"Wow! So that is what all that extra space on the movie screen is
for!" reaction to "Gladiator"
______________________________________________
[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:05:16 -0800
From: "Marc Claude Desbiens" <marcdesbiens@apolloguide.com>
Subject: RE: Re: [MV] Pitch Black - 2000
***** Marc ;-)
>You forgot Nightfall!!
**** Haven't seen that one, sorry !
>
>That, more than anything, ruined for me what could have been a guilty
>pleasure.... sort of like watching Gone in 60 Seconds, or The Replacements.:-)
***** "Guilty pleasure" is a good way to describe this film ! Nothing incredibly special or original but it was well made and I was interested in seeing how it turned out !
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:37:00 -0700
From: ("Paul D Richardson") <Richardson.Paul@amstr.com>
Subject: [MV] RE: Vertical Limit
> Oh yeah, at random points in this movie, the boom mike falls
> down from the top of the screen. I've seen this happen in a
> bad porno, a chessy 70s movie (Mitchell), and this one. I
> can't believe a movie that has a 100 million dollar budget
> would allow the boom mike to continue to appear across the
> screen.
Actually, this was the fault of the projectionist at your theater, and not of
the film itself. A standard 35mm film contains more information than is
projected on the screen and it is up to the projectionist to properly matte
the film so that you don't see superfluous information on the top and bottom
of the screen (such as booms). If I see this happen, I make sure I inform the
theater immediately so that they can fix the problem.
As for the film itself, my main complaint was that the special effects in the
film were so poorly done that it killed any suspense...I never felt the
characters were really in any danger (I had the same problem with
CLIFFHANGER). Compare the opening sequence of VL to that of MI2, for instance
(both concern climbing in southern Utah). The opening to MI2 features the
actual actor climbing on an actual rock...exciting stuff. The opening to VL
takes place entirely in front of a blue screen on a soundstage...and you can
tell: the sequence was so poorly done that I nearly walked out.
I suggest that those interested in VERTICAL LIMIT do one of the following
instead:
1. Watch the IMAX documentary "Everest" (preferably on an IMAX screen).
2. Read the book "Into Thin Air."
3. Rent K2.
P.S. -- I'd like to make an early Razzie nomination. Ed Viesturs deserves the
award for Worst Supporting Actor...his performance is made even
extraordinarily bad considering that he's playing himself!
[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:29:28 -0700
From: "Gregory A. Swarthout" <gregorys@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [MV] Vertical Limit
Mitch Whoneedslastnames wrote:
>
> It's not a good sign when a preview is more exciting than a movie.
What preview isn't more exciting than the movie?
[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:38:41 -0800
From: "Marc Claude Desbiens" <marcdesbiens@apolloguide.com>
Subject: [MV] Ridiculous PRODUCT PLACEMENT !!
I saw lil' bits of Cast away (a few scenes !!) on this lousy TV show where the interviewer always kisses the stars' butts ... you know, a-la Entertainment tonight or whatever ... They are so desperate for interviews they would even kiss Pauly shore's rear end !! (Wow, Cynical start !!)
Anyway, in Cast away, I was annoyed to see FEDERAL EXPRESS LOGOS EVERYWHERE in each and everyone of the lil' moments they presented, I mean it was so obvious it almost SICKENED me !! ... It was ridiculous ... even on the desert island he has a Federal express box that we see in nice close-ups since he put pics of his family over it , how convenient !!
I SAY NO to this kind of EXAGERRATED PRODUCT PLACEMENT !! I don't mind seeing a lil' logo here and there but hammering it like that is annoying !! I bet the company is even mentioned 12 times in the dialogues, Overkill !! We see enough commercials already, what do you think ??
Marc ;-)
"...When I ask for a packet of Sweet-And-Low ... that's what
I want ... and it is your responsibility now to see that I get
Hi Julie, and others !! I'll send my reply to the group as well since I was asked this question a couple of times already !
The main reason why I don't go to the movies so often is that in the town where I live, movies are only available in french and I just don't care about seeing an english movie in a badly dubbed version.
