troubled by them to the extent that you are. first, as with any narrative retold over and over, certain things are empasized in different renderings. if the violence christ suffered is truly the point of the movie, good. like bahktin's (sp?) onion, every layer is a vantage point. peel away one and there are more. peel them all away and you dont reach truth at the center. there is no center of an onion. since the suffering of christ, that is to say, his love for us as demonstrated by his willingness to suffer to this extent, hasnt been emphasized in any cinematic renderings i have seen, i welcome it. second, i am unconcerned about what the media thinks of the film, both good and