I guess I am too used to the real voices of the actors and you lose a lot in the translation anyway, especially with comedies and action films (Kingpin in english = 4/5, Kingpin in french, 2/5)
Dramas and horror films are "easier" to dub I guess but it's
still not the same, makes the movie less enjoyable for me who is used to the original versions !
To see the original english versions I would have to travel quite a bit back and forth as even cities nearby present dubbed versions, slightly annoying. I still do it sometimes, trying to combine a "trip-to-the-big-city" with a stop at the movie theater.
When I do go to the movies most of the times in my town (usually about once or twice a month) I go see films from France or French Canada (a lot of them are pretty good !) since those are not dubbed and more easily available ... many of those films are very good but since they would be very difficult if not impossible to find in the US or any english speaking country, I don't bother sending reviews or comments).
I sent e-mails to the different theater chains around here about this and of course nothing changed, they don't want to present the originals since it would cost too much money apparently, so I usually wait for the video releases of the english films most of the times (Strangely, on video, all those movies are available in the original english version of course, so why not also present at least one here and there on the big screens too ??)
Have a fine day !
Marc ;-)
"...When I ask for a packet of Sweet-And-Low ... that's what
I want ... and it is your responsibility now to see that I get
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:47:31 -0800
From: "Marc Claude Desbiens" <marcdesbiens@apolloguide.com>
Subject: [MV] Mission Impossible 2 - 2000
Hi !
"Mission: Impossible 2" is a pretty good film overall although it has little in common with the original 1996 movie. Brian DePalma directed the original "Mission: Impossible," an excellent action picture in my opinion. However, the action-orientated John Woo has taken his place
and creates a lot of excitement and well made action sequences although some are really far fetched. Cruise should have been killed about 67 times in this film, I would have preferred if he only should have been killed 17 times myself!
"Mission: Impossible 2" is a good film, not a great one. My main problems are with the story itself that is not as interesting as the one in the first film and that is not very original. It is like a James Bond film, only with Tom Cruise in the lead instead of Pierce Brosnan.
Tom Cruise stars as I.M.F. agent Ethan Hunt, recently assigned to track down a typical bad guy who possesses a deadly biochemical substance obtained by murdering Dr. Vladimir Nekhorick (Rade Sherbedgia) who was working for I.M.F undercover.
The villain, Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott), once had an attractive girlfriend named Nyah Hall (Thandie Newton), whose occupation as a professional thief makes Ethan dissatisfied when he must recruit her as a member of a mission team.
After sleeping and falling in love with her in an oh-so-obvious scene, Ethan opposes the idea of sending Nyah back to Ambrose's luxurious resort to recover information of his criminal intentions. Equipped with a traceable implant logged in her bellybutton (or sumthin' !), this young woman, Ethan, and his two accomplices
Luther (Ving Rhymes), and Billy (John Polson), seek to stop
Ambrose and his accomplices from spreading a deadly disease.
The story is clear and comprehendible; it is not so complex which is good in order to avoid confusing people who were complaining about the first film. I doubt anyone could be confused this time around !
The plot contains enough tension, nasty twists, and intriguing characters to keep us on edge.
Tom Cruise again proves he is more than capable as an action star. Supporting roles by Thandie Newton, Ving Rhames, Brendan Gleeson,
and Anthony Hopkins are also impressive.
John Woo ("Face/Off"), is one of the better action directors even if I am slightly annoyed by his repeated use of slo-motion, classical music being played over furious gun fights, unnecessary close-ups and other "tricks" (How many times do we have to see those damn white birds flying in slo-motion ! I was rolling my eyes back !)
The final half hour of the film is certainly wild material though as we witness exciting motorcycles pursuits, hand-to-hand combat scenes, cars blowing up ... the works !
3.5/5, very good film but the fact the story is so simple and unoriginal prevents me from being more generous. (I gave 4/5 to
the first film !)
Marc ;-)
"...When I ask for a packet of Sweet-And-Low ... that's what
I want ... and it is your responsibility now to see that I get
